1 Secondary Literacy Interventions in Davis School District by Christine Creer A thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF EDUCATION with an emphasis in CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION WEBER STATE UNIVERSITY Ogden, Utah April 20, 2026 Approved Jessie Nixon Jessie Nixon (Apr 21, 2026 08:26:19 MDT) Jessie Nixon, Ph.D. Katarina Anderson, Ph.D. Jenna Berry Ed.D Jenna Berry Ed.D (Apr 20, 2026 10:14:24 MDT) Jenna Berry, Ed.D. 2 Contents Abstract …………………………………………………………………….………….………… 3 Problem Statement …………………………………………………………………….………… 4 Literature Review …………………………………………………………………….…………. 5 Methodology……………………………………………………………………………………. 12 Context ………………………………………………………………………….……… 12 Participants ……………………………………………………………………….….…. 13 Participant Demographics …………………………………………………...… 14 Data Collection and Instruments ………………………………………………………….….… 14 Data Analysis …………………………………………………………………………...……… 15 Example of Descriptive Codes……………………………………….…………. 17 Ethical Considerations …………………………………………………………………………. 16 Findings ………………………………………………………………………………………... 17 Teacher Training and Prior Experience ………………………………………………… 17 Class Selection …………………………………………………………………………. 19 RQ1: Teachers’ Perceptions of the Effectiveness of the Literacy Program ……………. 20 RQ2: Added Instructional Strategies and Resources …………………………………... 26 Discussion ……………………………………………………………………………………… 30 Limitations ……………………………………………………………………………………... 36 Recommendations ……………………………………………………………………………… 37 Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………………...……… 38 References ……………………………………………………………………………………… 40 Appendix A ………………………………………………………………………….….……… 45 3 Abstract Recent trends in adolescent literacy reveal that students are struggling with foundational skills such as decoding and comprehension (Cantrell & Callaway, 2008; Joseph & Schisler, 2008; Wendt, 2013). This qualitative study examined teachers’ perceptions of the effectiveness of the district-created secondary literacy intervention curriculum and the instructional strategies and resources they used within it. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with five secondary literacy intervention teachers. Findings indicated that teachers perceived the curriculum as effective but identified several gaps, including a lack of age-appropriate activities and culturally responsive texts. Teachers attempted to fill these gaps individually by adding strategies and a variety of texts. The study recommends that the school district further develop professional development opportunities to support teachers and allocate more time and resources to integrating age-appropriate, culturally responsive content. Keywords: adolescent literacy, foundational literacy, teacher perceptions 4 Problem Statement Current literature acknowledges literacy as more complex than simply reading for comprehension, and has expanded to include the necessity of writing, oral communication, and critical thinking as contributors to a student achieving true literacy (Heydon et al., 2005; Misulis, 2009; Wendt, 2013). By the time students reach middle school, their literacy education should be shifting away from aspects of basic literacy that are emphasized in elementary schools—such as morphology, sentence structure, and generalized reading comprehension—and toward what is termed as “disciplinary literacy” (Misulis, 2009; Wolsey & Lapp, 2017). However, research indicates that adolescents are experiencing increased difficulties with reading and writing (Cantrell & Callaway, 2008; Joseph & Schisler, 2008; Wendt, 2013). In 2023, the Utah Board of Education reported that only 44.7% of students in grades 3-8 scored at or above proficiency in English Language Arts on the RISE test (Utah State Board of Education, 2023). This may indicate that students lack basic literacy skills, including phonological and morphological awareness, vocabulary, reading efficiency, and reading comprehension. Without the development of these foundational skills, students experience increased difficulties in all subjects (Draper, 2002; Wendt, 2013). They struggle as reading shifts from a “skill to learn” to a “a medium for learning” (Joseph & Schisler, 2008). From these concerns, the question arises of what needs to be done at the secondary level to support students’ literacy needs. While most secondary schools offer reading intervention programs, they vary in the content they focus on and in their effectiveness (Harmon et al., 2011). Another challenge is determining how best to teach basic literacy skills to adolescents who face myriad social and emotional implications as a result of being enrolled in an intervention class. 5 At present, the majority of research focuses on basic literacy in primary school settings, and studies on secondary literacy indicate that the manner of literacy learning does not necessarily transfer to secondary school (Lai et al., 2014). The dearth of studies, resources, and training in secondary literacy, along with current testing data, underscores the need for ongoing effective literacy training in secondary schools. In addition, there is a wide variety of programs in use and a lack of clarity about the success of said programs (Harmon et al., 2011; Joseph & Schisler, 2008; Lai et al., 2014). The purpose of this study is to build an understanding of the perceptions that secondary literacy educators in the Davis School District have of the district-created literacy program. In addition, this study aims to identify the practices and instructional strategies that literacy teachers currently use outside district programs to teach these concepts to a secondary audience in an engaging, age-appropriate manner. It is hoped that these instructional strategies will further inform future research by allowing programs to build upon what teachers are already implementing within their classrooms, rather than introducing additional practices. Thus, this study poses two research questions: RQ1: What are current secondary literacy teachers’ perceptions of the effectiveness of districtcreated literacy programs that they teach? RQ2: What instructional strategies beyond the district-created curriculum are current secondary teachers utilizing to help build basic student literacy in secondary schools in an engaging and age-appropriate manner? Literature Review While there remains a strong research focus on literacy practices in elementary education, the body of research on the realities, practices, and implications of secondary literacy has grown 6 considerably over the past 20 years (Reynolds, 2021; Slavin et al., 2008). The current research, as well as some key foundational studies, shed light on the complexity of adolescent literacy in addition to emphasizing the significant impact that achieving literacy competency has on a student’s future opportunities and chances for success beyond secondary schooling (Graham et al., 2018; Harmon et al., 2011; Merga, 2020). Upon examining existing literature on secondary literacy interventions, I have identified five essential and shared themes concerning secondary literacy (6th-12th grades). These include: (1) the complexities of literacy as a skill, (2) low literacy levels as a prevalent concern for secondary students, (3) the necessity of approaching literacy intervention as a shared initiative amongst all educators and stakeholders, (4) the implications of insufficient teacher training and access to resources, and (5) the importance of structuring secondary literacy programs to meet the unique needs and interests of adolescents. The Complex Nature of Literacy While the causes of the low literacy in secondary students beg more attention within the research field, one possible attribution is the complex nature of literacy itself. In conceptualizing literacy, it is essential to note that the demands of literacy are ever-changing based on social and technological advancements and are largely dependent on the context of the learner (Heydon et al., 2005). As such, literacy and the teaching of literacy skills have become increasingly complex and have expanded to include literacy in connection with technology, critical thinking skills, and writing techniques (Hurwitz & Macaruso, 2021; Murillo & Schall, 2016). Though increasingly broad in definition, literacy is generally agreed to include reading skills, writing skills, and the ability to make real-world connections through critical thinking (Draper, 2002; Hendrix & Griffin, 2017; Jones et al., 2016; Misulis, 2009). 7 The aforementioned reading skills are commonly considered to include morphology, vocabulary, and reading comprehension (Hendrix & Griffin, 2017; Lai et al., 2014; MarchandMartella et al., 2013). While some studies push the importance of morphology work within the classroom, encouraging repetition and study of word parts, others suggest that more focus should be put on vocabulary expansion and reading comprehension through methods such as “close reading” (Hendrix & Griffin, 2017; Kavanagh & Rainey, 2017). The various skills required for true literacy and the limited time within the classroom create the demand for teachers to select a focus backed by research. In addition, this focus should be chosen with the diverse needs of their students in mind (Jones et al., 2016). Adding further complexity, research also shows success in pairing reading and writing skills together within a literacy intervention program (Graham et al., 2018). Students benefit from learning basic reading skills and writing techniques in tandem (Misulis, 2009; Wolsey & Lapp, 2017). The final aspect of literacy is critical thinking. For students to be considered fully literate and achieve success in future endeavors, it is essential that they can connect what they read to their own lives, other literature, and the world around them (Goldman et al., 2016). This study focuses on literacy on a foundational level. For the purpose of this study, basic literacy will be defined as a student's proficiency in skills such as phonological awareness, morphology, vocabulary, sentence structure, reading efficiency, and reading comprehension. Low Literacy Levels in Secondary Students Literacy proficiency amongst adolescent learners is significantly below the ideal and is cause for serious concern in the educational realm and beyond (Cantrell et al., 2008; MarchandMartella, 2013). Statistics vary across studies and depend largely on the specific literacy skills being assessed. However, it is suggested that at least 20% of secondary students struggle with 8 reading in some manner (Merga, 2020). Adding