JOURNAL OF LITERACY RESEARCH, 38(4), 389–425
Copyright © 2006, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Beginning Reading Materials: A
National Survey of Primary Teachers’
Reported Uses and Beliefs
Heidi Anne E. Mesmer
School of Teaching and Curriculum Leadership
Oklahoma State University
This study examined the opinions of more than 300 primary teachers. The first purpose of the study was to investigate the reported frequency with which teachers used
various beginning reading materials (e.g., literature, basals, workbooks, predictable
text, leveled text, decodable text, and vocabulary-controlled text). The second purpose of the study was to inspect how instructional purposes, state text policies, programs, grade levels, and freedom of choice influenced reported uses. The results suggested that teachers of beginning readers use many different types of materials and
are guided primarily by instructional purposes rather than programs or grade levels.
Teachers reported using decodable text and literature for very particular instructional
purposes but reportedly used other materials less specifically. Respondents in states
with strong text mandates, like Texas and California, did differ from respondents in
other states. In sum, the results suggested that teachers believed that different materials can serve different purposes with different readers.
In the late 1990s, both Texas and California made considerable changes in their requirements for beginning reading materials by requiring texts to be decodable
(California English/Language Arts Committee, 1999; Texas Education Agency,
1997). These changes reversed earlier policies that emphasized literary merit in beginning reading materials and condemned contrived materials (California English/
Language Arts Committee, 1987; Texas Education Agency, 1990). The reversal of
policies sparked a major shift in the reading textbook market, which affected thousands of children across the country (Hiebert, Menon, & Martin, 2005; Hoffman,
Correspondence should be addressed to Heidi Anne E. Mesmer, School of Teaching and Curriculum Leadership, College of Education, Oklahoma State University, 249 Willard Hall, Stillwater, OK
74074. E-mail: heidi.mesmer@okstate.edu or haemesmer@hotmail.com
390
MESMER
Sailors, & Patterson, 2003). The changes ignited debates about the format of beginning reading materials, but rarely were these debates informed by research (see
Allington & Woodside-Jiron, 1998; Beck, 1997; Daniels, Zemelman, & Bizar,
1999; Fletcher, Francis, & Foorman, 1997; Kame’enui & Simmons, 1997;
Routman, 1997).
Recently, several researchers have conducted studies focusing on beginning
reading materials (Compton, Appleton, & Hosp, 2004; Hoffman, Roser, Salas,
Patterson, & Pennington, 2001; Jenkins, Peyton, Sanders, & Vadasy, 2004; Menon
& Hiebert, 2005; Mesmer, 2001b, 2005; Vadasy, Sanders & Peyton, 2005). By directly measuring the impact of text variables on readers, these researchers are contributing to our understanding of how to appropriately use beginning reading materials. At this time, however, little research describes how teachers—the first-line
consumers of materials—view and reportedly use the texts. Researchers have not
captured how the Year 2000 basal revisions have influenced teachers’ views and
have not examined how state policies might be influencing text choices.
Specifically, three gaps in knowledge exist. First, the field does not have basic
information about how teachers navigate the many materials available to them. Recent offerings include student anthologies, phonics readers, literature, and leveled
text, but few resources give direction about when and how to use these materials
(Foorman, Francis, Davidson, Harm, & Griffin, 2004; Hiebert et al., 2005; Hoffman et al., 2003; Stein, Johnson, & Gutlohn, 1999). Second, scant research examines the factors that influence teachers’ reported uses of texts. For example, beliefs
about literacy instruction might affect whether teachers use certain types of materials and state of residence might influence uses of materials. Third, the most recent
national survey of teachers did not address how perceptions have changed since the
Year 2000 basal revisions (Baumann, Hoffman, Duffy-Hester, & Ro, 2000). The
Baumann et al. (2000) survey examined elementary teachers’ practices, training,
beliefs, classrooms, and choices of materials. In this study, I extend this work by
focusing more narrowly on beginning reading materials and by sampling teachers
of K–3 students, specifically. My goal is to bring the voices of teachers to a heavily
debated segment of the textbook market.
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE: POSITING INFLUENCES
ON TEXT CHOICES AND DEFINING BEGINNING
READING MATERIALS
Methodologists agree that specific theorizing rather than ex post facto speculation
should guide surveys (de Vaus, 2002; Dillman, 2002). The goals of this study were
to understand how frequently teachers reported using specific text types and to examine the extent to which six influences were associated with reported use: teachers’ instructional purposes, freedom of choice, beliefs, grade level and teaching
BEGINNING READING MATERIALS
391
role, uses of specific approaches, and residence in states with strong text mandates.
I predicted that these would relate to the frequency with which teachers used predictable text, decodable text, leveled text, literature, vocabulary-controlled text,
and basals. The review of literature explains why each influence was included and
then briefly describes the text types.
Influences on Text Uses
Instructional purposes. According to the International Reading Association (IRA, 2000), teachers should consider their instructional purposes when
choosing materials. In fact, several pieces have suggested that teachers do use different types of texts based on unique instructional purposes (Brown, 1999; Cole,
1998; Hicks & Villaume, 2000; Mesmer, 1999). To examine this central issue, the
survey included questions about which texts would be most appropriate for the following five instructional purposes and two learner types: concepts of print, decoding, sight words, comprehension, fluency, struggling readers, and English language learners (ELLs). Based on their construction and foci, particular reading
materials appear to map onto different instructional purposes. Decodable texts, for
instance, scaffold word recognition by coordinating letters and sounds with taught
information and encouraging decoding (Juel & Roper-Schneider, 1985). Predictable texts scaffold word recognition through patterned, repetitive language encouraging reliance on rhyming and repetition. Big books support learning concepts of
print and first words (Cunningham & Allington, 1991; Heald-Taylor, 1987; Holdaway, 1979; Strickland & Morrow, 1990).
Freedom of choice. Of course, beliefs about texts and their instructional
uses are pointless without the freedom to exercise professional judgment. For this
reason, I postulated that freedom of choice would relate to text use. Presently, low
freedom of choice might connect with increased use of decodable text, which several states have required in beginning reading materials. In the past, a line of survey
research investigated the role of basals in “deskilling” teachers (Barksdale-Ladd &
Thomas, 1993; Baumann, 1993; Shannon, 1983, 1987; Shannon & Goodman,
1994). Baumann et al.’s (2000) study indicated deskilling was not prevalent and
that 83% of K–5 teachers actually supplemented basals with trade books. Other evidence supported and refuted the deskilling hypothesis (Baumann & Heubach,
1996; Shannon, 1987). This study revisited the Baumann et al. (2000) item on
choice to examine how freedom of choice has (or has not) shifted in a new era of
text policies.
Beliefs about reading, phonics, and texts. A line of research in the 1970s
and 1980s investigated the relation between teacher beliefs and practices. Generally, research linked practices and beliefs (Barr & Duffy, 1978; Gove, 1983;
392
MESMER
Harste & Burke, 1977). Researchers in 1991 actually predicted practices in reading comprehension instruction based on a beliefs interview conducted with 39
teachers (Richardson, Anders, & Tidwell, 1991). Although the relationship was
not perfect, the Richardson et al. (1991) study established a strong connection between practices and beliefs.
