The Science of Reading in the Classroom by Janice Porter A project submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF EDUCATION with an emphasis in CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION WEBER STATE UNIVERSITY Ogden, Utah June 19, 2024 Approved Marilyn Taft, Ed.D. Sara Gailey, Ph.D. Jadelyn Abbott, Ed. D. SCIENCE OF READING IN THE CLASSROOM Acknowledgements I would like to thank all of those who helped me in completing this project. I would like to thank my committee chairs, Dr. Marilyn Taft and Dr. Sara Gailey, for their encouragement and patience through each stage of this process. It was through their dedication to helping me that I was able to do more than I thought possible. I would also like to thank Dr. Jadelyn Abbott for her willingness to collaborate with me on this project. I would like to thank my amazing brother-in-law, Matt Christiansen, who with all his math genius, guided me through analyzing all the data. I deeply appreciate the time you took to make sure my data was presented correctly and for giving great feedback. I would also like to thank my amazing colleagues and team members who have given me encouragement and support. They picked up the slack when I was busy running off to class or working on papers. I would not have been able to do this without them. Finally, I would like to thank my family for all their patience, encouragement, and wavering support. I would especially like to thank my husband, Jared Porter. He believed in me even when I did not believe in myself. Thanks to my kids and grandkids who supported me throughout these last two years. 2 SCIENCE OF READING IN THE CLASSROOM 3 Table of Contents Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... 2 Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 5 Nature of the Problem ..................................................................................................................... 6 Literature Review............................................................................................................................ 7 History of Reading Instruction in the United States ................................................................... 7 Science of Reading ...................................................................................................................... 9 Implementing the Science of Reading in the Classroom ............................................................ 9 Pre-Service Training .............................................................................................................. 10 In-Service Teacher Training .................................................................................................. 10 Classroom Resources/Curriculum ......................................................................................... 13 Conclusion................................................................................................................................. 13 Purpose .......................................................................................................................................... 14 Methods......................................................................................................................................... 16 Participants ................................................................................................................................ 16 Instruments ................................................................................................................................ 16 Procedures ................................................................................................................................. 17 Results ........................................................................................................................................... 18 Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 30 Implementation of Science of Reading ..................................................................................... 31 Areas of Improvement ............................................................................................................... 32 Additional Support .................................................................................................................... 34 SCIENCE OF READING IN THE CLASSROOM 4 Limitations .................................................................................................................................... 35 Recommendations ......................................................................................................................... 35 References ..................................................................................................................................... 38 Appendix A ................................................................................................................................... 43 Appendix B ................................................................................................................................... 44 Appendix C ................................................................................................................................... 45 Appendix D ................................................................................................................................... 46 SCIENCE OF READING IN THE CLASSROOM 5 Abstract The Science of Reading (SOR) is a comprehensive body of research that outlines effective practices for reading instruction. This body of research is essential in shaping how educators approach teaching reading, focusing on evidence-based practices that will significantly increase reading proficiency. The importance of SOR has become increasingly important following the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 2022 report which revealed that only 33% of fourth graders in the United States are proficient or above proficient in reading. This statistic highlights the need for effective reading instruction. The purpose of this study was to examine the implementation of SOR in the classroom and identify areas where teachers need additional support. By understanding how SOR is being implemented into teaching practices, this study provides insight into how to improve reading instruction and outcomes. This study involved 97 K-3 general education teachers and five instructional coaches from a school district in northern Utah. Data were collected using two Qualtrics surveys which were tailored to each group of participants. One survey was designed for general education teachers, focusing on their instructional practices and implementation of SOR in the classroom. The other survey targeted instructional coaches, gathering information on their observations of classroom implementation and their support strategies for the SOR. The study revealed that implementation of SOR is most effective when teachers have access to proper training, support through coaching or mentoring, and a high-quality curriculum or resources. SCIENCE OF READING IN THE CLASSROOM 6 Nature of the Problem In 2022, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a congressionally mandated large-scale assessment also known as the Nation’s Report Card, reported that 33% of fourth-grade students scored at or above proficient on their reading assessment (U.S. Department of Education, n.d.). These scores were impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic and school closures in early 2020 (Gray, 2022). They show a 2% decrease from 2019 and raise concern for the future of America’s children. Because reading is the foundation for learning, proficient reading skills are essential to becoming successful learners (Children’s Reading Foundation, n.d.). The ability to read is fundamental to success in all areas of academic subjects (Kilpatrick, 2015; Moats, 2020). For this reason, a teacher’s ability to teach reading will directly impact the success and future of their students. While many factors can lead to children successfully learning to read, studies indicate that students’ level of success in reading is directly related to the quality of content and instruction (Goodnight et al., 2020; Moats, 2020). Therefore, teachers must possess a strong knowledge of language, early literacy, and instructional practices to be effective. Unfortunately, teachers across the nation struggle to provide effective reading instruction due to their lack of