further to this concern, a study by Hurwitz and Macaruso (2021) found that, as of 2019, two-thirds of 8th-grade students scored below proficiency on the standards set by the U.S. Department of Education. This data, though perhaps more severe, mirrors the realities of scores from recent Utah RISE tests. The gap in literacy is hypothesized to stem from a myriad of reasons, ranging from the complexities of literacy itself to insufficient teacher training to gaps in education for multilingual students and students with disabilities (Cantrell et al., 2008; Heydon et al., 2005; Murillo & Schall, 2016). The former two will be discussed at length in this review as key themes from research. The latter, though less prevalent within the body of research, is no less essential to understanding the current dilemma in adolescent literacy. Historically, multilingual students were excluded from studies concerning literacy (Murillo & Schall, 2016; Reynolds, 2021b). However, this exclusion leads to skewed results, especially as the racial and linguistic demographics of the U.S. become increasingly diverse. The inclusion of multilingual students within literacy studies has impacted the results of more recent studies, but the fear of misattributing low literacy levels to language learning is still prevalent and requires attention and care when reviewing literacy data and recent research (Fisher & Frey, 2014; Murillo & Schall, 2016; Reynolds, 2021). In addition to identifying possible causes of this learning gap, studies focus heavily on the implications of scoring below proficiency in literacy skills for students and their futures. Within the secondary classroom, students begin to struggle with the demands of all content areas as their literacy abilities slip below proficiency (Basma & Savage, 2023; Joseph & Schisler, 2008; Misulis, 2009; Wendt, 2013). Students experience a barrier of entry to learning and growth within individual content areas as they are not proficient in academic vocabulary with crosscurricular applications (Lai et al., 2014). This barrier limits their ability to connect with and build 9 upon the material that they are presented with. Beyond the secondary classroom, assessments and research indicate that students are poorly prepared for the literacy-related demands of postsecondary education (Cantrell et al., 2008; Murillo et al., 2016; Slavin et al., 2008). In addition, literacy skills are found to be correlated with the opportunities students will have in the workforce and future social settings (Graham et al., 2018; Harmon et al., 2011; MarchlandMarella et al., 2013; Merga, 2020; Smith & Robinson, 2020). Literacy as a Shared Initiative Due to the complex nature of literacy, it is essential to shift the responsibility for adolescent literacy learning and intervention from being solely on the shoulders of literacy and ELA educators to being shared amongst administration, all content teachers, and other stakeholders (Lai et al., 2014; Misulis, 2009; Wolsey & Lapp, 2017). Full comprehension of a text has been found to be vital in enabling students to fully understand the curriculum associated with content areas outside of the ELA classroom, including math, the sciences, and history (Basma & Savage, 2023; Draper, 2002). In addition, a study by Lupo et al. (2023) reported that a literacy initiative is more likely to have greater success when it permeates daily classroom practices and is emphasized by all teachers. Current teacher perceptions show that the majority of educators do view literacy as a shared initiative and want to support students in their progress (Cantrell et al., 2008; Draper, 2002). However, teachers report feeling inadequate or even incapable in their efforts to support student literacy, especially concerning the alignment with state or district standards (Savitz et al., 2023; Smith & Robinson, 2020). This inefficacy, often reported by content teachers outside of the ELA classrooms, is due in part to insufficient training and a lack of resources (Fang, 2014). 10 At present, the primary focus in secondary literacy training is disciplinary literacy. Essentially, disciplinary literacy focuses on teaching students how to interact with and create texts in the manner of an expert in the field (Wolsey & Lapp, 2017). It encourages a focus on discipline-specific vocabulary and thinking patterns in relation to relevant literature. However, students cannot be successful in approaching these advanced texts and learning diverse and content-specific techniques to understand them if they have not developed basic literacy skills (Wendt, 2013). This finding suggests the need to refocus secondary teachers’ efforts from disciplinary literacy to basic literacy skills previously identified (Goldman et al., 2016). Teachers must identify how to incorporate morphology, generalized academic vocabulary, and basic reading comprehension techniques into their curriculum to support struggling readers. Pre- and In-Service Teacher Training and Access to Curriculum and Resources For the responsibility for adolescent literacy to be an effective shared initiative amongst educators, gaps in teacher training and inadequate access to quality resources need to be addressed. The research identifies deficiencies in both pre-and in-service teacher training programs and professional development, as well as insufficient access to evidence-based literacy interventions (Cantrell et al., 2008; Fang, 2014; Harmon et al., 2011; Kavanagh & Rainey, 2017; Smith & Robinson, 2020). Faced with these inadequacies in their own training, teachers were often found to “relieve students of…reading task[s]” and thus become inhibitors of students’ success in improving their literacy (Goldman et al., 2016, p. 259). Pre-service literacy training could help to set teachers up for success within the educational field. Currently, there is limited focus on literacy, especially in content areas outside what is considered “core content”. Research suggests a need for literacy specialists and teacher 11 educators to collaborate in order to shape programs that help teachers prepare to meet the literacy needs of their students (Kavanagh & Rainey, 2017). Concerning the gaps in professional development training for in-service teachers, the research highlights trends of low perceptions of teacher efficacy in teaching literacy and the need for high-quality professional development (Savitz et al., 2023; Smith & Robinson, 2020). As stated previously, teachers often reported feeling inadequate in teaching literacy skills and providing interventions (Savitz et al., 2023; Smith & Robinson, 2020). Teachers often feel they did not receive quality professional development that set them up for success, and they found that the training they received lacked focus and did not accommodate shifting expectations (Smith & Robinson, 2020). Finally, resources available to teachers are lacking. As of 2021, a significant number of teachers reported that they were utilizing the 2008 practice guide, which focuses on the literacy development of students on the elementary level and is backed by insufficient and outdated evidence (Reynolds, 2021a). Teachers outside of the ELA sphere were often without sufficient resources to connect literacy skills to their content areas, especially within areas such as PE, art, and economics (Fang, 2014). Currently, in Davis School District, training for in-service teachers is limited, especially for teachers outside the English Language Arts and Special Education classrooms. Literacy training is limited to one or two hours of professional development by district personnel throughout the school year. If multiple trainings are given, they are not connected and do not provide teachers with any initiatives or follow-up. This perpetuates a lack of focus and support highlighted in Smith and Robinson’s (2020) research and fails to prioritize the need for teaching of basic literacy skills for most content teachers. 12 Age-Appropriate Literacy Intervention The final theme identified in the research is the necessity for literacy intervention programs to meet the unique needs and interests of adolescents. Merga (2020) notes that current literacy interventions use a “silver bullet” (p. 391) solution that effectively downplays both the complexity of literacy and the various reasons for low adolescent literacy. These one-size-fits-all solutions do students a severe disservice and do not support their educational success (Dennis, 2009). Research suggests that, in order for literacy programs to meet student needs, literacy intervention must be viewed as an individual process, student motivation must be built and encouraged, and socialization and critical thinking must be integral to the programs. A study by Frankel (2016) asserts that identity matters for literacy. In other words, students’ views of themselves and the world around them affect their ability to connect with texts and thus improve basic literacy skills (Frankel, 2016). Bearing this in mind, it is essential to view literacy, even at a basic level, as an individualized process that can be viewed through two lenses. First, interventions should be enacted for students on an individual level instead of simply on a whole-class or group level, as is often the case (Jones et al., 2016; Lupo et al., 2023). Second, interventions should involve student interest. In a study by Murillo and Schall (2016), students reported feeling that their interests, opinions, and values were underrepresented in their literacy education programs. The result is disengaged students with decreased motivation to participate in learning activities. As a result, students find themselves inadequately prepared for the literacy demands of higher education and future careers (Murillo & Schall, 2016). Teachers are likely to identify student motivation as a barrier to successful literacy intervention (Merga, 2020). Essentially, if students feel no desire to engage with literacy activities and selected texts, their progress is stunted, and teachers find themselves less able to 13 support their literacy development. For programs to be successful for students and teachers, the barrier posed by low student motivation must be removed (Marchand-Martella et al., 2013). Research has found that this could be achieved through opting for engaging texts, encouraging text-to-self connections, fostering discussions, and aligning student and teacher perceptions of literacy (Frankel, 2016; Heydon et al., 2009; Marchand-Martella et al., 2013). Finally, higher-order thinking skills and social