The goal of this study was to understand how broad beliefs about reading, phonics instruction, and texts interacted with reported use. In an item from the
Baumann et al. (2000) survey, respondents selected from nine descriptors representing overarching beliefs, perspectives, and philosophies of literacy instruction.
I hypothesized that these stances would differentiate respondents’ reported uses of
text. The survey also addressed beliefs about phonics instruction and included the
following phonics instruction choices: synthetic, analytic, word families, as
needed, in the context of literature, and in the context of spelling (Baumann et al.,
2000). Respondents reporting an incidental approach to phonics instruction might
report using different texts than respondents reporting a synthetic approach.
Lastly, the survey addressed beliefs about features of texts, essential text types, and
opinions about decodable text.
Grade level and teaching roles. Clearly, respondents working with children at different developmental levels should report different uses of texts. In this
study, I used grade levels (K–3) as proxies for developmental levels. Although not
perfect estimates for developmental stages, grade levels are widely used in the
United States and well understood by teachers. The New Standards (National Center on Education and the Economy [NCEE], 1998) and grade-level accomplishments (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998) provided insight about key instructional foci
at different grades. Kindergarten instruction tends to focus on learning upper- and
lowercase letters, acquiring concepts of print, gaining phonological and phonemic
awareness, and acquiring the alphabetic principle. In this country, first-grade instruction centers on formal reading instruction. According to Snow et al. (1998),
first-grade children learn to recognize 300 to 500 words, including those that may
be decoded easily and common high-frequency words. To apply letter–sound information, they also acquire phonemic segmentation and blending skills and use
this knowledge to spell and decode mostly words with short vowel patterns. First
graders also can comprehend and write various text genres.
The distinction between second and third grade is less pronounced. Typically,
second and third graders work on becoming more fluent in their reading and acquiring automaticity. Second and third graders can handle extended print and begin reading books with chapters. In second grade, more complex vowel patterns
are typically acquired (e.g. diphthongs, long vowel patterns). Third graders start to
learn about how multisyllable words are decoded. The different developmental
foci in kindergarten, first grade, and second and third grades may distinguish the
ways that respondents use materials.
BEGINNING READING MATERIALS
393
Approaches. In thinking about beginning reading materials, I recognized
the impact that specific approaches might have on text choices. I used the broad
term approaches to refer to any method, school reform model, or packaged program that might influence text usage. The survey listed eight approaches: Guided
Reading, Success for All, Core Knowledge, Direct Instruction, Onward to Excellence, Reading Recovery, 4 Blocks/6 Blocks, and America’s Choice. Two of the
approaches, Guided Reading (Fountas & Pinnell, 1996) and Reading Recovery
(Clay, 1985) emphasized leveled text. Fountas and Pinnell essentially took the
principles of leveling used in Reading Recovery and extended them for use
throughout the elementary grades. Thus, both Reading Recovery and Guided
Reading are often associated with leveled text. A similar program, 4 Blocks is a literacy model based on guided reading, self-selected reading, writing workshop,
and working with words. The reading elements of 4 Blocks resemble guided reading and emphasize the use of leveled text and literature (Cunningham, Hall, &
Defee, 1991). Success for All, a school reform model, uses decodable texts, some
in first grade (Foorman et al., 2004; Slavin, Madden, Dolan, & Wasik, 1996). Direct Instruction, a synthetic reading program created for special education, also relies on decodable text (Carnine, Silbert, Kame’enui, & Traver, 2004). Core Knowledge is a curriculum that focuses on classical literature (Hirsch, 1999). Onward to
Excellence is a school reform model supported by the Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory (NREL) with a focus on improving student achievement (NREL,
2005). America’s Choice is a standards-based program focused on redesigning
school curricula around achievement (NCEE, 2005). Because these approaches
each have different theoretical and philosophical underpinnings, they may relate to
different approaches to text.
Text mandates. Finally, I could not ignore the recent textbook policies in
Texas and California and their influence on current beginning reading materials. In
1997, Texas required bidding textbook companies to include “engaging and coherent texts in which most of the words are comprised of an accumulating sequence of
letter-sound correspondences being taught” (Texas Education Agency, 1997, p. 4).
In 1999, the Texas State Board of Education further specified that “first grade reading book selections designated by the publisher as decodable text … must meet a
minimum average of 80% decodability” (Texas Agency of Education, 1999, p. 1).
In 1996 California included decodable text language in its Guide to the California Reading Initiative of 1996 and, like Texas, adopted specific decodability
guidelines in 1999. The California policy read, “Those materials designated by the
publisher as decodable must have at least 75% of the words comprised solely of
previously taught sound-spelling correspondences” (California Department of Education, 1999, p. 4). Current analyses show that the large textbook publishers designed their materials to meet the Texas and California decodability standards and
then marketed these materials across the country (Hiebert et al., 2005; Hoffman et
394
MESMER
al., 2001; Hoffman et al., 1993; Texas Education Agency, 1990). Because Texas
and California were the earliest states to institute decodable text policies, I investigated the role of residency in these states as a possible influence on uses of beginning reading materials.
Defining Text Types
Distinguishing between different types of beginning reading materials was important to the study. In reality, texts do not fall into categories that are mutually exclusive because children’s books are complex and can contain several textual scaffolds. Supports like predictability, decodability, and vocabulary control exist on a
continuum and texts possess these scaffolds to greater or lesser extents. I used mutually exclusive text labels for two reasons. First, many beginning reading materials are written with emphasis on a particular textual scaffold. For instance, although decodable texts can have predictable elements, their distinguishing
characteristic is an overriding attention to regular letter–sound relationships. Second, and more important, publishing companies use these labels to differentiate
text types within the Year 2000 basals (see Foorman et al., 2004; Hiebert et al.,
2005; Stein et al., 1999). Thus, despite the theoretical complexities, schools and
teachers are using these labels. To correct for the issue of mutual exclusivity, respondents could choose more than one text type within each question.
The formats listed on the survey included decodable text, literature, big books,
predictable books, vocabulary-controlled text, leveled text, and basals. Decodable
text contains two features: a proportion of words with regular relations between
letters and sounds, and a degree of match between the letter–sound relationships
represented in text and those that the reader has been taught (for a full review see
Mesmer, 2001a). Textbook publishers create decodable texts by controlling the
range of letter–sound patterns represented. Within the context of beginning reading, the designation literature refers to trade books authored by children’s writers
and not educational publishing houses (Freeman, 1997; Harris & Hodges, 1995;
Hiebert, 1998). Children’s authors create stories primarily for aesthetic purposes
as opposed to scaffolding the reading process (Huck, Hepler, Hickman, & Kiefer,
2001).