content knowledge and pedagogy (Goodnight et al., 2020; Porter et al., 2022). According to literacy expert Jessica Reid Sliwerski, the literacy crisis in America is not because children cannot learn to read; instead, the problem is that they never have the reading instruction necessary to learn how to read (D’Souza, 2022). The “Reading Wars,” a debate over which methods of reading instruction are most effective, has been going on for decades (Goldberg & Goldberg, 2022; Maughan, 2023). This SCIENCE OF READING IN THE CLASSROOM 7 debate has prompted the emergence of an abundance of philosophies on reading instruction (Maughan, 2023). Among these are whole-word, phonics, whole language, balanced literacy, and the science of reading (Barnes et al., 2023; Goldberg & Goldberg, 2022; Maughan, 2023). A closer look at the history of these reading methods in the United States provides a deeper understanding of why teachers have been ineffective in teaching reading to their students. Literature Review History of Reading Instruction in the United States In the early 20th century, the whole-word method and the phonics method became popular. The whole-word or look-say method of reading encourages readers to memorize words and short sentences (Maughan, 2023; Rayner et al., 2002). The whole-word approach is evident in the popular Dick and Jane series (Rayner et al., 2002). This method teaches early readers to memorize words and short sentences they see repeated in a text. In contrast, phonics instruction involves breaking down words into phonemes (speech sounds) and graphemes (letters or letter combinations that spell a phoneme) so that the word can be decoded (Rayner et al., 2002). After years of debate among the whole-word and phonics philosophies, a new approach to reading instruction called whole language emerged in the 1970s (Parker, 2019). While similar to the whole-word method in that students were expected to read by memorizing whole words or phrases, whole language was based on the belief that children would learn to read naturally by being exposed to text. In other words, whole language focused on a child’s overall experience with language (Rayner et al., 2002). The philosophy of whole language is that reading should be taught by learning whole words as a part of a whole language system. Whole language rejects the idea that phonics should be explicitly taught or that words should be broken down into letters or letter combinations to be decoded (Reading Horizons, n.d.). Instead, discovering connections SCIENCE OF READING IN THE CLASSROOM 8 between letters and sounds is simply the result of being exposed to text (Rayner et al., 2002). The focus of whole language is that children learn to read by being immersed in books, words, and reading (Maughan, 2023). In the early 1990s yet another approach to reading instruction surfaced (Maughan, 2023; Pressley, 2002). Balanced literacy was believed to be the solution to the reading wars (Goldberg & Goldberg, 2022). The concept of balanced literacy was to combine the best elements of phonics instruction and whole language into instructional practices (Maughan, 2023; Pressley et al., 2002). In 2000, the National Reading Panel published a report outlining five pillars or essential elements of reading instruction (Goldberg & Goldberg, 2022; Maughan, 2023). These five pillars are phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. Despite the recommendations of the National Reading Panel, balanced literacy continued to be the main method for reading instruction in the United States (Goldberg & Goldberg, 2022; Maughan, 2023). However, after the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) released its findings in 2019, educators and reading experts questioned the effectiveness of balanced literacy (Barnes et al., 2023; Maughan, 2023; Petrilli, 2020). A closer look revealed that balanced literacy did not support the necessary instructional strategies as outlined by the National Reading Panel in 2000 (Goldberg & Goldberg, 2022). While balanced literacy incorporated some phonics and comprehension instruction, it lacked systematic, explicit instruction in all five literacy pillars (Maughan, 2023). Specifically, balanced literacy fell short in areas such as phonemic awareness, fluency, and vocabulary instruction. As a result, educators, media, and other reading advocates have turned to the science of reading (SOR) for guidance on effective reading methods (Maughan, 2023). SCIENCE OF READING IN THE CLASSROOM 9 For decades, the reading wars created confusion about the best way to teach reading. Consequently, teachers have been unknowingly using ineffective instructional methods (Goldberg & Goldberg, 2022). However, teachers can learn from the past and from current research to improve their reading instruction. The following literature review will define the science of reading and will discuss how it can be most effectively implemented in the classroom. Science of Reading The term “science of reading” has been used for over 200 years (Shanahan, 2020). The origin of this term referred to the pronunciation and decoding of words based on research of that time (Shanahan, 2020). More recently, however, the term science of reading (SOR) refers to a vast body of research with a focus on how the brain learns to read, and what kind of reading instruction is most effective (Barnes et al., 2023; Hollingsworth, 2023; Petscher et al., 2020; Stuart & Fugnitto, 2020). SOR is not a program or a curriculum, rather it is a collection of research-based methods that have been proven effective in reading instruction (National Center on Improving Literacy, n.d.). SOR is based on the five pillars of reading instruction recommended by the National Reading Panel in 2000: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension (Shanahan, 2005). Research has shown that keeping children from falling behind in reading requires them to have a strong understanding of these fundamentals for reading early (D’Souza, 2022). The key to children’s success in developing this solid foundation for reading will be the teachers’ ability to implement methods aligned with the science of reading in their classroom (Hullett, 2023). Implementing the Science of Reading in the Classroom The first step to implementing SOR is to ensure that teachers have a solid understanding of the content. Teachers need to understand the basic psychological process of reading, phonics, SCIENCE OF READING IN THE CLASSROOM 10 the structure of the English language in both spoken and written form, phonological awareness, and the constructs of the language they are asked to teach (Hindman et al., 2020; Moats, n.d.; Porter et al., 2022). Equally important to having the necessary content knowledge to teach reading is a teacher's ability to translate that knowledge into practice (Moats et al., 2003). In other words, teachers must also possess pedagogical knowledge and methods to instruct their students. Pre-Service Training Initially, the responsibility to prepare future teachers to instruct students to read falls to the universities, colleges, and other teacher preparation programs. Unfortunately, many of the research-based SOR practices have not yet been included in teacher preparation programs (Moats, 2020). As a result, many teachers have completed a teacher licensing program without acquiring sufficient content knowledge of language and reading (Moats & Foorman, 2003). In response to this problem, many teacher preparation programs are beginning to restructure their programs to include coursework that will provide pre-service teachers with the content knowledge and pedagogical skills necessary to effectively teach reading (Moats, 2020; Porter et al., 2020). In-Service Teacher Training While pre-service teachers need to receive training in SOR, implementation of SOR begins in the classroom. Therefore, the primary focus should be on training those educators who are currently teaching (Moats, 2020). Because many teachers have been taught to use less effective instructional methods such as balanced literacy, they will need to be retrained in SOR methods (D’Souza, 2022). While there are many professional development programs for SOR, Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling (LETRS) and Orton-Gillingham (OG) SCIENCE OF READING IN THE CLASSROOM 11 are among the most popular (Campbell, n.d.; Schwartz, 2022). Regardless of what SOR training teachers receive, according