interaction must be ingrained into the program to foster student interest and success (Kim et al., 2017; Murillo & Schall, 2016; Slavin et al., 2008). The current focus on morphology encourages repetition of sounds, often done aloud as a whole-class activity (Hendrix & Griffin, 2017; Jones et al., 2016). While this practice is helpful to students and can build a foundation for literacy, research suggests that it disengages students and contributes to the aforementioned concerns of depersonalization and decreased student motivation. A successful literacy intervention involves purposeful engagement with a variety of texts in many forms, in addition to fostering social connection through discussion and group reading (Goldman et al., 2016; Kim et Based on the gathered data, I recommend that the Davis School District focus on developing regular, evidence-based secondary literacy-focused training and creating age-appropriate materials and resources for teenagers. al., 2017). The program in the Davis School District mirrors the issues highlighted in the research, especially the need to create age-appropriate, engaging, and culturally responsive intervention programs. The current program emphasizes basic literacy skills, with a focus on morphology and whole-class repetition. To promote student success, the basic literacy approach needs to be balanced with higher-order thinking and engagement strategies. This study aims to identify the strategies teachers employ to achieve balance and to refine the district’s literacy intervention program to align with research-backed approaches that have been successful in classrooms. 14 Methodology To achieve the aim of making relevant recommendations to reshape the district program, this study explored the effectiveness of the current district-created literacy intervention program and the literacy practices in secondary literacy classrooms. I collected data from current educators who teach the secondary literacy program in the district and analyzed them to identify commonalities and discrepancies in teachers' perceptions and practices. Context: Davis School District Secondary Literacy Curriculum Davis School District’s Secondary Literacy course has been used in the district for the past two years, with significant changes made between each year of its implementation. The curriculum is largely based on the Capti assessment, which assesses student proficiency in several foundational literacy skills, including word recognition and decoding, vocabulary, morphology, sentence processing, reading efficiency, and reading comprehension (Capti, 2026). The course curriculum is organized into three sections: phonological awareness1, morphology, and reading comprehension. The district curricula for phonological awareness and morphology are incredibly detailed for educators, including minute-by-minute plans and a teacher script. The latter aspect—reading comprehension—has shifted significantly between the two years of implementation due to the district’s shifting away from the previous ELA textbook. As a result, the reading comprehension portion is organized around district-made guidelines and expectations for teachers rather than lesson plans and scripts. Participants 1 While both the teachers and the school district referenced the word work portion of semester one as “phonological awareness”, it’s important to note that this section of the curriculum includes studying phonics and not solely phonological awareness activities. 15 Five secondary teachers from the Davis School District were selected for the study through purposeful sampling, a method demonstrated to be effective in studies of a similar nature (Harmon et al., 2011). I began by contacting the ELA Teaching and Learning Supervisor at the Davis School District via email. She was asked to recommend teachers at the high school and junior high levels, respectively, who are currently teaching the district-created secondary literacy intervention course. I then contacted the educators via their Davis School District email addresses to share the study’s purpose and requirements and to request their voluntary participation. Ten teachers were contacted via email; however, only five teachers elected to participate. The sample included three teachers at the junior high level and two at the high school level. These teachers were interviewed to assess their perceptions of the current district-created literacy program and to determine the techniques and resources they use beyond it. Participant Demographics Participants in this study had a range of teaching experience spanning from 6 to 23 years in the classroom. However, because Davis School District’s Secondary Literacy curriculum was created and implemented only recently, all teachers had taught the course for a maximum of 2 years (see Table 1). Table 1 Participant Demographics Teacher Pseudonym Years of Teaching Experience Years in Davis School District Part of Curriculum Development? 20 Years Teaching Secondary Literacy Intervention Course 2 Teacher A 23 Teacher B 6 6 2 Yes Yes 16 Teacher C 6 6 1 No Teacher D 12 12 2 Yes Teacher E 10 6 2 No Data Collection and Instruments This study was qualitative in nature, collecting data through in-depth, semi-structured interviews, similar to those conducted in previous studies (Harmon et al., 2011; Smith & Robinson, 2020). The interviews lasted 25-40 minutes, and a total of five teachers agreed to participate. To make participation more convenient and accessible, participants were offered the option of a Zoom interview or an in-person interview in the teacher’s classroom. Three participants chose in-person interviews, and the other two opted for Zoom. In-person interviews were recorded and transcribed using Adobe Podcast. Zoom interviews were recorded and transcribed by the Zoom platform. Participants were asked interview questions related to their (a) demographic information, (b) their perceptions on the effectiveness of the district-created literacy curriculum, and (c) the additional literacy strategies that they utilize beyond the district curriculum (see Appendix A for details). The semi-structured nature of the interview allowed the researcher the flexibility necessary to ask questions aimed at gaining further insight into participants’ perceptions of the district-created curriculum, as well as to explore the resources and teaching strategies used outside of the curriculum (Smith & Robinson, 2020). Data Analysis The data analysis for this study was modeled after the thematic analysis as defined by Braun and Clarke (2006). The interviews were transcribed using Zoom or Adobe Podcast, depending on whether the participant was interviewed virtually or in person. The transcripts were reviewed for accuracy, and then the researcher organized the data into analytic memos in relation 17 to the interview questions (Saldaña, 2016). The memos were then reviewed by two researchers to ensure internal validity, as has been demonstrated in recent studies (Boruah et al., 2024). I then created 34 descriptive codes to further analyze the data (Saldaña, 2016). Examples of these codes are included in the table below. After creating the codes, I organized the coded information into themes related to RQ1 and RQ2. Ultimately, there were six overarching themes for RQ1: curriculum overview, teachers’ perceptions of age appropriateness, cultural responsiveness, curriculum outcomes, and overall perception. In relation to RQ2, two themes were identified, including self-reported adherence to the curriculum and reported changes to the curriculum. Table 2 Example of Descriptive Codes Research Question Educators’ Perceptions (RQ1) Example Code Explanation of Code Example AgeParticipants make a statement Appropriateness on the age appropriateness of the curriculum or whether it meets student needs based on age. “My students love the curriculum because it challenges them, but in a way that feels feasible…they feel like they get a victory every day.” Self-Report: Fidelity Participants make a statement about closely they follow the district-created course. “I’m supposed to follow it with full fidelity, but I tend to stray a lot”. Participants mention “gamifying” the curriculum (whether following the districts games or their own) in order to increase student engagement in the course. “Everything’s very high energy and engaging. There’s a lot of movement.” Participants make statements about pacing indicating that they either slow down the district curriculum or increase the speed of lessons by “…[I] can slow down and…stop and take more time with it. There’s not necessarily a pace that you have to keep up with Instructional Gamify Strategies (RQ2) Pacing 18 increasing the speed of activities or excluding certain activities with the purpose of maintaining a lively pace. through this. I’d like to keep up, but there’s some flexibility.” Ethical Considerations When considering the ethical implications of this study, it is essential to address both confidentiality and informed consent. Because the study requested that employees report their perceptions and actions regarding a specific aspect of their employment, the study population is considered vulnerable. It is likely that the data collected could be biased if the teachers surveyed and interviewed believed their responses would be presented to either their school administration or district personnel. To protect the study participants, absolute confidentiality was ensured. Interview transcriptions and all other identifying information—including names, schools, and student names—were accessible only to the researchers. To further ensure participants' anonymity, teachers participating in the study were assigned pseudonyms, and all potentially identifying information obtained from the interviews was omitted from the published results. Additionally, informed consent was obtained prior to participants' interviews. Participants were emailed a document that clearly explained the study’s nature, purpose, and procedures before electing to participate. Before their participation in the interviews, they were required to sign this document to indicate informed consent and to provide written consent for direct quotations. Findings In this findings section, I share the results of my interviews with five Davis School District educators in relation to my research questions. The findings include the educators’ self- 19 reported perceptions of the curriculum and trends in student literacy, as well as their perceptions of the age-appropriateness, student engagement, and the cultural