Unlike the other formats, big books have a particular physical size rather than a
particular content. These materials may take the form of literature, predictable
text, or leveled text, but their distinguishing characteristic is enlarged dimensions
(e.g., 2’ × 3’) and print fonts (Strickland & Morrow, 1990). Predictable texts are
those that rely on rhyming, repetition, patterned language (repeating a syntactic
unit), and supportive illustrations to assist the reader (Johnston, 1998). Vocabulary-controlled materials systematically introduce and repeat words within and
across texts. These materials often limit words to the most frequently occurring in
BEGINNING READING MATERIALS
395
English (Foorman et al., 2004; Hiebert & Fisher, 2002; Hiebert et al., 2005). At
this time, there are few books or basal reading series with vocabulary control. Leveling refers to a qualitative text gradient that takes into account a number of elements including content (e.g., language, text genre), language (e.g., predictability,
syntax), and format (e.g., length, print, layout; Clay, 1985; Fountas & Pinnell,
1996, 1999, 2002; Hiebert, 1998; Hoffman et al., 2001; Rog & Burton, 2002).
Finally, basal reading series are defined as “a collection of student texts and workbooks, teacher manuals and supplemental materials for developmental reading instruction” (Harris & Hodges, 1995, p. 18). These programs are comprehensive in
their aims to serve as the main source of reading curriculum for children within a
given grade.
Questions. For this study I had two goals. The first was to describe how frequently respondents reported using different types of texts, especially in light of
the Year 2000 basal revisions. The second was to examine the extent to which reported frequency was associated with six hypothesized influences. The following
questions guided the study:
• How frequently are predictable texts, decodable texts, leveled texts, pieces of
literature, vocabulary-controlled texts, basals, and workbooks reportedly
used on a weekly basis?
• Are respondents’ reported uses influenced by instructional purposes? Grade
level and teaching roles? Freedom of choice? Approaches? Beliefs about literacy, phonics, and texts? State residency (Texas and California vs. others)?
METHODS
Survey Instrument Development
Based on established survey methods and high-quality literacy surveys, I developed items in three phases: drafting, piloting, and finalizing (Baumann et al., 2000;
Commeyras & DeGroff, 1998; de Vaus, 2002; Dillman, 2002; Fresch, 2001; Worthy, Moorman, & Turner, 1999). Questions included both open-ended and closeended formats (e.g., multiple-choice items, Likert scales). For questions asking respondents how frequently they used materials on a weekly basis, I used mutually
exclusive categories (e.g., 0 times, 1–2 times, 3–4 times, 5+ times). For questions
inquiring about the best instructional purposes for materials, I used multiple responses because one type of material might suit several purposes. Open-ended
questions included those on number of years of experience, basal series used, and
opinions about decodable text. After drafting, I shared items with five literacy re-
396
MESMER
searchers and one survey research consultant. Then, I piloted the draft survey
with teachers at a local elementary school. The pilot led to dropping items, improving formatting, simplifying skip patterns, and reordering items. The eventual survey went through five drafts and finally included 37 items (see the Appendix).
Findings for four items (8, 9, 26, and 29) are in other works because their analyses
did not relate to the theme of this article (Mesmer, 2005; Mesmer & Griffith,
2005–2006).
Participants
In spring 2003, participants were randomly selected from a list of 5,000 International Reading Association members who had indicated that they taught students
in Grades K–3. Zip codes geographically stratified the sample. One thousand
teachers received surveys. Each survey package contained a cover letter, survey
booklet, and prepaid return envelope. Three hundred eighty-two respondents returned surveys, yielding a response rate of 38%. This rate was above usual estimates of 20% for mail surveys (Alreck & Settle, 1995; de Vaus, 2002) and about
the same as (Baumann et al., 2000) or better than (Commeyras & DeGroff, 1998;
Fresch, 2001) other national surveys. Three hundred sixty-two of the surveys were
usable—completed, readable, and returned within the cutoff. Given IRA’s membership of 300,000, this return rate yielded a sampling error of ± 5.1% at the 95%
confidence level. Table 1 shows the geographic distribution of the sample using the
five major U.S. Census regions (http://www.census.gov/geo/www/us_regdiv.pdf).
Demographically, the sample represented a highly experienced group. Over
90% of respondents (n = 236) had at least 6 years of experience, 75% (n = 272) had
more than 11 years of experience, and over 40% (n = 145) had more than 20 years
of experience. Forty-seven percent were classroom teachers (n = 172), about 44%
were reading teachers (n = 160), and the remaining 8% taught in special education,
multigrade or other classrooms (n = 30). (Percentages do not equal 100 due to
rounding.) Ten percent of the sample taught kindergarten (n = 37), 22% taught first
grade (n = 81), 11% taught second grade (n = 41), and about 8% taught third grade
(n = 28). Fifteen percent of the sample taught in Texas or California (n = 54). Proportionally this is a high percentage but it is naturally occurring, meaning that the
states of Texas and California were not oversampled to obtain 15%. Perhaps Texas
and California teachers were more likely to respond to the survey due to policies in
their states and these states are more populous than others.
The sample encompassed various community types with slightly fewer respondents working in urban schools (34%) and slightly more respondents working in
the suburbs of major metropolitan areas (44%). Finally, the majority of respondents (32%) served 16 to 20 students and the fewest respondents taught more than
25 students (20%). The study’s goal was to capture the reported practices and opinions of professionals teaching K–3 children how to read. This sample accom-
397
BEGINNING READING MATERIALS
TABLE 1
Distribution of the Sample by the Five Major U.S. Census
Geographic Regions
Region
States in Region
Northeast
Southern
PA, NJ, NY, CT, MA, RI, VT, ME, NH
OK, TX, AR, MS, AL, KY, LA, TN, GA, FL, SC, NC, VA, WV,
MD, DE
ND, SD, NE, KS, MS, IA, MO, WI, IL, MI, IN, OH
CA, WA, NV, MT, WY, CO, NM, AZ, OR, UT, ID
AK, HI
Midwest
Western
Pacific
Note.
% of Sample
in Region
27
22
29
21
0
Percentages do not equal 100 due to rounding.
plished that goal by sampling highly experienced professionals serving between
about 15 and 25 students in a range of community types.
Data Analyses
The first step of analysis was calculating simple, descriptive statistics for all items.
To examine relationships between items, I constructed cross-tabulations and used
chi-squares to verify significant differences. I used Fisher’s exact test when expected frequencies were less than five for any one cell. To measure the strength of
relations between ordinal variables, I used gamma coefficients, which should be
interpreted like correlation coefficients (Stevens, 1999). To analyze Item 32, the
open-ended question about decodable text, I used constant comparative coding.
Along with two graduate assistants I read responses, established themes, coded
data, and adjusted themes. We obtained an interrater reliability of 90%.
I analyzed the multiple response items uniquely (Items 18–24, 27, 28). In these
items respondents could check all response options that applied. For these items, I
analyzed each response option separately with the potential response being a dichotomous choice (checked vs. not checked). In cross-tabulations, I treated each
response option as a separate question.