to Moats (2020) they need to be trained in four essential areas: 1. Knowing the basics of reading psychology and development; 2. Understanding language structure for both word recognition and language comprehension; 3. Applying best practices in all components of reading instruction; and 4. Using validated, reliable, efficient assessments to inform classroom teaching. (p. 6) The implementation of SOR is extraordinarily complex, and will take time (Maughan, 2023). Not only will teachers need to learn these skills, but they will also need ongoing support to successfully implement SOR into their instructional practices (D’Souza, 2022). To fully implement SOR, in-service teachers must receive intensive professional development training, get support from instructional coaching, and have opportunities for intentional practice (Hindman et al., 2020). Professional Development. Professional development can have a major impact on teachers’ effectiveness in teaching reading. A meta-analysis of 28 different studies examined what effects professional development for in-service teachers had on their students’ reading achievement (Didion et al., 2020). The results showed that the students of teachers who had participated in professional development performed significantly better than the students in the control group on reading measures. Another study revealed that six out of nine in-service teachers experienced significant improvement in their teaching after attending a professional development session (Goodnight et al., 2020). SCIENCE OF READING IN THE CLASSROOM 12 Instructional Coaching. Being knowledgeable in SOR content knowledge is only half of the solution. The other half is being able to deliver the content effectively to students (Austin, 2023). Implementing SOR practices in the classroom is complex. Therefore, teachers need ongoing support in the form of intensive coaching to refine their pedagogy (Hindman et al., 2020). An instructional coach is an educator who collaborates with teachers to improve instructional practices in the classroom (Steiner & Kowal, n.d.). First, instructional coaching involves modeling SOR-aligned methods for teachers. Next, teachers are given opportunities to practice these methods in authentic classroom situations and then receive feedback from their coaches (Austin, 2023; Goodnight et al., 2020; Hendry, 2020; Hindman, 2020; Steiner & Kowal, n.d.). Studies have shown that when professional development is followed by instructional coaching, teachers become much more effective reading instructors. For example, the three teachers in Goodnight’s (2020) study who did not show improvement after receiving professional development were able to demonstrate similar gains as their colleagues after receiving additional support through side-by-side coaching. Another example of the positive effect of instructional coaching is a study performed in England. In this study, pre-service and new in-service teachers were observed teaching early reading and phonics. Despite having completed methods courses for teaching reading, during phase one of the study the participants were ineffective because they lacked strong pedagogical skills (Hendry, 2020). Throughout their student teaching experiences, however, these novice educators were observed by mentors who provided feedback on how instructional practices could be improved. Over time, these educators developed the pedagogical skills necessary to be effective reading instructors. SCIENCE OF READING IN THE CLASSROOM 13 Classroom Resources/Curriculum Another key component of effective reading instruction is having access to quality curriculum materials and resources. When teachers combine their knowledge and best teaching practices with a well-designed curriculum, teachers can make better decisions in their reading instruction (Austin, 2023). Moats (2020) claims teachers’ access to quality resources has a powerful effect on their students’ reading progress. “A rich and meaningful curriculum, in which students are exposed to a variety of texts as they learn concepts in science, literature, social studies, history, the arts, and culture, should provide the context for developing reading and writing skills” (Moats, 2020, p. 9). When given the proper tools, teachers can deliver high quality instruction that will have the greatest impact on their students’ ability to learn to read. Unfortunately, choosing a curriculum or program is difficult. While classroom reading programs are usually created with research-based practices in mind, they are often not subjected to evaluation to determine if the program is truly aligned with current research (Petscher et al., 2020). A study of reading programs and textbooks currently being used in the United States revealed that most lacked adequate coverage of skills and strategies suggested by research (Beerwinkle et al., 2020). Conclusion The ability to read is essential for children’s academic success. Unfortunately, the history of reading instruction in America reveals that instructional strategies for reading have been debated for decades. Consequently, teachers have been trained in and have been using a variety of ineffective instructional practices such as whole-word, whole language, and balanced literacy. The impact of this is evident in recent reports that reveal by fourth grade two-thirds of children in the United States are not proficient readers (U.S. Department of Education, n.d.). SCIENCE OF READING IN THE CLASSROOM 14 In recent years, however, researchers have identified methods of reading instruction that have proven to be effective in teaching children to read. These research-based methods known as the science of reading are essential in teaching reading. However, implementation of these methods in the classroom can be difficult because they require a significant amount of teacher training, instructional coaching, and curriculum resources. Purpose Teachers are charged with the responsibility of helping students become skilled readers. Unfortunately, teachers struggle to know exactly what to teach, how to teach it, and what resources will be most effective in successfully teaching their students to read (Petscher et al., 2020; Shanahan, 2020). I know from personal experience how difficult it is to teach children to read when you are not equipped with adequate knowledge or skills to do so. My four years of pre-service training were grounded in whole language. During that time, I did not take any methods classes for teaching phonics, reading assessment, or writing, because these classes were not considered necessary according to whole language philosophy. I walked into my first day of student teaching feeling confident in my education. After observing my mentor teacher that first day, however, I was surprised to see that she did not teach even one lesson based on the whole language philosophy. She later told me that several years prior she had tried whole language methods, and they simply did not work. As I observed my mentor teacher over the next few months, I realized that what I learned in my four years of pre-service training in whole language would not be adequate for teaching my students to read. Many years later in 2019, I started my first-year teaching in my own classroom. I felt sure that in the twenty years I had been out of education, resources would be much improved from my student teaching experience. I quickly realized, however, that my students’ reading scores were SCIENCE OF READING IN THE CLASSROOM 15 not improving, and I had no idea what to do about it. I started asking other teachers for advice. I was surprised to hear repeatedly that they did not know how to help me, because they were never really taught “how to teach” reading either. They had been trained in whole language, phonics, and balanced literacy, all claiming to be the best method. Ultimately, one reason teachers are ineffective reading instructors is that approaches to teaching reading are constantly being debated leaving teachers unsure of what methods are effective (D’Souza, 2022; Goldberg & Goldberg, 2022; Maughan, 2023). Fortunately, I jumped at the chance to attend a training in teaching phonics. I learned so much that I was able to immediately bring it back to use in my classroom. This was my first exposure to the science of reading. After that I was trained in Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling (LETRS). Despite being trained in these SOR-aligned programs, there was still the obstacle of knowing how to successfully implement all that I learned into the classroom. Teachers across the nation are in situations like mine. The purpose of this study is to identify what elements of SOR are being successfully implemented in the classroom, where implementation needs improvement, and what additional support or resources teachers need. This study is guided by the following questions: 1. In what ways are teachers implementing the science of reading methods in their classrooms? 