responsiveness of the curriculum. In addition, these findings report supplementary resources and instructional strategies that teachers included in their implementation of the district-created curriculum. Teacher Training and Prior Experience The teachers in this study had varied experiences and training prior to teaching the new secondary literacy curriculum. As noted in the demographics, three of the five teachers participated in creating the secondary literacy curriculum in the Davis School District. Teacher A focused on developing phonological awareness activities, Teacher B focused on creating the morphology portion of the program, and Teacher D focused on the development of reading comprehension activities for high school courses. All three of these teachers noted that they are still involved in district trainings that support educators in implementing both the district-created course and secondary literacy interventions in general. Teacher B noted that the trainings focus on “phonics routines and morphology routines” necessary for teaching the class. Each indicated that their participation in the curriculum’s development had helped them access additional resources and made them better prepared to teach the course, with Teacher A stating that “because I was part of the planning of it and the creation of it, I did a lot of self-teaching where I looked at it a lot…of the studies…”. She indicated that the studies she reviewed focused on recent research on teaching basic literacy and intervention methods. Teachers C and D stated that their university degrees in English provided some prior training on literacy instruction, if limited. Four of the five teachers interviewed reported either having completed or being in the process of completing LETRS training. According to the teachers, LETRS is an 8-unit, district-funded literacy training focused on studying the essentials 20 of teaching literacy skills to students, including strategies for teaching phonological awareness and morphology. Although elementary educators were the intended audience of the training, Teacher D noted that the training included helpful resources. She stated, “It felt a little more elementary, but if we don’t know the basics, how are we supposed to teach the next step, right?” In addition to curriculum development and LETRS training, teachers reported that the district provided a variety of additional supports. Teachers noted that the district occasionally holds training and professional development days focused on secondary literacy. Teacher E specified that they had only had two trainings the previous semester. Teacher A reported that the district has created a Canvas course and a Teams channel to share materials, and several other teachers also referenced this indirectly in their interviews. Teacher B indicated that she has completed “microcredential” courses provided by the state and the district to further her training. Lastly, Teachers A and B also felt better prepared for the course because they had taught the school district's previous curriculum—Read-180—before starting the new literacy curriculum. Class Selection The manner in which students were selected for enrollment in the intervention course varied among teachers. Teacher D noted that there is “not a district requirement” for class placement. While all teachers relied on the Capti assessment in some way to determine whether students should be admitted to or continue in the course, many also incorporated a variety of other tests, personnel, and data to make student enrollment decisions. Like many other teachers, Teacher A relied on the lowest reading scores represented in the Capti data to select students for the class, focusing solely on 10th-grade students. However, once selected, students were sorted into two sections, A and B. Students who were identified as below grade-level in phonemic awareness and word study were placed in Section A. Students with low reading comprehension 21 scores were placed in Section B. This model of sectioning was not present in any of the other schools of teachers interviewed. Like Teacher A’s class, Teacher B’s class focused on a single grade level. In this case, 7thgrade. For initial course selection, data on students' 6th-grade test scores were requested from their 6th-grade teachers. Teacher B noted that she makes a conscious effort to focus on students who are not enrolled in the Applied English course because it “follows the same curriculum as secondary literacy at a slower pace”. In addition, Teacher B was careful not to include students enrolled in ELD courses in the class. Students were assigned the class in place of an elective, and parents were required to meet with the principal to discuss their student’s reading level and “how essential reading skills are” before requesting that their student exit the course. Teacher C relies not only on Capti data, but also on observational data from the students’ general education English teachers. She stated that she speaks to the English teachers before class selection, asking, “if they’ve seen any gaps in these students.” Since Teacher C teaches sections including 7th-, 8th-, and 9th-grade students, she relies not only on the Capti but also on RISE (Utah’s end-of-level state test for language arts in 7th and 8th grades) scores from the previous year and/or Acadience (a reading assessment score that reflects the median of three tests focusing on students’ accuracy, fluency, and comprehension) data obtained from the elementary. Final decisions for course admission are made by Teacher C and the school administration. Similarly, Teacher D makes decisions with her administration. She requested that all data they gathered be analyzed by district personnel and “took the lowest 40 students that were not on an IEP”. Like Teacher A’s class, Teacher D’s class is currently only available to high school sophomores (10th-grade). 22 Similar to Teacher C, Teacher E relies on observational data from English teachers. In addition to using Capti scores, she has English teachers mark all students with low profiles on the Capti tests and circle students with whom they have concerns. She then works with her SPED team and ESL teacher to ensure students are not misassigned and are receiving sufficient and appropriate reading supports. After this meeting, class lists are taken to counselors, who “email and contact every parent to get permission for their students to be opted into the class, so everyone is invited personally”. Teacher E also noted that students are removed from class for behavior problems. RQ1: Teachers’ Perceptions of the Effectiveness of the Literacy Program RQ1 sought to determine how teachers perceived the school district's secondary literacy intervention program. Interview questions focused on obtaining a sense of the curriculum as a whole, the benefits and drawbacks of the curriculum in relation to student self-perception and cultural responsiveness, and whether teachers found the curriculum successful. Curriculum Overview All teachers described similar key aspects of the curriculum that led them to believe in its effectiveness. They reported that the curriculum is largely based on the skills identified in the Capti assessment. When detailing her involvement in the process of adopting a new curriculum after Read-180 (the previous district literacy intervention), Teacher A noted that “Read-180 was definitely not the answer anymore…what we found instead was a test and what we adopted was the test”. According to Teacher E, the adopted test—Capti—includes various “subtests” such as “decoding and phonics, morphemes, vocabulary, how fast and accurately they can read, their reading Lexile, reading comprehension, and sentence structure”. The district curriculum is 23 focused on the reading skills identified in these subtests. All teachers noted that the curriculum places strong emphasis on phonological awareness, morphology, and reading comprehension. Learning time is divided equally between word study and reading comprehension interventions. All teachers indicated that the first semester included dedicated class time focused on phonological awareness. Teacher B described the phonics portion of the curriculum as including “clapping syllables and figuring out syllable types all the way through vowel teams and diphthongs and schwas” as well as the highlighting and choral reading of “decodable texts,” which are simple texts that require students to focus on syllable types and dictation. At the semester switch, the focus shifted to studying morphology. This focus helps students gain a deeper understanding of roots, prefixes, and suffixes. The reading comprehension activities vary widely between teachers. However, it generally includes a text examined either as a whole-class activity or in pairs, comprehension questions and activities, and discussions to engage students’ background knowledge and create text-to-self connections. This portion of the curriculum saw the most frequent use of supplementary materials and will thus be addressed in a later section of the findings. Teachers’ Perceptions of Age-Appropriateness of the Curriculum Teachers reported concerns about the age appropriateness of the curriculum. Teacher A noted that decodable texts have received the most pushback from teachers in the district because “they think the decodable texts are awful because they’re grade schoolish”. She combats potential pushback by clearly communicating to students that the goal is not to comprehend the text but to practice various skills linked to phonics or morphology. These include activities purposed to “find vowel teams” or “BCE syllables” within the words. Once this is clear to students, she hasn’t noticed any issues and doesn’t “have a lot of trouble with engagement”. 