RESULTS
Frequency
The entire sample reported how frequently they used different materials on a
weekly basis (0 times, 1–2 times, 3–4 times, 5+ times). Figure 1 shows the percentages in each of the four response categories by text type. Teachers reported using
398
MESMER
FIGURE 1
Reported frequency of use.
literature and leveled text heavily, basals and workbooks infrequently, and other
materials moderately. Over half (55%) reported using literature five or more times
per week, and about the same percentage (56%) reported using leveled text five or
more times per week. In fact, few respondents reported using literature (2%), leveled text (4%), or predictable text (9%) zero times per week.
In contrast, respondents did not report using workbooks or basal readers very
frequently. Most respondents reported using basals zero times per week (43%) or
one to two times per week (27%). Over 60% of the sample reported not using
workbooks. Of those who used basals, most (60%) used textbooks published in
2000 or later, a fact that verifies that the survey captured information following the
latest change in materials. About 34% used basals published between 1995 and
1999, and 6% used basals published before 1995. Publishers included Houghton
Mifflin (28%), Harcourt Brace (25%), Scott Foresman (14%), Macmillan/
McGraw-Hill (11%), Others (9%), SRA/Open Court (8%), and Scholastic (8%).
In contrast to literature or basals, respondents reported using decodable, vocabulary-controlled, and predictable texts moderately. About the same numbers of respondents used decodable text either zero (31%) or one to two times per week
(32%), and the smallest percentage reported using it five or more times per week
BEGINNING READING MATERIALS
399
(16%). In a similar pattern, the majority of respondents reported using vocabulary-controlled materials either zero (36%) or one to two times (38%) per week.
The greatest percentage of respondents reported using predictable text one to two
times per week (38%).
The pie charts in Figure 1 summarize the frequency data. The data suggested that
K–3 children were likely to encounter leveled text and literature daily, but would
rarely see workbooks. Their exposure to predictable, vocabulary-controlled, or
decodable texts might be once or twice per week, if at all. However, simple reports of
frequency of use do not tell the entire story. The secondary analyses, explained next,
demonstrate that teachers used materials in very different ways.
Influences on Reported Uses
Instructional purposes. In many cases, respondents differentiated between
text selections based on instructional purposes. Figure 2 contrasts text types by instructional purpose. For instance, respondents reportedly used both literature and
leveled text frequently, but they used literature more specifically, from an instructional standpoint, than they used leveled text. Overwhelmingly, they favored literature (95%) to teach comprehension or concepts of print (75%). However, literature
was comparatively the least preferred material to teach sounding out (26%). In
contrast, respondents reported using leveled text evenly across instructional purposes, with at least 60% of the sample selecting this material as useful for all instructional purposes. Respondents used leveled text for teaching fluency (88%),
sight words (82%), comprehension (74%), concepts of print (67%), and sounding
FIGURE 2
Text choices by instructional purposes.
400
MESMER
out (68%). Both literature and leveled text received similar rates of use, but leveled
text was used broadly and literature narrowly.
Respondents reported using decodable, vocabulary-controlled texts and predictable texts more moderately and for more specific instructional purposes. For
example, they rejected decodable text (14%) and vocabulary-controlled text (15%)
for teaching comprehension and favored decodable text to teach sounding out
(75%) and fluency (64%). Respondents favored vocabulary-controlled materials
for sight word teaching (60%) and fluency (37%). They favored the predictable
formats for specific instructional uses, like teaching fluency (74%), concepts of
print (72%), and sight words (71%). Respondents also favored big books for teaching concepts of print (87%) and sight words (66%).
Because decodable text and leveled texts are often contrasted in the research
literature, the researcher questioned whether the broad and frequent use of leveled texts predisposed respondents to patterns of use of decodable text (Jenkins
et al., 2004; Mathes et al., 2005). A cross-tabulation indicated that high use of
leveled text was associated with rejection of decodable text. Thirty-nine percent
of respondents who used leveled text five or more times per week did not use
decodable text at all, χ2(9, N = 362) = 26.69, p = .002. In contrast, only 20% of
respondents who used decodable text five or more times per week did not use
leveled text at all. Teachers who used leveled text heavily were less likely to use
decodable text.
In addition, basal year of publication was also associated with use of predictable texts (see Table 2). The majority of respondents who used basals published
between 1996 and 1999 used predictable text three or more times per week (39%),
χ2 (3, N = 162) = 10.52, p < .01. In contrast, the majority of respondents using the
most recent basals, published between 2000 and 2003, used predictable texts one
to two times per week (44%). Basals published between 1996 and 1999 are reportedly more predictable (Hoffman et al., 2003).
Teachers reported preferences for struggling readers and ELLs. They preferred
leveled text (90%) and predictable text (85%) for struggling readers, followed by
decodable text (64%). For ELLs, the sample favored predictable (71%) and leveled
TABLE 2
Cross-Tabulation: Use of Predictable Text by Year of Basal Publication
(Item 10 With Item 7)
Use in Times Per Week
Year of Basal
Publication
0
1–2
3–4
5+
1996 to 1999
2000 to 2003
11%
7%
30%
44%
39%
17%
20%
32%
BEGINNING READING MATERIALS
401
text (61%). Because not all teachers instructed ELLs, the survey had the response
option “Unsure,” but only 22% made use of this choice.
Instructionally, respondents differentiated materials, and levels of text control
influenced this differentiation. In using materials at the lower end of the control
continuum, like literature, respondents favored purposes like comprehension. Respondents also favored leveled text, with less control, for a variety of instructional
purposes. Respondents favored materials at the higher end of the control continuum, like decodable and predictable texts, for very specific skills instruction. Respondents using leveled texts were more likely to eschew at least one controlled
material: decodable text.
Grade level and teaching role. One influence on the use of texts may be
the grade level in which a teacher instructs. I made the following specific contrasts:
(a) kindergarten versus first-grade teachers; (b) kindergarten versus second- and
third-grade teachers; (c) first-grade versus second- and third-grade teachers; and
(d) reading teachers versus all others.
In general, very few differences in reported use occurred between different
teacher groups. Kindergarten teachers used decodable text less frequently than
first-grade teachers did, χ2(3, N = 98) = 7.67, p = .05. Only 11% of kindergarten
teachers reported using decodable text three to four times per week, as compared to
20% of first-grade teachers. The same pattern occurred in the category five or more
times (11% kindergarten vs. 24% first grade). Kindergarten and second- and
third-grade teachers did not differ in their uses of text in any areas. In addition,
reading teachers did not differ in their uses of text despite the fact that they may often work with struggling readers. In general, teachers in different grade levels
rarely reported using texts in different ways.
Freedom of choice. Different teaching groups reported having different
levels of choice, but these distinctions between groups did not extend to differences in reported frequency of use. Most of the sample enjoyed some level of control over text selection. About half of the respondents reported total choice and half
reported moderate choice—a requirement to use specific reading books but the
ability to supplement. Less than 2% of the sample reported no freedom to choose
instructional materials. Reading teachers reported having greater freedom of
choice than other teachers did, χ2(1, N = 362) = 11.75, p = .008. On average, about
60% of reading teachers reported total choice as compared to about 43% of single-grade teachers. Reading teachers, however, did not use any material more frequently than other respondents did. Across all analyses, respondents who had total
choice did not use materials any differently than respondents who had moderate
choice. The pattern persisted regardless of whether the respondent was a reading
teacher or a classroom teacher.