2. What areas of implementation need improvement? 3. What additional support or resources do teachers need in their classrooms? SCIENCE OF READING IN THE CLASSROOM 16 Methods This descriptive study used two surveys to identify which SOR methods are currently being used in K-3 classrooms. In addition, this survey identified areas where teachers need more resources and support to implement SOR in their instructional practices. Participants Instructional coaches and general education teachers from 28 elementary schools in a school district in Northern Utah were invited to participate in this study. The purpose of the study was to identify SOR instructional methods, which are primarily found in the younger grades. Therefore, participants were limited to the 28 instructional coaches who train and mentor teachers in instructional practices and all K-3 general education teachers at these elementary schools, specifically, those who teach kindergarten, first, second, and third grade. Out of those that were invited to participate in the study, five instructional coaches and 97 teachers responded to the surveys included in the study. Instruments Two surveys were created by the researcher through the Qualtrics survey tool. The first survey targeted instructional coaches and the second survey targeted K-3 general education teachers (see Appendix A; Appendix B). The surveys were designed to gather information about the educators’ perceptions of their effectiveness in implementing SOR in the classroom. Both surveys collected data in the following categories: training, coaching, curriculum/resources, teacher efficacy, and areas for improvement. Each survey was limited to ten questions and was a combination of yes/no questions, open-ended questions, and 5-point Likert scaled questions. SCIENCE OF READING IN THE CLASSROOM 17 Procedures First, IRB approval was obtained from the university (see Appendix C). Next, an online request for permission to survey instructional coaches and teachers from the participating school district was submitted (see Appendix D). After obtaining approval from the school district, an email with the Qualtrics survey link along with a description of the study was sent to all the instructional coaches and K-3 teachers in the district. Participants were given two weeks to respond to the survey. A reminder email was sent to coaches and teachers at the end of the first week. Because the surveys contained a variety of question types, data was evaluated using both qualitative and quantitative research methods. Qualitative data from the open-ended questions — questions two and ten from the coaches’ survey and questions two, seven, and ten from the teachers’ survey— were analyzed by identifying repeated responses and common themes related to teacher training, curriculum/resources, and necessary additional classroom support as discussed in the literature review. This approach helped understand the recurring themes and responses mentioned by the respondents. Analysis of the survey data also included quantitative research methods. These methods were used to analyze the Likert scaled questions and the yes/no questions. The responses to Likert scale questions were summarized by counting the number of responses for each scale point and calculating the associated percentages and averages for each category. This provided a clear picture of the overall trends and the degree of agreement or disagreement among respondents on various aspects of SOR implementation. Additionally, the responses to yes/no questions were summarized by counting the number of ‘yes’ and ‘no’ responses and calculating the associated percentages. This helped in understanding the prevalence of specific opinions or experiences among the respondents. By integrating these SCIENCE OF READING IN THE CLASSROOM 18 methods, the analysis provided an understanding of both qualitative and quantitative aspects of the survey data, and a well-rounded view of the needs and experiences related to the implementation of SOR in the classroom. Results The purpose of this project was to determine how teachers are implementing instructional practices that are aligned with the SOR in their classrooms, identify areas where SOR implementation needs improvement, and what additional support or resources are needed to implement SOR. Therefore, the focus of the first question in both surveys was to determine whether instructional coaches and teachers had been trained in SOR methods (see Figure 1). The results showed that all five of the instructional coaches had been trained in SOR. The survey showed that only 78 of the participating teachers (84%) had been trained in SOR practices. Figure 1 Number of Educators Trained in the Science of Reading 0 No 15 5 Yes 78 0 10 20 30 40 Instructional Coaches 50 60 70 80 90 Teachers The next question in the surveys was an open-ended text entry question designed to gather information from the respondents about what SOR training they had received. This question was only answered by the 83 educators who had answered affirmatively in question SCIENCE OF READING IN THE CLASSROOM 19 one. Because they had not received SOR training, those who responded negatively to question one skipped question two. The responses to this question indicated that all but one of the respondents had received Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling (LETRS) as their main source of professional training in the SOR (see Figure 2). The teacher who had not received LETRS training reported that their SOR training had been provided as part of their preservice university education. In addition to LETRS training, 10 participants had received additional training through either professional development or other professional training programs such as Spalding, Reading Horizons, Orton-Gillingham, Core Reading, and Top 10 Tools. Figure 2 Types of Training Received by Ediucators 5 LETRS 75 0 1 Pre-Service 1 Prof. Dev. 4 0 Other 6 0 10 20 30 40 50 Instructional Coaches Teachers 60 70 80 The purpose of the next part of the survey was to determine if instructional coaches and teachers were satisfied with their SOR training or if they felt that it was insufficient in implementing SOR practices in the classroom. Seventy-eight of the participants (84%) reported that they were either satisfied or very satisfied with their training. Three teachers (3%) indicated SCIENCE OF READING IN THE CLASSROOM 20 that they were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with their training. Additionally, 12 teachers (13%) reported that they were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with their SOR training. Figure 3 Number of Educators Satisified with Science of Reading Training 3 Very Satisfied 40 2 Satisfied 32 Neither 12 Dissatisfied 2 Very Dissatisfied 1 0 5 10 15 20 Instructional Coaches 25 30 35 40 45 Teachers After the initial training, ongoing professional development is essential to implementing SOR in the classroom (Austin, 2023; Goodnight et al., 2020; Hindman et al., 2020). Therefore, the next part of the survey determined whether teachers and coaches were receiving ongoing training or coaching in SOR instructional practices (See Figure 4). Of the 91 respondents, 53 (58%) answered affirmatively and 38 (42%) answered negatively. SCIENCE OF READING IN THE CLASSROOM 21 Figure 4 Number of Educators Receiving Coaching in the Science of Reading 3 No 35 2 Yes 51 0 10 20 30 Instructional Coaches 40 50 60 Teachers Instructional coaches have the responsibility to mentor teachers in a variety of instructional practices. As a result, the survey for the coaches inquired whether they provided any coaching in SOR instructional practices or methods (See Figure 5). All five instructional coaches reported that they did provide coaching to teachers in SOR instructional practices. Figure 5 Number of Instructional Coaches Providing Mentoring to Teachers No 0 Yes 5 0 1 2 3 Instructional