24 Teacher A expanded on this observation, specifying that she didn’t feel communication was the sole motivator, but that teachers also needed to show enthusiasm for the task. She stated, “…I think we’re salespeople and performers. That’s a part of the job. We just have to make sure that what we’re performing and what we’re selling is legitimate”. Teacher B, who teaches 7th grade, held only positive views on the age-appropriateness of the curriculum. She feels “it is completely and entirely accepted and even enjoyed by them” and noted that “there is no pushback whatsoever, even because of the decodables”. Teacher E also reported that she “thinks it’s age appropriate” and didn’t note any pushback from students. Teacher C had the most concerns about the curriculum's age appropriateness and engagement. She noted that there is a “big gap” in resources available for and geared towards teenagers “not only in the curriculum, but worldwide…we need that filled”. She further reported that she felt that the videos used in the curriculum are “meant for preschoolers” and noted that students “would not buy into it”. This led to an increase in problem behaviors within her classroom. Despite acknowledging some similar difficulties presented by the activities in the curriculum, Teacher D has found benefits, stating, “…is it tricky to get a 15-year-old to figure out how many syllables are in a word? Maybe, but I think it’s worth it.” Impact on Students’ Motivation and Self-Esteem In addition to highlighting the lack of resources and activities appropriate for adolescents, teachers interviewed raised concerns about the impact of ongoing literacy interventions on student motivation and self-esteem. They presented this as a challenge to student learning as great as, if not greater than, an insufficient understanding of basic literacy skills. Teachers noted that students' negative self-perceptions, shaped by their ongoing struggles with literacy-related tasks and repetitive literacy interventions, were detrimental to their motivation and ability to 25 engage with the class and ultimately improve their literacy scores. Teacher A noted that “these kids have been failing in this [reading] for ten years…nobody likes to be in a situation where something’s super hard. They know they’re not as good as their peers for ten years”. Teachers A, C, and D speculated that anticipating failure lowers student motivation and makes them less likely to participate in learning activities (especially phonological awareness activities) in a meaningful way. Teacher C also voiced her concern about the way current literacy interventions are contributing to students’ negative self-perception, stating, “…I feel like the biggest problem is it’s impacting the kids’ mindsets where they’re like, well, you’re treating me like I’m in first grade, so I’m dumb. The reason I’m in this class is [I’m] dumb”. Cultural Responsiveness of the Curriculum To gain a more accurate view of teachers’ perceptions of the curriculum, teachers were asked whether they considered the district-created curriculum to be culturally responsive. Teacher E noted that the worksheets and activities that students participate in during the first portion of the class were not particularly culturally responsive; however, the reading comprehension portion, which relies on the SAVVAS textbook, is where student engagement with various cultures is more prominent in the curriculum. SAVVAS is a guaranteed viable curriculum that includes unit plans and texts for each term of the school year and is currently being piloted at several district schools, including those of four of the five teachers interviewed. Teacher E further reported that her students “love learning about other cultures.” Similarly, Teacher B noted that the portions on phonological awareness are not particularly culturally responsive, but that “there are more connections” in the morphology portion. She gave the example of teaching “manu-” from “manufacture” and tying it to “manos,” which means “hands” in Spanish. However, she feels the “bulk of cultural awareness and 26 mindset” comes from the reading comprehension portion of the curriculum and is “built into the curriculum”. She stated that the district’s “expectation is to have culturally representative texts,” and that SAVVAS provides helpful resources to meet this expectation. Teachers A, C, and D also reported using SAVVAS to bring in culturally responsive texts. Teacher C stated that she thinks “the district has tried to find really culturally responsive passages” and indicated that SAVVAS was a part of this effort. In addition, they reported bringing in other texts that represent various cultures, with Teacher A specifying that she makes a point to include authors such as Langston Hughes and Zora Neal Hurston, and Teacher C noting that she has included texts on current events around the world that are of interest to students and because of that has “been able to make [her] classroom more culturally responsive”. Curriculum Results Each teacher presented data that indicated the benefits of the curriculum for student reading levels. Teachers A, B, and C reported that a significant number of students exited the secondary literacy course after testing at or above grade-level on the Capti assessment at the conclusion of the previous semester. Teacher A had 12 students move from Section A to Section B. She noted that all students’ scores have improved, with the exception of one multilingual student. Teacher B had 9 students—a quarter of her class load—test out of the course at the semester. Teacher C reported that every single student had improved on their Capti scores, with “10-15 students [going] from a 3rd-grade level to on grade-level”. As a result, Teacher C reduced her class load from two sections of the secondary literacy intervention course to one. Teacher D reported that, last school year, only 5 students were not at reading level by the end of the year. Beyond quantitative data, teachers also noted qualitative data, including observations, parent reports, and student perceptions. Teacher E has observed that the course has increased 27 students’ confidence in reading. She stated, “I just cannot say enough how confident they are”. Teacher C noted a similar increase in student confidence and has been informed that it has translated into reading at home through parent emails and in-person conferences. She stated, “Even if they’re not the best reader, they’re getting better, which is awesome”. In addition, Teacher C has observed increased fluency in oral reading throughout the school year. Teacher B also observed that students’ enjoyment of the course related to their accomplishments, stating, “My students love the curriculum because it challenges them, but in a way that feels feasible…they feel like they get a victory every day.” Overall Perception of Curriculum Overall, educators reported having positive feelings about the curriculum. Teachers A and D both stated that they feel the curriculum is “needed” and “worth it” despite perceived difficulties. Teacher E added her approval, stating, “I like it. I like it a lot.” She further expanded on this, noting that her liking for it stems from the way it addressed the “huge drop in literacy” she has noticed among her students. In this regard, all teachers reported seeing growth in their students. Teacher B stated, “I think it is incredibly cool that our district has built something that doesn’t exist in order to meet the needs of our students and see that growth”. Teacher C was the only teacher to report hesitancy about the course, stating, “I guess my overall feelings are mixed,” and indicating that her concerns were primarily about age appropriateness and student self-perception. RQ2: Added Instructional Strategies and Resources As briefly noted in the responses to interview topics related to RQ1, teachers reported making several alterations and additions to the curriculum. Teachers’ responses to questions related to RQ2 further clarified the specific instructional strategies and resources they utilized. 28 While their reasons for making these changes or adding supplementary instructional strategies or resources varied, all teachers believed these modifications contributed to the curriculum's success. Self-Reported Adherence to the Curriculum All teachers in this study stated they adhered closely to the phonics and morphology portions of the curriculum. Teacher B reported that she does many aspects of the curriculum, including the decodables, “pretty religiously”. Likewise, Teacher E reported that she follows the district-created curriculum “very closely”. Teacher A mentioned a possible reason for this consistency, stating, “Direct instruction is scripted…so that the teacher who had never taught this before would know how.” However, none of the other educators interviewed mentioned the script or its use in their practice. In accordance with the district-created curriculum, all teachers reported that their students engage with reading comprehension activities throughout the entire school year. However, there was a great variety in how they taught the reading comprehension section of the curriculum. Teachers A, B, D, and E split each class period equally between phonological awareness or morphology (referred to as “word work”) and reading comprehension activities, spending approximately 40-45 minutes on each. Teacher C structured her curriculum differently, focusing on “word work” for the entire 80-minute class period on alternating Mondays and Tuesdays and on reading comprehension on Thursdays and Fridays. Both Teachers B and C had students go to the library on Wednesdays to work with the librarian to promote independent reading, a practice encouraged during the first year of the curriculum but no longer included in course training. All other teachers noted that they follow the same pattern of teaching—splitting class time between “word work” and reading comprehension—throughout the entire week. 29 Due to fewer district guidelines, there was more variation in how teachers approached the reading comprehension portion of the curriculum. Teacher A reported that she has created a workbook for her students to study. This workbook includes printed versions of the texts they use as well as “comprehension questions…like implicit and explicit questions throughout so they practice the skills they’re doing”. Teacher B was the only teacher to indicate direct district involvement in this portion of the curriculum, noting that teachers had received a “blueprint course” on Canvas to help teachers “pick out helpful texts for secondary literacy and…how to teach background knowledge”. She reported spending the reading comprehension portion of her lessons focused on skills “like summarizing, reviewing text structures…and then making connections to your own life”. Teacher C reported that, similarly to Teachers A and B, she focuses on “specific articles and passages” in order to “practice reading comprehension”. She also indicated that she has tried to “tie it back to the phonics and the morphemes…but that’s not necessarily a part of the curriculum”. Teacher E stated that she uses texts from the SAVVAS textbook—a part of the newly adopted district curriculum for general education ELA courses—to study “reading comprehension skills and other reading