402
MESMER
TABLE 3
Cross-Tabulation: Leveled Text Use by Instructional Purpose for Reading
Recovery Versus Others (Items 18–24 With Item 27)
Percent Within Category Selecting
Leveled Text
Instructional Purpose
Concepts of print
Decoding
Sight words
Comprehension
Fluency
Struggling readers
English language learners
Reading Recovery
Other
79
80
91
80
94
95
71
60
60
74
71
86
87
54
Approaches. Approaches did not differentiate respondents’ text choices.
However, a very large percentage of respondents reported using Guided Reading
(94%), and this may have influenced their heavy use of leveled text. About equal
percentages of respondents used the 4 Blocks/6 Blocks method (35%) or Reading
Recovery (39%). Respondents chose four other programs rarely: Success for All
(5%), Core Knowledge (8%), Onward to Excellence (1%), and America’s Choice
(0%). Cross-tabulations indicated that respondents were not more or less likely to
use particular texts based on approaches.
Reading Recovery teachers tended to use leveled texts even more broadly than
other respondents. Table 3 shows that Reading Recovery teachers were more likely
to select leveled text to teach sounding out than other teachers, χ2(1, N = 362) =
15.21, p < .001. They were also more likely to select leveled text to teach sight
words, and fluency χ2(1, N = 362) = 16.96, p < .001; and χ2(1, N = 362) = 5.45, p =
.02. Lastly, they favored leveled text for struggling readers more than other respondents, χ2(1, N = 362) = 6.23, p = .01. Based on the results of the survey, it is not
possible to know if the respondents self-identified as Reading Recovery teachers
were certified Reading Recovery teachers working in a one-on-one setting.
Beliefs
Beliefs about texts. The analyses in this section shed light on the types of
materials that teachers reportedly valued and their perceptions about textbook
adoptions. Respondents rated different text aspects on a scale ranging from 4 (the
most influential) to 1 (least influential). First, they prioritized influences that they
thought most affected basal adoptions. Respondents believed that matching standards was most influential in basal reading adoptions (M = 3.63). Next, they re-
BEGINNING READING MATERIALS
403
ported believing that state policies were influential (M = 3.14), along with price (M
= 3.12). In order, respondents perceived that teacher input (M = 3.08), appearance
(M = 3.04), research bases (M = 3.01), and publishers (M = 2.81) were important.
In several items, respondents indicated the materials that they felt were most essential to their practices. Leveled texts (M = 3.67), big books (M = 3.67), and literature (M = 3.53) were rated as most essential. Predictable books (M = 3.38),
decodable text (M = 2.89), vocabulary-controlled books (M = 2.49), and workbooks (M = 1.76) followed. Responses showed strong relations between beliefs
about texts and reported use. Respondents who rated decodable text as essential
used it more frequently (γ =.50, p < .001). The same was true of leveled text (γ
=.44, p < .001). Vocabulary-controlled texts and workbooks were rated as less useful and consequently not used as frequently (γ =.36, p < .001 and γ =.63, p < .001,
respectively). Respondents also rated five criteria for selecting texts to teach reading. Quality of the literature (M = 3.62), research base (M = 3.30), and quality of illustrations (M = 3.12) were the rated as the most essential by respondents. Letter–sound coordination (M = 2.38) and decodability of words (M = 2.85) were
rated lower.
Beliefs about literacy instruction and phonics. To describe their beliefs
about literacy instruction, respondents were free to choose as many descriptors as
they wished out of nine labels. Over 90% of respondents chose “balanced” to describe their perspectives on literacy. The descriptors “immersed in literature”
(84%) and “eclectic” (73%) followed. Almost half believed that “phonics should
be taught directly” (48%). About one third of respondents chose descriptions like
“decoding as an important goal” (39%), “literature-based” (34%), and “basals”
(33%). Respondents chose “whole language” (14%) and “traditionalist” (5%) the
least.
Respondents who expressed the belief that “phonics instruction should be
taught directly” reported different uses of texts than respondents who did not express this belief. Believers in direct phonics instruction used leveled texts less frequently than other respondents did, χ2(3, N = 362) = 7.89, p < .05. About 51% of
these teachers used leveled texts five or more times per week, in contrast to 60% of
teachers not espousing this belief. Twenty percent of respondents who believed
that “phonics should be taught directly” used workbooks three or more times per
week, as opposed to only 10% of respondents not expressing this belief, χ2(3, N =
362) = 10.36, p < .01.
Respondents chose one of six statements about phonics instruction including
those describing synthetic phonics, analytic phonics, phonograms, phonics instruction as needed, within a literature context, and within writing and spelling
context. Twenty-five percent of respondents chose analytic and 25% chose synthetic. Twenty-two percent chose phonograms, 20% chose writing, 9% chose
through literature, and 4% chose as needed. (Percentages differed from 100 due to
404
MESMER
TABLE 4
Cross-Tabulation: Texts Choices for Decoding by Phonics Philosophies
(Item 19 With Item 30)
% Within Category Making Response
Text Choice
Decodable text
No
Yes
Big books
No
Yes
Synthetic
Analytic
Word
Families
As
Needed
With
Literature
Through
Writing
9
92
24
76
28
72
46
54
42
58
30
70
60
40
42
58
53
47
15
85
32
68
40
60
5% of the participants selecting two options. In the secondary analyses, this 5%
was omitted.) Beliefs about phonics instruction did not influence the frequency
with which respondents reportedly used different types of texts. However, respondents did show differences in how they used texts to teach decoding based on their
beliefs about phonics instruction. Table 4 shows that respondents who believed in
synthetic, analytic, word family, or writing approaches to phonics favored
decodable books to teach sounding out, χ2(5, N = 362) = 23.06, p < .001. Respondents who believed that phonics should be taught “as needed” or “through literature” favored big books for teaching decoding, χ2(3, N = 362) = 16.79, p < .005.
In essence, beliefs about phonics influenced reported text use the most. Those
believing in “direct phonics instruction” used leveled texts slightly less and workbooks slightly more than other respondents. Respondents who favored synthetic,
analytic, or writing approaches to phonics instruction favored decodable texts to
teach decoding. Respondents who favored incidental phonics instruction favored
literature or big books.