Coaches 4 5 6 SCIENCE OF READING IN THE CLASSROOM 22 Another factor in the effectiveness of instructional coaching is the willingness of teachers to implement what they have learned. Therefore, instructional coaches were also asked to rate teachers on their willingness to use SOR-aligned practices and resources in their classrooms (See Figure 6). Four out of five (80%) coaches reported that teachers were willing to implement SOR in their teaching practices. One coach gave a neutral response indicating that teachers were neither willing nor unwilling to teach using SOR teaching methods. Figure 6 Willingness of Teachers to Implement Science of Reading Practices Very Willing 0 Willing 4 Neither 1 Somewhat Willing 0 Not Willing 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 Instructional Coaches Fifty-one teachers reported that they were receiving mentoring in SOR from their instructional coaches (See Figure 7). Of those teachers, 41 (80%) found the coaching to be beneficial or very beneficial. Eight teachers (16%) responded in a neutral manner. Finally, two teachers (4%) reported that the coaching was somewhat beneficial. SCIENCE OF READING IN THE CLASSROOM 23 Figure 7 Number of Teachers Who Benefit from Science of Reading Coaching Very Beneficial 12 Beneficial 29 Neither 8 Somewhat Beneficial 2 Not Beneficial 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Benefits of Science of Reading Coaching In addition to training, professional development, and coaching, another component of implementing SOR is the availability of SOR-aligned curriculum and resources. As a result, both surveys asked about what resources teachers were provided by their school district (See Figure 8, Figure 9, and Figure 10). Figure 8 shows that 56 respondents (62%) reported having SORaligned resources provided by their school district. Thirty-five respondents (38%) reported not having SOR-aligned materials to use for reading instruction. SCIENCE OF READING IN THE CLASSROOM 24 Figure 8 Number of Educators With Science of Reading Aligned Resources 1 No 34 4 Yes 52 0 10 20 30 Instructional Coaches 40 50 60 Teachers Eighty-six teachers reported on the SOR-aligned materials provided to them (See Figure 9). Seventy-five teachers use Heggerty (a phonemic awareness program), 38 teachers use Reading Horizons Phonics, 73 teachers use 95% Group reading interventions, and three teachers use 95% Core reading instruction. Additionally, ten teachers reported using other SOR-aligned resources such as the Journeys basal program purchased by the district, resources from the University of Florida Literacy Institute (UFLI), Teachers Pay Teachers (TPT) or various other online resources. SCIENCE OF READING IN THE CLASSROOM 25 Figure 9 Science of Reading Resources Provided to Teachers Heggerty 75 Reading Horizons 38 95% (Interventions) 73 95% (Core) 3 Other 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Science of Reading Materials Figure 10 addresses whether the survey respondents believed that the district provided reading instruction resources were sufficient. Nine teachers (10%) reported that the SOR resources they had been provided by the district were more than sufficient for their instructional needs. Forty-six teachers and coaches (52%) reported that they had sufficient resources. Eleven (12%) reported that their resources were neither sufficient nor insufficient. Twenty-one (24%) reported that their resources were somewhat sufficient. Finally, two (2%) reported that the resources were insufficient for reading instruction. SCIENCE OF READING IN THE CLASSROOM 26 Figure 10 Adequacy of Science of Reading Resources Provided to Teachers More Than Sufficient 9 Sufficient 1 Neither 1 45 10 2 Somewhat Sufficient 19 1 1 Not Sufficient 0 5 10 15 20 Instructional Coaches 25 30 35 40 45 50 Teachers The next part of each survey addressed teachers’ feelings of self-efficacy in SOR instructional practices (See Figure 11). Of the 89 respondents, 79 (89%) reported feeling confident or very confident in their ability to implement SOR methods in the classroom. Eight respondents (9%) felt neither confident nor unconfident. Two respondents (2%) responded feeling somewhat confident. No one reported feeling not confident in their ability to implement SOR instructional practices. SCIENCE OF READING IN THE CLASSROOM 27 Figure 11 Number of Educators Confident in Implementing Science of Reading 0 Very Confident 29 3 Confident 47 2 Neither Somewhat Confident 0 Not Confident 0 0 0 6 2 5 10 15 20 Instructional Coaches 25 30 35 40 45 50 Teachers The purpose of the last question on both surveys was to identify what additional support or resources teachers and instructional coaches need to implement SOR instructional practices in the classroom. A total of 70 teachers and five instructional coaches responded to this question (See Figure 12). The key findings are summarized below:  better reading basal or curriculum: Nineteen respondents (25%) reported the need for an improved or entirely new reading basal or curriculum to effectively implement SOR.  additional materials and resources: Fourteen respondents (19%) indicated a significant demand for more supplementary materials and resources to support SOR practices.  additional training: Twelve respondents (16%) expressed the need for more training to better understand and implement SOR instructional practices in the classroom.  opportunities to observe SOR practices: Four respondents (5%) believed that observing SOR practices in action would aid in their implementation. SCIENCE OF READING IN THE CLASSROOM  28 collaboration with colleagues and coaches: Five respondents (7%) indicated that collaboration with peers and coaches would be a beneficial support for implementing SOR.  opportunities to practice and receive feedback: Five respondents (7%) believe that practicing SOR methods and receiving feedback was important for effective implementation.  more intensive coaching: Four respondents (5%) expressed the need for more intensive coaching to support the implementation of SOR.  additional funding: Three respondents (4%) felt that additional financial resources are necessary to support SOR implementation.  no additional support needed: Nine respondents (12%) felt confident in their ability to implement SOR and did not believe additional support was necessary. Figure 12 Additional Suppport Needed to Implement the Science of Reading 2 Curriculum 17 2 More… More Training 1 Observe 1 12 11 3 0 Collaboration 5 1 Practice Coaching 0 Money 0 4 4 3 1 None 0 8 2 4 6 8 Instructional Coaches 10 Teachers 12 14 16 18 Using the Qualtrics survey tool, a cross-analysis of data was performed to identify factors that influenced teachers’ confidence in implementing SOR in the classroom. This analysis specifically compared the responses from the 84 respondents to question nine of the teacher SCIENCE OF READING IN THE CLASSROOM survey with affirmative responses from questions one (74 teachers), four (51 teachers), and six (52 teachers) (see Figure 13). The findings of this analysis are summarized below:  Overall Confidence: Among the 74 teachers who received SOR training o 70 teachers (95%) reported feeling confident or very confident in their ability to implement SOR instructional practices. o 3 teachers (4%) responded neutrally o 2 teachers (3%) indicated feeling somewhat confident o No teachers reported feeling not confident  Overall Confidence: Among the 51 teachers who received coaching o 49 teachers (96%) reported feeling confident or very confident in their ability to implement SOR instructional practices. o 1 teacher (2%) responded neutrally o 1 teacher (2%) indicated feeling somewhat confident o No teachers reported feeling not confident  Overall Confidence: Among the 51 teachers who have district-provided curriculum/resources o 49 teachers (94%) reported feeling confident or very confident in their ability to implement SOR instructional practices. o 2 teachers (4%) responded neutrally o 1 teacher (2%) indicated feeling somewhat confident o No teachers reported feeling not confident 29 SCIENCE OF READING IN THE CLASSROOM 30 Figure 13 Factors Affecting Teacher Confidence in Implementing Science of Reading Practices in the Classroom Q1: Have you received training in the Science of Reading? Total Yes Total Count (All) No Q4: Do you receive ongoing support (mentoring or coaching) to implement Science of Reading aligned methods in your classroom? Total Yes No Q6: Do you have district-provided Science of Reading aligned curriculum or resources to use for reading instruction in your classroom? Total Yes No 84 74 10 84 51 33 84 52 32 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 2 2% 6 7% 47 56% 1 1% 3 4% 42 57% 1 10% 3 30% 5 50% 2 2% 6 7% 47 56% 1 2% 1 2% 28 55% 1 3% 5 15% 19 58% 2 2% 6 7% 47 56% 1 2% 2 4% 29 56% 1 3% 4 13% 18 56% 29 28 1 29 21 8 29 20 35% 38% 10% 35% 41% 24% 35% 38% *Responses from Q1, Q4 & Q5 were compared with responses from Q9 (84 respondents) 9 28% Q9: How confident do you feel in your ability to implement Science of Reading instructional practices? Not confident Somewhat confident Neither Confident Very confident Discussion The implementation of SOR is crucial to reading instruction in the classroom (Hullet, 2023). Furthermore, the implementation process is not simple. It takes time for teachers to gain the necessary content knowledge and instructional practices involved in effectively implementing SOR in their classrooms (D’Souza, 2022). The aim of this research project was to address the following research questions: SCIENCE OF READING IN THE CLASSROOM 31 1. In what ways are teachers implementing the science of reading methods in their classrooms? 