strategies,” which will be discussed in greater depth in a following section. Teacher D gave the most detailed description of her reading comprehension activities. She noted that she begins by building background knowledge and then “work[s] on identifying what the text structure is”. She then focuses on “Tier 2 vocabulary,” selecting 3-4 words per text to study with her students. She spends additional time studying sentence structure, “breaking apart a sentence of what’s the who, what’s the action… they’re diagramming it”. Teacher D also noted the importance of “multiple reads” and her preference for partner reading over independent 30 reading. Finally, she stated that she conducts formative assessments on reading comprehension related to the class texts, saying, “there’s some kind of…questions that are attached… as their reading, and they have to stop and do a graphic organizer.” Though teachers A, B, D, and E all self-reported that they followed the curriculum with fidelity, their responses to other interview questions indicate that each has made changes to the district curriculum. Teacher C proved to be an outlier, reporting that, despite knowing she “should follow [the curriculum] with full fidelity,” she tends to “stray a lot”. She indicated that she makes changes to make it more engaging and age-appropriate. Reported Changes to the Curriculum Teachers made changes to the curriculum for three main reasons: pacing, student engagement, and the need for additional texts. Teacher A stated that the only changes she makes to the curriculum are in relation to pacing. She sees one of the benefits of the curriculum being that she “can slow down and…stop and take more time with it…there’s some flexibility”. She also reported that, despite knowing the district wanted her to start morphology at the beginning of the semester, she had not yet done so because her students needed to continue with phonological awareness. Teacher B also adjusts the pacing, adding practices when her students need them and using bell ringers for reteaching. She also noted that she often removes portions of the curriculum that feel “less essential”. To clarify her decision-making process, she gave the example of choosing to spend additional time turning nouns into verbs rather than focusing on the curriculum’s spelling corrections. Similarly, Teacher E makes pacing changes, though her strategy is often to speed up the curriculum rather than slow it down in order to keep students engaged. 31 Teachers not only altered the curriculum's pacing but also added elements to promote student engagement. Teachers A, B, C, and E all reported “gamifying” the curriculum and adding brain breaks. Teacher C even has her students help plan games to review phonics and morphemes, reporting that she’s noticed that when she chooses to “gamify it and have them impact their [own] learning, it has improved their scores dramatically”. Teacher B noted how much her students loved using technology in class, with a special focus on Blookets (an online platform that turns review questions into computer games) and the critical role of movement in keeping them engaged. She stated, “Everything’s high energy and engaging. There’s a lot of movement.” Teacher D noted that she often has students work in pairs and adds background information to her reading comprehension section, which she feels increases student investment. Teachers C and D also suggested that sharing testing data with students was another way to build student engagement while simultaneously helping to combat students' negative selfperceptions. Teacher C has a class poster that students can sign when they’ve improved their test scores, even if they are still below proficiency, to celebrate progress. She’s found that “they love seeing that they’ve improved”. Teacher D indicated that she has “100%” found that sharing Capti scores with students has led to more buy-in and helps to push them away from “learned helplessness”. Finally, all teachers noted that they have been using the SAVVAS curriculum adopted by Davis School District to find texts for their students. While the use of texts from this curriculum is not explicitly mandated in the district’s secondary literacy guidelines, it is encouraged. As previously noted, all teachers indicated that the texts they selected for the reading comprehension portion of the curriculum are where most cultural responsiveness is found in the curriculum. Teacher B also reported that she uses Common Lit (a free online source dedicated to providing 32 texts organized by Lexile) to find additional texts, and Teachers C and E reported that they select articles and stories based on student interest. Across participants, the addition of resources was seen as essential for both creating student connections to the curriculum—thus furthering engagement—and increasing the overall cultural responsiveness. Discussion The findings of this study address the two research questions, and both validate and provide further insight into the conclusions of recent literature. In response to RQ1, which sought to identify teachers’ perceptions of the curriculum, teachers reported that the curriculum was effective overall but noted several aspects that require further attention. In response to RQ2, which sought to determine what additional instructional strategies teachers are utilizing to engage students in an age-appropriate manner, the findings indicate that teachers have indeed used instructional strategies and resources beyond the district-created curriculum, including changes to pacing, the addition of engagement strategies, the selection of additional texts, and restructuring the reading comprehension portion of the curriculum. Effectiveness of the Curriculum (RQ1) As indicated in recent studies, there is a concerning trend of secondary students testing below proficiency on literacy assessments (Hurwitz & Macaruso, 2021; Merga, 2020). My interviews with practicing educators showed that, based on Capti scores and observational data, the same concerns were present in Davis School District. Teacher E echoed the conclusions of current research (Hurwitz & Macaruso, 2021; Merga, 2020), noting that she has seen not only a “huge drop in literacy” but also in attention and critical thinking over the course of her 10-year teaching career. 33 Encouragingly, all teachers reported that the curriculum was effective in developing students’ basic literacy skills, with an emphasis on phonological awareness, morphology, and reading comprehension. These findings directly address RQ1, indicating that teachers perceive the curriculum as beneficial for building students’ literacy. They indicated that this curriculum was beneficial in the efforts to improve rates of student literacy within the school district. The consistent perception of effectiveness among educators contrasts with findings from similar studies, in which educators have reported feeling uncertain about how to teach literacy and their own ability to do so effectively (Savitz et al., 2023; Smith & Robinson, 2020). The teachers’ perceptions of the effectiveness of Davis School District’s curriculum were further supported by the quantitative and qualitative data they cited, which demonstrate impressive student success in the course. However, low literacy levels were not the only concerning trend that teachers highlighted in their interviews. The teachers interviewed also raised concerns about the impact of ongoing literacy intervention on student motivation and self-esteem. Similar to recent studies, they presented this as a challenge to student learning as great as, if not greater than, an insufficient understanding of basic literacy skills (Marchand-Martella et al., 2013; Merga, 2020). Research suggests that student motivation can be a barrier to literacy intervention (Merga, 2020). As previously noted, four of the five teachers interviewed reported entirely positive perceptions of the curriculum, while one reported having mixed feelings. Interestingly, these four teachers were also less likely to note difficulties with getting students to engage in the curriculum once they had clearly described the purpose of the activities. None of these teachers indicated that there was any social stigma for students associated with being in the class. 34 In contrast, Teacher C raised the most concerns about the district-created secondary literacy curriculum and reported the greatest difficulty in securing student buy-in. While causation cannot be confirmed, it can be inferred that the teachers’ perceptions of the curriculum directly impact students’ perceptions and motivation. This finding is supported by current research, which indicates that student and teacher perceptions of literacy interventions need to be aligned for the most success (Marchand-Martella et al., 2013). Gaps in the Curriculum (RQ1) Although teachers reported perceiving the curriculum as effective, they also identified gaps that could limit its impact. These gaps include the lack of age-appropriate and engaging resources and strategies, which will be addressed in detail in subsequent sections. Outside of these two findings, one of the most glaring gaps identified by teachers concerns the curriculum's cultural responsiveness. Research suggests that students need to see themselves in the texts they study to connect with the material and advance their literacy skills (Frankel, 2016). With this finding in mind, I created an interview question to ask directly whether the teachers found the curriculum to be culturally responsive. Teachers reported that all aspects of the curriculum that involved learning about a variety of cultures or having students reflect on or share their own culture were curated by individual teachers rather than the district. They had to seek out their own texts, connections, and prompts to foster an environment of cultural responsiveness. The “word work” portion of the curriculum, carefully designed and even scripted by the district, provides little opportunity for cultural awareness and exploration. Further investigation is required to identify opportunities to increase cultural responsiveness in this portion of the curriculum. However, teachers offered suggestions, including changing the nature of decodable texts and incorporating the study of cognates into morphology. Teachers were able to incorporate 35 many cultures into the texts they brought in from both SAVVAS and outside sources. While the district does encourage this inclusion, more district support could make it more accessible for teachers and