Beliefs about decodable text. Respondents expressed a range of opinions
about decodable text. The themes in the qualitative data about decodable text included “positive,” “negative,” “boring,” “not exclusively,” “for beginners,” “for
struggling readers,” and “to teach phonics” (see Table 5). Many responses were
neither fully positive nor fully negative, but instead stipulated when and how to use
decodable text. For example, the themes “for beginners,” “for struggling readers,”
and “to teach phonics” indicated particular uses for decodable text. Teachers often
expressed qualified endorsement of decodable text. For example, teachers wrote,
“Most useful for beginning readers—can be boring and contrived—but many kids
love them,” or “It can help a struggling reader to be successful but can be boring,”
or “It works for a few children but I try to get away from it ASAP. It’s boring and
405
29.80
18.50
17.40
13.25
Boring, meaningless
Not used exclusively
For beginners
For struggling readers
9.00
36.25
Negative response
Phonics
40.80
%
Positive response
Theme
Phonics, vowels, word families, letter
Struggling, low, reluctant, bottom
Begin, K, 1
Not exclusively, only, alone, sole, total, have
place, balance
Boring, lack meaning, artificial, unnatural,
stilted, sense, vacuous, contrived, authentic
Difficult, boring, destroy, confusing, stilted,
useless
Useful, essential, best, well, help, important,
great, success, confidence, valuable,
appreciate, works, accomplish, great
Descriptors
The best way to start teaching reading
Necessary for primary grades or some struggling readers it builds
confidence
Important to reinforce letter/sounds
I feel that it is a good tool to teach beginning readers but more is
needed
Ugh! Ridiculous! It goes back to linguistically controlled text
Actually slows down fluency and stunts comprehension
Difficult if children aren’t into word slay but read to make sense
I have not found a use for decodable text other than recycling
material
Most is very boring and does not use natural language
Dull stories, no literary value
Most is contrived with no real meaning
This should be one of many tools used
It’s helpful to have some but a steady diet would be mind-numbing
Part of a balanced approach
An artificial way of reading
Very useful for beginning or low readers
Useful with kindergarten students
In the beginning classes it gives confidence
I only use it for my lowest pullout group—1st graders who have
just moved to level B in guided reading
Can be successful for struggling readers
Great for strugglers who need more practice with letter/sounds
It can be helpful to solidify vowel sounds
In conjunction with word study
Examples
TABLE 5
Opinions About Decodable Text: Themes, Descriptors, and Examples (Item 32)
406
MESMER
kills the love for reading.” Many teachers who expressed negative opinions also
believed decodable text to be boring and meaningless. The following quotations
exemplified this theme: “I feel it is not authentic literature” and “Most decodable
texts contain language and sentence structure that are too unnatural and make no
sense to the children.” Repeatedly, respondents disagreed with exclusive use of
decodable text. One teacher described a heavy diet as “mind numbing.” Another
wrote, “I’ve had most success keeping primarily decodable text in 1st grade but
have whole language literature as well” and “It may be useful for some students at
certain times for a short duration.” On the whole, the findings reflected roughly
equal positive and negative responses, concern about stilted and boring language,
modest endorsement of decodable text with beginners and struggling readers, and
the caveat that decodable text should not be used exclusively.
Text Mandates
Because of their emergence as influential states in two basal revisions, Texas and
California teachers may use texts differently. Therefore, I examined the responses of Texas and California teachers (15% of the sample) as compared to
other respondents on reported frequency of use. Teachers in Texas and California did differ from other teachers in the frequency with which they used predictable text, decodable text, and vocabulary-controlled materials. Thirty-nine percent of Texas and California teachers used predictable text five or more times
per week, as compared with 22% of other teachers, χ2(3, N = 362) = 7.96, p <
.05. Twice the percentage of Texas and California teachers (28%) used
decodable text five or more times per week when compared to teachers in all
other states (14%), χ2(3, N = 362) = 7.20, p < .05. Texas and California teachers
also reported using vocabulary-controlled materials five or more times (19%) at
twice the percentage of teachers in other states (9%), χ2(3, N = 362) = 7.97, p <
.05. Items 2 and 31 covered respondents’ knowledge about whether their states
had statewide adoption or decodable text policies. The data from these items
were not reliable because respondents’ beliefs about their state’s policies often
conflicted with actual policies.
Beliefs data presented earlier showed that respondents believed that state policies were influential in basal adoptions. Texas and California respondents believed
more strongly in the impact of state policies (M = 3.80) than other respondents did
(M = 3.02), t(1, 356) = 5.51, p < .001. Essentially, both beliefs and reported uses of
materials were different in the states of Texas and California, where short state
adoption lists appear to influence changes in textbooks used nationally. However,
Texas and California teachers used several materials, not just decodable text, more
frequently than respondents did in other states. They also felt that policies were
more influential in basal adoptions in their states.
BEGINNING READING MATERIALS
407
Findings Summary
Respondents in this survey reported blending textual materials. In text selections
they felt the influence of instructional purposes, beliefs, and state of residence.
Based on the survey data, the researcher created an archetypal primary teacher to
summarize the ways that the respondents used beginning reading materials. The
following profile encapsulates the findings:
The primary grade teacher has the power to select many of the texts used in
his or her classroom. This teacher embraces a balanced literacy philosophy.
He or she uses literature and leveled text on a daily basis. This teacher relies
on literature mostly for comprehension purposes but uses leveled text for
many different purposes including teaching decoding, sight words, concepts
of print, fluency, and comprehension. Materials like predictable text and
decodable text receive moderate use for very specific instructional purposes.
This teacher might use a basal once or twice per week but rarely uses workbooks. He or she values leveled text, predictable text, and literature a great
deal. In essence, this primary grade teacher is selecting materials and using
them in ways that are congruent with his or her beliefs.
The responses of primary teachers in this survey reflected sophistication and complexity. Respondents reported using and viewing beginning reading materials as
discriminating consumers.
DISCUSSION
Baumann, Hoffman, Moon, and Duffy-Hester (1998) conducted a survey to understand
the instructional beliefs and practices of elementary public school teachers. They
asked, “Where are teachers’voices in the phonics/whole language debate?” This work
brings teachers’ voices to current debates about instructional materials. Importantly,
the findings support the following four trends: (a) the impact of text policies in Texas
and California, (b) the shifts in the instructional uses of literature, (c) the trend toward
differentiated text use, and (d) perceptions about the reemergence of decodable text.
Texas and California: How Strong
Text Policies Influence Reported Uses
A major finding of this study is that text policies influence teachers, although not in
predictable patterns, as some had feared (Allington & Woodside-Jiron, 1998;
Hoffman, 2002; Routman, 1997). Texas and California teachers were acutely
aware of the impact of the policies in their states. They believed more than residents in other states that state policies were influencing basal selections. On the
408
MESMER
surface, the increased use of decodable text in Texas and California seemed to directly reflect the decodability policies in these states (Allington & Woodside-Jiron, 1998). However, additional analysis obfuscated the direct line between
reported decodable text use and state policies because Texas and California teachers also reported using predictable and vocabulary-controlled texts more. If Texas
and California respondents felt only the influence of the decodability policies, then
their uses of other materials would not also have been significantly higher. If they
were actively resisting decodability mandates, then they could have reported lower
uses of decodable text on an anonymous survey. Interestingly, the decodable text
policies did not appear to be pushing out other formats because respondents did not
report using literature or leveled texts any less than other respondents.