2. What areas of implementation need improvement? 3. What additional support or resources do teachers need in their classrooms? Implementation of Science of Reading First, SOR instruction includes five pillars or areas of literacy instruction. They are phonics, phonemic awareness, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension (D’Souza, 2022). The survey identified ways in which teachers are implementing SOR methods in their teaching practices (See Figure 9). For example, 75 teachers reported using Heggerty, a phonemic awareness program, in their teaching practices. Teachers (38) also indicated that they were teaching phonics using Reading Horizons which is a SOR-aligned phonics program. Additionally, seventy-three teachers said that they had adopted 95% Group, a well-known phonics-based intervention program, for their struggling readers. A small number of teachers (3) reported using 95% Core phonics, a SOR-aligned phonics program. Therefore, in response to the first research question, most teachers reported implementing phonemic awareness and phonics, two of the five literacy pillars. In contrast, few teachers reported implementing SOR instructional practices in the remaining three pillars of fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. One reason for this could be the lack of SOR-aligned resources for these pillars. While teachers have access to supplemental resources to teach phonics and phonemic awareness, they lack resources for fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. Consequently, teachers rely on the Journeys basal program or must find their own materials or resources to teach these three areas of literacy. Among 86 respondents, three indicated using Journeys, their district-provided basal program, to teach comprehension SCIENCE OF READING IN THE CLASSROOM 32 and vocabulary (See Figure 9). Additionally, 10 teachers reported that they used resources other than those provided by the district to teach fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. These teachers mentioned that they had to find their own SOR materials by searching various online resources such as Teachers Pay Teachers (TPT), an online marketplace for educational resources. Three of these teachers also reported using fluency resources from the University of Florida Literacy Institute (UFLI). Another reason that teachers did not report implementing SOR in fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension could be attributed to the grade levels surveyed. Reading instruction in lower grade levels (K-3), like those surveyed, tends to emphasize phonics and phonemic awareness to help students develop strong decoding skills. In grades 4-6, instruction shifts focus towards developing fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension skills. Areas of Improvement An analysis of the survey data highlights several areas where implementation of the SOR needs improvement. To begin with, teachers require greater access to SOR-aligned curriculum and other resources, which can significantly enhance their ability to implement SOR in the classroom. In addition, teachers also need more training and coaching in SOR instructional practices. When these two factors are present, teachers experience increased self-efficacy and confidence in integrating SOR into their teaching. First, a high quality SOR-aligned curriculum is necessary for teachers to teach students to read (Moats, 2020). The data suggests that there is a direct connection between having a quality program and the teacher’s ability to implement SOR in the classroom. Survey respondents indicate that the SOR-aligned programs they use are supplemental programs to Journeys, the core basal program, provided by the district. Most basal programs are weak in phonics and SCIENCE OF READING IN THE CLASSROOM 33 phonemic awareness which is why the school district has purchased supplementary programs. While these programs tend to have stronger fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension elements they are still lacking strong ties to SOR-aligned instructional practices (Beerwinkle, 2020). It is important to note that Journeys is the only common resource used by all teachers district-wide. While many teachers utilize SOR-aligned materials (or curriculum) such as Heggerty, Reading Horizons, or 95% Group, these supplementary resources are purchased by individual schools for teachers to use. Ultimately, for teachers to be successful in implementing SOR, they will need SOR-aligned materials for all five pillars of literacy across the district. Several teachers report that this school district is in the process of adopting a new language arts curriculum and are hopeful that it will help them to be more effective in their reading instruction. In addition to having a quality curriculum, teachers need to gain a better understanding of what constitutes a SOR-aligned resource. The survey indicates that teachers may lack this understanding. For example, when asked if they had district-provided SOR-aligned curriculum and resources, 40% of teachers said no (See Figure 8). Yet when asked what resources they used to teach SOR, 100% of teachers reported using at least one SOR-aligned program (See Figure 9). Additionally, three teachers indicated that they used their Journeys basal program to teach comprehension which is not a SOR-approved resource. This lack of understanding can be detrimental to the implementation of SOR especially since many teachers reported that they had to find their own resources to use in their instructional practices. Without a solid understanding of what aligns with SOR practices, how can teachers confidently find effective resources for reading instruction? Consequently, this data indicates that more training or coaching is needed to help teachers gain this understanding. SCIENCE OF READING IN THE CLASSROOM 34 Additional Support The third research question inquired about what teachers and instructional coaches needed to support the implementation of SOR in the classrooms or schools (See Figure 12). The most common need that these educators reported was the availability of SOR curriculum and resources. For example, 17 of the 75 teachers (23%) said that they need a new basal program or curriculum that was SOR-aligned. Another 12 teachers and two coaches indicated that they needed additional resources such as decodable books, instructional aids or slides, supplemental materials, manipulatives, and videos. Next, in addition to more resources, teachers indicated that they needed more training in SOR. This training would include increasing their knowledge of language and literacy. Additionally, teachers expressed a desire for more training in SOR instructional practices. Furthermore, teachers wanted their training to include opportunities to observe SOR methods in the classroom, and then have time to practice these methods in their own classroom. Teachers also reported that receiving feedback and support from instructional coaches would be helpful in implementing SOR practices. Moreover, a small number of teachers reported additional areas where they needed support in implementing SOR. For example, they needed more time to plan and collaborate with other