ensure that a culturally responsive curriculum is available to all students within the district. As noted in Frankel’s (2016) study, the connection between identity and culture is essential to student learning and could further enhance the effectiveness of the curriculum. These findings address RQ1 by identifying structural gaps in the curriculum that affect educators’ ability to implement engaging, culturally responsive instructional strategies effectively. In addition, these gaps relate to RQ2 by highlighting the need for targeted instructional strategies, resources, and professional development. Instructional Strategies for Age-Appropriateness (RQ2) Another gap that teachers sought to address was making the curriculum age-appropriate for students. As stated in the findings, the majority of teachers reported that the curriculum was age-appropriate. However, all five teachers also reported making changes to the curriculum to make it more appealing to their adolescent audience, thereby directly addressing RQ2. This may indicate that their perception and practice do not fully align, and that adjustments are needed to tailor the course to teenagers' needs. One of the main concerns highlighted in current research is the need for more individualized, engaging literacy interventions at the secondary level, and teachers’ adjustments seemed to address this need (Jones et al., 2016; Lupo et al., 2023). Teachers reported changing the resources they used to meet student needs with a special focus on age and maturity level. They also noted that they removed activities they felt were too juvenile for their students, including some games in the district’s portion of the phonological awareness curriculum. 36 One of the biggest difficulties noted by teachers was engaging students in repetitive, whole-class phonics and morphology study, which is often present in similar programs (Hendrix & Griffin, 2017; Jones et al., 2016). Often, this type of activity can seem juvenile and even demeaning to students, reinforcing the negative self-perception that many hold after struggling with reading throughout their education. Some teachers addressed this difficulty by building strong relationships with students or by clearly communicating the purpose of activities in ways that met the needs of secondary students. However, this was not the case for all teachers, suggesting that additional professional development could guide teachers toward positive relationships with these students and provide scaffolding for respectful, informative conversations about literacy interventions. Instructional Strategies for Engagement (RQ2) In addition to making changes to adjust the age appropriateness of the curriculum for adolescent learners, teachers reported adding a variety of instructional strategies and resources intended to increase student engagement. This addition further addressed RQ2. Teachers chose strategies that align with research, including selecting engaging texts, intentionally creating opportunities for both whole-class and partner discussions, and encouraging text-to-self connections (Frankel, 2016; Heydon et al., 2009; Marchand-Martella et al., 2013). Teachers also reported adjusting the curriculum's pacing, with some slowing down to meet student needs and sustain interest, and others increasing the pace for the same purpose. Alongside pacing adjustments, they noted the importance of “gamifying” curriculum and provided examples of utilizing technology, competition, or even student-generated ideas to increase student engagement. The consistency of the use of this instructional strategy across teachers and their reports of its success underscores its significance and indicates a need for 37 further research. Ultimately, these approaches not only increase student buy-in but could also contribute to the success of the intervention program as a whole. As a result, these should be included in future secondary literacy interventions. Professional Development in Relation to Secondary Literacy (RQ2) A complementary factor in supporting student engagement is teacher preparation and access to effective professional development opportunities. To successfully support secondary students in basic literacy learning, research has found a nationwide need for more effective, consistent professional development (Savitz et al., 2023; Smith & Robinson, 2020). One finding of this study was that teachers were not only supplementing student-directed curriculum but also engaging in their own learning of secondary literacy interventions. All teachers noted that they spent time seeking out their own resources to provide to students, especially in the reading comprehension portion of the curriculum, which is structured more loosely. Many noted that they are, in some manner, self-taught in literacy intervention. This indicates a need for additional district guidance and support for teachers. As previously mentioned, the consistent perception of effectiveness among educators in this study contrasts with findings from similar studies, in which educators have reported feeling uncertain about how to teach literacy and their own ability to do so effectively (Savitz et al., 2023; Smith & Robinson, 2020). It is possible that this consistency is linked to the variety of trainings—though many self-directed or independently chosen—that teachers had participated in prior to teaching the course. In addition, there has been a recognized need for resources and professional development focused solely on secondary literacy interventions rather than on elementary interventions (Reynolds, 2021a). The primary training for most of the teachers interviewed was LETRS, which 38 focuses almost exclusively on elementary literacy interventions. As a result, most techniques and resources provided to teachers as part of this certification are elementary-focused. Providing access to secondary-focused resources could help bridge some of the aforementioned gaps, especially regarding age-appropriateness and engagement. Limitations This study has several limitations in relation to participant selection, potential bias, and contextual factors. First, the participants were recruited from contacts provided by the school district’s ELA Teaching and Learning Supervisor. It is likely that, due to her involvement in the curriculum's development, she recommended teachers she anticipated were following the district-created curriculum with the greatest fidelity and had achieved the most overall success. As a result, the collected data may overrepresent favorable views of the curriculum. This limitation is also reflected in the sample's demographics. As previously noted, three of the five educators interviewed had been involved in creating the curriculum. They continue to facilitate training for secondary literacy teachers. All three expressed that their participation in both curriculum development and professional training could create bias, as they were more likely to have positive attitudes toward the curriculum and to follow it more closely. Teacher A even noted that this bias was affecting her perspective on potential curriculum changes, stating, “I’m a little bit hesitant, but it’s just because this is what I’m used to and it’s my baby.” Additionally, all teachers, except one, were located within a small geographic area of Davis School District. This could have affected the student demographics represented in this study, as there are clear differences across the Davis School District's student populations based on location. Future research should be conducted across a wider geographical area to better determine the impact of these literacy interventions in different contexts. 39 Finally, I am employed in the Davis School District and work at the same school as one of the teachers interviewed. As a colleague of the participants, this familiarity could have influenced participants' responses to interview questions. In particular, it could have impacted their reports on how closely they implemented the district’s curriculum and their expression of overall student success rates in the course. Recommendations Based on the findings of this study, Davis School District should prioritize developing consistent, evidence-based professional development for secondary literacy teachers. The addition of literacy training would help standardize the reading comprehension portion of the curriculum, which currently varies widely across teachers, leading to more consistent instructional practices and course outcomes. Additionally, implementing more structured training could also help build teachers' self-efficacy and communicate clear expectations for the districtcreated curriculum. In addition to developing further professional development, the district should collaborate with teachers to create a shared bank of evidence-based resources and activities that will appeal to adolescent learners and support their efforts to improve their literacy skills. As demonstrated in the literature review, findings, and discussion, the need for age-appropriate activities and resources has never been greater. The district has already laid the groundwork for this resource sharing with the Canvas course and Teams channel created to facilitate it. However, few teachers take full advantage of this opportunity, and many are likely hesitant to include their resources on the channel, especially if they feel that they are straying from the district-created curriculum. Providing teachers more license and encouragement to share these resources would not only further improve teacher success but also support teachers in their efforts to provide 40 appropriate, useful literacy interventions for their students. Many teachers have found researchbased intervention activities and resources to use in their classroom or have created their own and tested them within the classroom. The district would benefit from making these resources more widely available to all teachers through their Canvas course or other means. To support this effort, the district should allocate more time and funding to identifying efficient, evidence-based resources and integrating them into either in-person training or Canvasbased training. Together, these changes would increase the effectiveness of the secondary literacy intervention program throughout the school district. Conclusion Reaching proficiency in literacy skills is essential for student success in school and beyond, yet the lack of basic literacy skills is a growing concern for secondary students. As a result, programs of this nature are becoming increasingly necessary for secondary schools. The purpose of this study was to examine current teachers’ perceptions of Davis School District’s Secondary Literacy program and to determine which additional resources and strategies they were implementing in the curriculum. Based on the qualitative data gathered, the majority of teachers found the program effective and believe its continuation is vital to student success. In light of these findings, Davis School District’s secondary literacy should not only continue within the district with the recommended changes but also serve as a model to be shared and potentially adopted by other school districts. This targeted literacy intervention is imperative for struggling students and has strong potential to positively influence trends in secondary literacy. 