Several possibilities explain increased use of decodable, predictable, and vocabulary-controlled texts. First, Texas and California teachers may be more aware
of the diversity of text types due to the early focus on beginning reading materials
in these states. Their increased reported use of various text types may reflect this
awareness. Second, Texas and California teachers differed in text use at the level of
five or more times per week. They may simply be using many different text types
more frequently. Third, Texas and California teachers may be complying with
decodable text mandates but trying to balance text choices by compensating with
other materials. The findings suggested that decodable text policies may be wielding some influence on reported use, but other factors might also be contributing to
patterns in these states.
Shifts in the Instructional Uses
of Literature for K–3 Readers
Within the past 5 years, teachers and researchers have expressed the fear that literature is being pushed out of the curriculum (Cassidy & Cassidy, 2003; Watson,
1997). The data in this study do not support this view. In 2003, the same year that
this survey was conducted, the IRA conducted its annual “what’s hot, what’s not”
survey (Cassidy & Cassidy, 2003). Seventy-five percent of respondents believed
that literature-based instruction was “not hot,” but that it “should be hot.” In this
survey of more than 300 teachers, literature was “hot.” Over 80% of respondents
believed that learners should be immersed in literature, and over 85% used literature at least three times per week.
A distinction between previous eras and the present may be that literature is
used more specifically in teaching beginning reading. Now, text choices for beginning readers seem to be less literature-based and more development-based or instruction-based. In other words, the basis for choosing a text is not its classification
as literature but instead its best instructional use. Teachers do not feel compelled
simply to use literature, but to use it appropriately in ways that intersect with the
features of the material and instructional goals. In this study, teachers expressed
BEGINNING READING MATERIALS
409
the view that children’s literature, with its rich vocabulary and engaging plot lines,
was best for teaching comprehension. However, teachers appeared to indicate that
the same features that make it appealing for comprehension instruction—diverse
vocabulary, varied language, and intermittent repetition—did not work as well for
reading practice with struggling learners. Even teachers, who believed in immersing children in literature, did not chose literature as frequently for struggling readers as they did other materials. Menon and Hiebert’s (2005) recent study validates
teacher perceptions. Texts with systematic attention to words served first graders
in high-poverty classrooms better than literature anthologies in a relatively short
time.
I verified the current trend away from using children’s literature for phonics instruction by comparing responses in this data set to the Baumann et al. (2000) survey. In the past, up to 62% of teachers reported teaching phonics within the context
of children’s literature, but in this survey only 9% of respondents reported using
literature in this way. Thus, in the current era, teachers appear to be using children’s literature as frequently as in previous eras but not in similar ways.
A Circuitous Trend Toward Differentiated Text Use
A third important finding was that in many respects teachers did not assume extreme views about beginning reading materials. On the balance, this trend echoed
the Baumann et al. (1998) study, which indicated that “U.S. public school elementary teachers do not assume polar or extreme positions” (p. 646). Respondents
rarely used one material exclusively or rejected materials entirely. They appeared
to recognize the limitations of using any material as the sole reading source in a
comprehensive reading program with multiple instructional goals. The replication
of the Baumann et al. (1998) finding is important because theorists have once
again questioned whether teachers can be discriminating consumers in the current
climate (Hibbert & Iannacci, 2005).
These findings provide the beginning of a suggestion about why teachers do not
report using materials exclusively in this and previous studies. Apparently, they
believed in differentiating uses based on instructional purposes. In only one case,
leveled text, did teachers reportedly find a text that seemingly met many purposes.
Respondents reiterated a prevailing view—texts are not right or wrong overall but
right for particular purposes and wrong for others (Brown, 1999; Cole, 1998;
Dudley-Maring & Murphy, 2001; Hicks & Villaume, 2000; Mesmer, 1999). In
fact, even when respondents had the opportunity to express their opinions about a
hotly contested material, decodable text, they often spoke directly to the best purposes for the material. The centrality of instructional purposes helps to move the
field away from simplistic, polarizing arguments that preference certain material
types.
410
MESMER
Nevertheless, instructional uses of texts both intersected with and diverged
from the emerging research base. Respondents reportedly used literature,
decodable text, predictable text, and vocabulary-controlled texts for distinct instructional purposes. When they did use decodable texts, respondents primarily
chose them as helpful to teach sounding out, a purpose that fits with available data
on small-group and classroom use (Juel & Roper-Schneider, 1985; Mesmer,
2001b, 2005; Vadasy et al., 2005). Additionally, respondents favored vocabulary-controlled texts for teaching sight words. Historically, the sight word theories
forwarded by Thorndike and Gates produced the vocabulary-controlled series of
the 1950s (Gates & Russell, 1938; Guthrie, 1979; Thorndike, 1921).
The reported instructional preferences for predictable and vocabulary-controlled texts did not intersect with research. Respondents favored predictable texts for struggling readers and for teaching sight words. However, the selection of predictable text for teaching sight words clashes with at least two studies
indicating no advantage to using it for teaching sight words (Bridge & Burton,
1982; Johnston, 2000). Most respondents did not use vocabulary-controlled texts
often because these materials are not prevalent in the current market. Today’s text
mandates have taken an idiosyncratic path with some features, like decodability,
being highlighted and other features, like vocabulary control, being ignored
(Foorman et al., 2004; Hiebert & Fisher, 2002; Hiebert et al., 2005; Hoffman,
2002). Data do support the use of vocabulary-controlled materials in building fluency but rarely did respondents use it for this purpose (Compton et al., 2004;
Hiebert & Fisher, 2002; Rashotte & Torgeson, 1985).
Although respondents favored specific texts for specific instructional purposes,
leveled text was the exception. Teachers used this material very frequently as an
all-purpose text. Respondents used leveled texts equally for teaching concepts of
print, decoding, fluency, sight words, and comprehension. Reading Recovery
teachers used leveled text even more extensively than others. Current research suggests that text format of any kind has less influence in one-on-one teaching contexts with strong phonics components (Jenkins et al., 2004). Reading Recovery
teachers’ use of leveled text connects with current knowledge provided that they
are working in one-on-one settings and delivering strong phonics instruction.
Respondents reported using leveled texts for both learning sight words and decoding but a closer look at recent research suggests that leveled texts may not be
the best choice for supporting these instructional purposes (Cunningham et al.,
2005). In the Cunningham et al. (2005) study, Reading Recovery levels did not differentiate labels difficulty based on high-frequency vocabulary or onset-rime
decodability. Although teachers have anecdotally noted these issues, they would
not have had access to this latest analysis of leveled text at the time of the survey
(Brabham & Villaume, 2002; Hicks & Villaume, 2000).
Essentially, the trend toward using beginning reading materials for different instructional purposes was clear, but uses did not always reflect the research litera-
BEGINNING READING MATERIALS
411
ture. Respondents did understand that vocabulary-controlled and decodable texts
would scaffold specific developmental transitions like building sight words and
decoding. However, mismatches between reported uses and research suggested
that dissemination efforts could improve text–instruction matches for predictable
and leveled texts. Additionally, dissemination of the textual scaffolds in vocabulary-controlled texts might support fluency instruction. Finally, the research literature calls into question dependence on leveled text for decoding and sight word
learning.