teachers. They also mentioned needing support in analyzing data and planning interventions for struggling readers. Additionally, some teachers expressed concerns about the need for funds for classroom materials not provided by the district. Finally, analysis of the data from the two surveys suggested a relationship between the teachers’ self-efficacy and confidence level in implementing SOR in their classroom and training, coaching, and adequate classroom resources. (See Figure 13). The data shows that SCIENCE OF READING IN THE CLASSROOM 35 teachers’ confidence level in implementing SOR instructional practices significantly increased when any of these three factors were present. In fact, 95% of teachers reported feeling confident or very confident in their ability to teach using SOR practices if they had received training, 96% if they received coaching and 94% if they had adequate resources. In conclusion, while there are many factors that contribute to the implementation of SOR in the classroom, these three factors are crucial. Limitations This study had some limitations. First, the study was limited to one school district. Of the 98 survey respondents, 82 (84%) had received SOR by completing LETRS and one teacher (1%) reported receiving SOR training through their pre-service education. An additional five teachers (5%) reported receiving other SOR training in addition to LETRS. Because a large majority of the teachers have only been trained in LETRS, they have a limited viewpoint of what SOR training encompasses. In addition, most of the teachers had the same or similar instructional materials and resources. Further studies would include multiple school districts to include perceptions from educators who had different training and curriculums. A second limitation of this study is that only five out of 28 instructional coaches (17%) in the school district responded to the survey. The small sample size does not give clear data on the experiences and beliefs of the coaches. Future studies should include a larger sample size of instructional coaches. Recommendations This study showed that there are many factors that result in effective implementation of SOR in the classroom. First, reading instruction requires teachers to have an extensive SCIENCE OF READING IN THE CLASSROOM 36 knowledge and skills of word recognition, language comprehension, spelling, and writing (Moats, 2020). The participants in this study expressed the need for more extensive training in the SOR practices. While most of the teachers and coaches had received SOR training, many felt that continued training through professional development would be highly beneficial to be effective reading instructors. The survey showed that teacher confidence in implementing SOR was significantly higher among those who had received training. Of the teachers surveyed, 60% of those who were not trained felt confident in their ability to implement SOR in their classroom (See Figure 13). In contrast, 90% of the teachers who had been trained felt confident in their ability to implement SOR (See Figure 13). Therefore, the first recommendation is to increase opportunities for both initial training in SOR as well as ongoing professional development in SOR. Next, instructional coaching or mentoring is another factor that impacts the effectiveness of reading instruction in the classroom. Due to the complex nature of reading instruction, teachers need intensive, intentional practice and coaching to learn to teach reading effectively (Hindman et al., 2020). The respondents in this survey identified coaching as one of the areas in which they desired additional support (See Figure 12). Teachers wanted to have opportunities to observe SOR methods modeled, be given opportunities to practice these methods, and then receive feedback from a coach of ways they could improve. Whether or not teachers were receiving coaching influenced the level of confidence teachers felt in implementing SOR in the classroom. For example, 96% of teachers who were receiving coaching in SOR felt confident that they could implement SOR practices for reading instruction. On the other hand, only 82% of teachers who were not being coached felt confident in their ability to use SOR methods in the SCIENCE OF READING IN THE CLASSROOM 37 classroom. Therefore, the second recommendation from this study is to provide opportunities for teachers to observe SOR methods, practice and receive feedback on instructional practices. Lastly, we recommend that teachers be provided with curriculums, classroom materials, and supplemental resources necessary for reading instruction. According to literacy expert, Anita Archer, a high-quality curriculum is essential to successful reading instruction. She said, “I think that they need to have very good programs…if you have a curriculum that’s really well designed, then your cognitive energy can go to the students, to their corrections, or to their errors” (Austin, 2023). The participants in this study expressed concern that the district-provided curriculum and resources were insufficient to implement SOR instructional practices. Some teachers reported that the district was in the process of adopting a new SOR aligned language arts curriculum which is a positive step forward in the implementation process. The survey indicated that 94% of teachers who had been provided with SOR aligned materials felt confident in their ability to implement SOR practices in the classroom. In contrast, only 84% of teachers who did not have sufficient SOR resources felt confident in the ability to implement SOR in the classroom. The implementation of the SOR is crucial to the success of reading instruction. (Hullet, 2023). The key to successful implementation of SOR in the classroom is ensuring that teachers are equipped with the knowledge and skills necessary to teach reading (Hullet, 2023). This study has determined that the three key factors for successful implementation of SOR are: teacher training, mentoring/coaching, and access to high-quality curriculum and resources. When these three factors are present teachers will be well equipped to provide their students with effective reading instruction. SCIENCE OF READING IN THE CLASSROOM 38 References Austin, P. (Host). (2023, June 22). Why the ‘science of reading’ needs the ‘science of teaching’A conversation between 2 literacy leaders. [Audio podcast]. Voyager Sopris. https://www.voyagersopris.com/podcasts/2023/why-the-science-of-reading-needs-thethe-science-of-teaching Barnes, Z. T., Fields, R. S., & Cartwright, K. B. (2023). A special educator’s guide to the science of reading. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 18. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2023.2243847 Beerwinkle, A. L., Owen, J., & Hudson, A. (2021). An analysis of comprehension strategies and skills covered within grade 3-5 reading textbooks in the United States. Technology, Knowledge, and Learning, 26(2), 311-338. https://doi.org.10.1007/s10758-020-09484-0 Campbell, S. (n.d). Which science of reading training should I take? Campbell Creates Readers. https://www.campbellcreatesreaders.com/blog/sortrainings Children’s Reading Foundation. (n.d.) Why early learning matters. https://www.readingfoundation.org/early-learning Didion, L., Toste, J. R., & Filderman, M. (2020). Teacher professional development and student reading achievement: A meta-analytic review of the effects. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 13(1), 29-66. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2019.1670884 D’Souza, K. (2022, August 17). A movement rises to change the teaching of reading: Low test scores fuel demand for change. Journal for Learning Through the Arts, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.21977/D918161475 SCIENCE OF READING IN THE CLASSROOM 39 Goldberg, M. & Goldberg, C. (2022, February 9). Lessons learned? Reading wars, reading first, and a way forward. The Reading Teacher, 75(5), 621-630. https://doiorg.hal.weber.edu/10.1002/trtr.2079 Goodnight, C. I., Wood, C. L., Thompson, J. L. (2020) Effects of in-service and coaching to increase teachers’ use of research-based strategies in beginning reading. Preventing School Failure, 64(1), 67-76. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2019.1680944 Gray, J. (2022, June 22). Reading and covid-19: What the data show and what lies ahead. EDView360. https://www.voyagersopris.com/blog/edview360/reading-and-covid-19-whatthe-data-show-and-what-lies-ahead Hendry, H. (2020). Becoming a teacher of early reading: Charting the knowledge and practices of pre-service and newly qualified teachers. Literacy, 54(1), 58-59. https://doi.org.10.1111/lit.12184 Hindman, A. H., Morrison, F. J., Connor, C. M., Connor, J. A. (2020) Bringing the science of reading to preservice elementary teachers: Tools that bridge research and practice. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(s1), s197-s206. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.345 Hollingsworth, H. (2023, April 20). An end to the reading wars? More U.S. schools embrace phonics. Associated Press News. https://apnews.com/article/phonics-science-readingc715dea43f338f163715b01b83bb1066 Hudson, A. K., Moore, K. A., Han, B., Wee Koh, P., Binks-Cantrell, E., & Maletesha Joshi, R. (2021, May). Elementary teachers’ knowledge of foundational literacy skills: A critical piece of the puzzle in the science of reading. Reading Research Quarterly, Supplement 56(1), S287-S315. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.408 SCIENCE OF READING IN THE CLASSROOM 40 Hullet, G. (Host). (2023, August 23). English learners and the science of reading. [Audio podcast]. Voyager Sopris. https://www.voyagersopris.com/podcasts/2023/englishlearners-and-the-science-ofreading?utm_medium=email&utm_source=news&utm_campaign=23_Q3_NA_US_ALL _Edview360_EM_ED_Fierro_Podcast Kilpatrick, D. A. (2015). Essentials of assessing, preventing, and overcoming reading difficulties. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Maughan, S. (2023, August 7). Reading reckoning. Publisher’s Weekly, 270(32), 18-29. Moats, L. (n.d.). Why have teachers been left unprepared to teach reading? Reading Rockets. https://www.readingrockets.org/article/why-have-teachers-been-left-unprepared-teachreading Moats, L. C. (2020, Summer). Teaching reading is rocket science: What expert teachers of reading should know and be able to do. American Educator, 44(2), 4-9, 39. Moats, L. C., Foorman, B. R. (2003). Measuring teachers’ content knowledge of language and reading. Annals of Dyslexia, 53, 23-45. https://doi.org.10.1007/s11881-003-0003-7 National Center on Improving Literacy. (n.d.). The science of reading: The basics. https://improvingliteracy.org/brief/science-reading-basics Parker, S. (2019). A brief history of reading instruction. Parker Phonics, Retrieved May 19, 2020, from https://www.parkerphonics.com/post/a-brief-history-of-reading-instruction Petrilli, M. J. (2020). Put “whole language” on trial: The case against reading instruction that leads to illiteracy. Education Next, 20(2), 86. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A618692713/PROF?u=ogde72764&sid=bookmarkPROF&xid=a0f637af SCIENCE OF READING IN THE CLASSROOM 41 Piasta, S. B., Connor, C. M., Fishman, B. J., Morrison, F. J. (2009). Teachers knowledge of literacy concepts, classroom practices, and student reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 13(3), 224-248. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888430902851364 Petscher, Y., Cabell, S. Q., Catts, H. W., Compton, D. L., Foorman, B. R., Hart, S. A., Lonigan, C. J., Philips, B. M., Schatschneider, C., Steacy, L. M., Terry, N. P., & Wagner, R. K. (2020). How the science of reading informs 21st-century education. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1), S267-S282. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.352 Porter, S. B., Odegard, T. N., McMahan, M., Farris, E. A. (2022, April) Characterizing the knowledge of educators across the tiers of instructional support. Annals of Dyslexia, 72(1), 79-96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-021-00242-0 Pressley, M., Roehrig, A., Bogner, K., Raphael, L. M., & Dolezal, S. (2002). Balanced literacy instruction. Focus on Exceptional Children, 34(5), 1-14. Rayner, K., Foorman, B. R., Perfetti, C. A., Seidenberg, M. S. (2002). How should reading be taught? Scientific American, 286(3), 84-91. Reading Horizons. (n.d.). Reading Wars: Phonics vs. whole language instruction. https://readinghorizons.website/reading-strategies/teaching/phonics-instruction/readingwars-phonics-vs-whole-language-reading-instruction Shanahan, T. (2020, September 3). What constitutes a science of reading instruction? Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1), S235-S247. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.349 Shanahan, T. (2005). The national reading panel report: Practical advice for teachers. Learning Point Associates. SCIENCE OF READING IN THE CLASSROOM 42 Schwartz, S. (2022, July 20). What is LETRS? Why one training is dominating ‘science of reading’ efforts. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/letrsprogram-teacher-training Steiner, L. & Kowal, J. Instructional Coaching. Reading Rockets. https://www.readingrockets.org/topics/professional-development/articles/instructionalcoaching#what-is-an-instructional-coach Stuart, K. & Fugnitto, G. (2020). A conversation about the science of reading and early reading instruction with Dr. Louisa Moats. Center for the Collaborative Classroom. https://socal.dyslexiaida.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2020/10/CONVERSATIONwith-Dr-Moats.pdf Torgesen, J. K. (2002). The prevention of reading difficulties. Journal of School Psychology, 40(1), 7-26. https://doi-org.hal.weber.edu/10.1016/S0022-4405(01)00092-9 U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.) Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2019 Reading Assessment. https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading/nation/scores/?grade=4 Weyer, M. & Casares, J. E. (2019). Pre-kindergarten-third grade literacy. https://www.ncsl.org/research/education/pre-kindergarten-third-grade-literacy.aspx SCIENCE OF READING IN THE CLASSROOM 43 Appendix A Survey 1-Instructional Coaches 1. Have you received training in the science of reading (SOR)? (yes/no) 2. What SOR training did you receive? (text entry) Ex: LETRS, Orton-Gillingham, Pre-service/university, professional development 3. How satisfied are you with your SOR training? (5-point scale) 4. As an instructional coach, do you receive any ongoing training or professional development in the SOR? (yes/no) 5. Do you provide ongoing support (mentoring or coaching) to your teachers for the purpose of implementing SOR instructional practices in their classroom? (yes/no) 6. How willing are teachers to implement SOR instructional practices in their daily instruction? (5-point scale) 7. Do your teachers have access to district-provided SOR aligned curriculum or resources to use for reading instruction in their classrooms? (yes/no) 8. Do teachers have adequate district-provided curriculum and resources to fully implement SOR instructional practices in their classrooms? (5-point scale) 9. How confident do you feel in your ability to mentor/coach teachers in implementing SOR instructional practices? (5-point scale) 10. What additional support do you or your teachers need to implement SOR instructional practices effectively in classroom instruction? (text entry) SCIENCE OF READING IN THE CLASSROOM 44 Appendix B Survey 2-Teachers 1. Have you received training in the science of reading (SOR)? (yes/no) 2. What training did you receive? (text entry) Ex: LETRS, Orton-Gillingham, Pre-service/university, professional development 3. How satisfied are you with your SOR training? (5-point scale) 4. Do you receive ongoing support (mentoring or coaching) to implement SOR instructional practices in your classroom? (yes/no) 5. How beneficial is the SOR support you have received through mentoring or coaching? (5-point scale) 6. Do you have district-provided SOR aligned curriculum or resources to use for reading instruction in your classroom? (yes/no) 7. What SOR resources or curriculum have you implemented in your instructional practices? Ex: Heggerty, 95% groups, UFLI, etc. (text entry) 8. Do you have sufficient district-provided SOR resources and curriculum to implement SOR in your classroom? (5-point scale) 9. How confident do you feel in your ability to implement SOR instructional practices? (5-point scale) 10. What additional support do you need to implement SOR instructional practices effectively in your classroom? (text entry) SCIENCE OF READING IN THE CLASSROOM Appendix C Weber State University Institutional Review Board Approval 45 SCIENCE OF READING IN THE CLASSROOM Appendix D Weber School District Research Project Approval 46