41 References Basma, B. & Savage, R. (2023). Teacher professional development and student reading in middle and high school: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Teacher Education, 74(3), 214-228. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224871231153084 Boruah, B., Phogat, P., & Singh, A. (2024). A mixed methods exploration of teacher involvement and its effects on adolescent behavioral and emotional problems. Discover Psychology, 4(115), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44202-024-00231-5 Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Capti. (2026). Benchmark literacy testing to track progress. https://www.capti.com/captisite/public/entry/benchmark_testing Cantrell, S. C., & Callaway, P. (2008). High and low implementers of content literacy instruction: Portraits of teacher efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(7), 17391750. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.02.020 Cantrell, S. C., David Burns, L., & Callaway, P. (2008). Middle- and high-school content area teachers’ perceptions about literacy teaching and learning. Literacy Research and Instruction, 48(1), 76–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388070802434899 Dennis, D. V. (2009). “I’m Not Stupid”: How assessment drives (in)appropriate reading instruction. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 53(4), 283–290. https://doi.org/10.1598/jaal.53.4.2 Draper, R. J. (2002). School mathematics reform, constructivism, and literacy: A case for literacy instruction in the reform-oriented math classroom. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 45(6), 520-529. 42 Fang, Z. (2014). Preparing content area teachers for disciplinary literacy instruction: The role of literacy teacher educators. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 57(6), 444-448. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.269 Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2014). Close reading as an intervention for struggling middle school readers. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 57(5), 367–376. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.266 Frankel, K. K. (2016). The intersection of reading and identity in high school literacy intervention classes. Research in the Teaching of English, 51(1), 37–59. https://doi.org/10.58680/rte201628684 Goldman, S. R., Snow, C., & Vaughn, S. (2016). Common themes in teaching reading for understanding: Lessons from three projects. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 60(3), 255–264. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.586 Graham, S., Liu, X., Aitken, A., Ng, C., Bartlett, B., Harris, K. R., & Holzapfel, J. (2018). Effectiveness of literacy programs balancing reading and writing instruction: A metaanalysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 53(3), 279–304. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.194 Harmon, J. M., Hendrick, W. B., Wood, K. D., & Vintinner, J. (2011). An investigation of current secondary reading programs. Literacy Research and Instruction, 50(2), 105-119. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388071003611152 Hendrix, R. A., & Griffin, R. A. (2017). Developing enhanced morphological awareness in adolescent learners. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 61(1), 55–63. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.642 43 Heydon, R., Hibbert, K., & Iannacci, L. (2005). Strategies to support balanced literacy approaches in pre- and inservice teacher education. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 48(4). 312-319. https://doi.org/10.1598/jaal.48.4.4 Hurwitz, L.B. & Macaruso, P. (2021). Supporting struggling middle school readers: Impact of the LexiaPowerUP Literacy program. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 77, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2021.101329 Jones, J. S., Conradi, K., & Amendum, S. J. (2016). Matching interventions to reading needs: A case for differentiation. The Reading Teacher, 70(3), 307–316. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1513 Joseph, L. M. & Schisler, R. (2008). Should adolescents go back to the basics?: A review of teaching word reading skills to middle and high school students. Remedial and Special Education, 30(3), 131-147. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932508315646 Kavanagh, S. S., & Rainey, E. C. (2017). Learning to support adolescent literacy: Teacher educator pedagogy and novice teacher take up in secondary English Language Arts teacher preparation. American Educational Research Journal, 54(5), 904–937. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831217710423 Kim, J. S., Hemphill, L., Troyer, M., Thomson, J. M., Jones, S. M., LaRusso, M. D., & Donovan, S. (2017). Engaging struggling adolescent readers to improve reading skills. Reading Research Quarterly, 52(3), 357–382. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.171 Lai, M. K., Wilson, A., McNaughton, S., & Hsiao, S. (2014). Improving achievement in secondary schools: Impact of a literacy project on reading comprehension and secondary school qualifications. Reading Research Quarterly, 49(3), 305-344. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.73 44 Lupo, S. M., Frankel, K. K., Lewis, M. A., & Wilson, A. M. (2023). Literacy intervention in secondary schools: Exploring educators’ beliefs and practices about supporting adolescents’ literacy learning. Journal of Teacher Education, 75(1), 13-28. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224871231156371 Marchand-Martella, N. E., Martella, R. C., Modderman, S. L., Petersen, H. M., & Pan, S. (2013). Key areas of effective adolescent literacy programs. Education and Treatment of Children, 36(1), 161–184. https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.2013.0005 Merga, M.K. (2020). "Fallen through the cracks": Teachers' perceptions of barriers faced by struggling literacy learners in secondary school. English in Education, 54(4), 371-395. https://doi.org/10.1080/04250494.2019.1672502 Misulis, K.E. (2009). Promoting learning through content literacy instruction. American Secondary Education, 32(3), 10-19. Murillo, L. A., & Schall, J. M. (2016). “They didn’t teach us well”: Mexican-origin students speak out about their readiness for college literacy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 60(3), 315–323. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.581 Reynolds, D. (2021a). Of research reviews and practice guides: Translating rapidly growing research on adolescent literacy into updated practice recommendations. Reading Research Quarterly, 56(3), 401–414.https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.314 Reynolds, D. (2021b). Updating practice recommendations: Taking stock of 12 years of adolescent literacy research. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 65(1), 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.1176 Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). Sage. 45 Savitz, R.S., Morrison, J.D., Brown, C., Aldrich, C., Kane, B.D., & O'Byrne, W.I. (2023). Secondary teachers' adolescent literacy efficacy and professional learning considerations. Reading Research Quarterly, 59(1), 102-123. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.521 Slavin, R. E., Cheung, A., Groff, C., & Lake, C. (2008). Effective reading programs for middle and high schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(3), 290– 322. https://doi.org/10.1598/rrq.43.3.4 Smith, O. L., & Robinson, R. (2020). Teacher perceptions and implementation of content-area literacy professional development program. Journal of Educational Research & Practice, 10(1), 55-69. https://doi.org/10.5590/jerap.2020.10.1.04 Wendt, J. L. (2013). Combating the crisis in adolescent literacy: Exploring literacy in the secondary classroom. American Secondary Education, 41(2), 38-48. Wolsey, T. D., & Lapp, D. (2017). Literacy in the Disciplines: A teacher’s guide for grades 5-12 (1st ed.). The Guilford Press. Utah Board of Education. (2023). RISE/Aspire Proficiency Levels 2023 [Unpublished raw data]. 46 Appendix A: Interview Questions: Demographic Questions: 1. What school do you currently teach at? 2. How many years have you taught? How many years have you taught in Davis School District? 3. How long have you taught the Secondary Literacy course? 4. What training have you received—both directly related to the program and to literacy in general—to prepare for teaching the Secondary Literacy course? Current Implementation of District Curriculum: 1. Can you describe the curriculum and how students are selected for placement in the class? 2. How closely do you follow the current district curriculum? 3. What changes do you make to the curriculum and why? 4. Can you describe the pacing of a typical lesson? How long does the lesson typically take? Perceptions of District Curriculum: 1. What impact has the curriculum had on students’ literacy performance or scores? What assessments or evidence do you have that the curriculum has had positive results on students’ literacy scores? 2. Is the curriculum engaging for your students? Is it appropriate for the age (teenagers)? Why or why not? Can you provide an example? 3. Is the curriculum culturally responsive? Can you elaborate on why you believe it is or not culturally responsive? 4. Overall, what do you, as an educator, think about the curriculum? 47 Instructional Strategies Used Beyond Curriculum: 1. Have you incorporated additional texts within your teaching? If so, what type of texts have you added to your curriculum? 2. What are some strategies that you use beyond the curriculum to promote student engagement? 3. Do you adapt the curriculum at all during your teaching? If so, how? If no, why not?