Decodable Text: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
Until now, the field had very little information about teachers’ perceptions of
decodable text. In this survey, teachers reportedly felt more divided about
decodable text than they did about other materials. The good news is teachers did
not report heavily using decodable text and those who did believed in its efficacy.
About one third never used decodable text, as compared with the less than 10% of
respondents who never used literature, predictable text, or leveled text. In addition,
participants who reported using decodable text more often also reported believing
that it was more essential than other materials. Respondents who did use decodable
text employed it to help students learn how to sound out words. Respondents expressed the opinion that it may help during a specific developmental window, but
would not suffice as stand-alone material. Interestingly, text analyses verify that
decodable text is rarely a stand-alone component (Foorman et al., 2004; Hiebert et
al., 2005; Hoffman et al., 2003). In fact, Open Court, a program considered very
phonics-oriented, is heavily decodable during the first half of the year, and then
contains mostly literature throughout the second half of the year (Foorman et al.,
2004; Hiebert et al., 2005).
When considered in relation to other materials, decodable text was not highly
valued. Respondents in this sample did not rate decodable text as highly essential
in teaching children to read, and did not rate decodability of words to be essential
criteria in selecting text. Respondents who favored specific types of phonics instruction preferred to use decodable text to practice decoding. This is interesting
because the linguistic readers of the 1970s actually attempted to bypass phonics instruction by helping children infer spelling patterns through clustering and repetition (Stahl, Duffy-Hester, & Stahl, 1998). Teachers now have decodable texts
available to them, in contrast to a decade ago when very little decodable text was
available (Jenkins, Vadasy, Peyton, & Sanders, 2003).
Not all respondents believed decodable text had positive instructional uses. The
qualitative data explained that many respondents found decodable text stilted, boring, and flat (Allington, 1997; Routman, 1997). Respondents expressed the view
that decodable text stripped reading down to word calling. Interestingly, within
this sample, very close percentages reported not using decodable texts (31%),
412
MESMER
holding negative opinions of decodable text (36%), and using the Reading Recovery approach (39%). Perhaps a connection exists.
Teacher responses about decodable text reflected the complexities in the research literature. Available data suggest that context (one-on-one tutoring, small
group, or whole class) and teacher experience may interact with the influence of
text decodability. When experienced teachers worked with struggling children in
small-group settings, neither their text choices nor their theoretical orientation influenced outcomes (Mathes et al., 2005). Decodable text did not appear to have an
influence when used in a one-on-one tutoring program with strong phonics instruction (Jenkins et al., 2004). However, decodability of words did contribute to
fluency in first graders and increased students’ attention to letters and sounds (Juel
& Roper-Schneider, 1985; Mesmer, 2001b, 2005). In essence, decodable text may
not be necessary when a strong phonics component, experienced teachers, and
one-on-one instruction are in place.
LIMITATIONS
One limitation of this study is that the sample, IRA members, may not be fully representative of the U.S. teaching population at large. The results accomplished the
intended purposes of the study: to describe reported text uses of an experienced
and informed group of professionals teaching children how to read. However,
other groups of teachers may not have the same levels of choice, the same knowledge about text, and the same interest in beginning literacy. Second, direct observations and records of actual uses would support a more complete picture of text
use. This survey is less likely to give a robust picture of actual use and more likely
to give a strong picture of how teachers view materials. Like all survey data, these
self-report data may be biased by social desirability. Third, teachers who responded to this survey may be different than teachers who did not. They may hold
stronger beliefs about the topic or be more professionally invested in it. Finally, the
study does not explain whether respondents used basal readers for different instructional purposes like fluency, comprehension, and decoding. However, today’s
basals do not contain cohesive formats, but actually subsume many different formats (e.g., decodable text, leveled books, literature).
IMPLICATIONS
The major implication of these findings is that polarizing discussions about beginning reading materials are much more simplistic than the beliefs and reported uses
of teachers. Of the hypothesized influences in this study, instructional purposes,
beliefs about phonics instruction, and state residency exerted the greatest impact
BEGINNING READING MATERIALS
413
on reported use but not in neat linkages. Teachers proved to be doggedly pragmatic
in how they reportedly used beginning reading materials, prioritizing instructional
purposes over grade levels and philosophies. Educators need not worry about literature being pushed out of the curriculum. Instead, they can celebrate the fact that
K–3 teachers appear to be sophisticated and thoughtful in their uses of literature.
Various approaches and programs wielded very little influence in text selection,
but the sample was quite partial to the Guided Reading paradigm.
Importantly, reported uses did not always reflect the most current or established
research literature. For instance, the most current analysis of leveled text suggests
rethinking the comprehensive use that teachers in this study reported. The implication is that researchers must continually increase and disseminate research on textual scaffolds. The findings about beliefs imply that phonics continues to be a decisive issue in beginning reading instruction, as it has been in the past (Adams, 1990;
Chall, 1967; Stahl et al., 1998). The findings on state residency imply that other latent influences may also be at work, and that text policies in states only superficially explain reported frequency of use. Overall, teachers appeared to care most
about resisting inappropriate uses of materials rather than resisting politically charged mandates, despite the debates in research circles. In conclusion, the
message from teachers seemed to be that a comprehensive reading program, addressing many different instructional and developmental needs, need not be
bound by only one type of material, a finding echoed in research on instructional practices (Baumann et al., 2000; Pressley, Yokoi, Wharton-McDonald, &
Mistretta, 1997).
These findings point to additional research questions. First, researchers wishing
to extend these findings might probe the actual decisions of teachers as they choose
and use various text materials. Reports of actual use would significantly enhance
our knowledge of how teachers employ textual scaffolds. Vocabulary control, the
systematic introduction and repetition of words within and across texts, was virtually absent from texts. Although some research supports the use of vocabulary-controlled materials for fluency practice, we need additional information
about the role of vocabulary control in supporting readers. Of particular interest is
whether vocabulary control assists struggling readers in gaining reading momentum. The lack of word-level continuity in today’s materials may make gaining fluency a particular struggle for at-risk readers. As researchers have pointed out, today’s materials often lack a unified theoretical framework for design (Foorman et
al., 2004; Guthrie, 1979). In the past, designs relied on very narrow theories (e.g.,
Bloomfield & Barnhart, 1961; Gates & Russell, 1938). We need studies that design
and then test multifaceted theories of textual scaffolding—theories that address
many text features, including letter–sound complexity, word frequency, and repetition. The theory of critical word factors encompasses decodability, sight word inclusion, and type–token ratios and provides promise (Hiebert & Mesmer, 2006;
Menon & Hiebert, 2005). Future researchers might consider the congruence be-
414
MESMER
tween how researchers label text types and how teachers label them. Although this
survey relied on field-tested descriptions of text types, future studies might provide
teachers with actual, unlabeled materials and require them to identify the prevailing format. Lastly, researchers need to examine experimentally the role of specific
textual scaffolds in developing critical insights (e.g., decodable text, vocabulary-controlled text). Such experiments might pay particular attention to the role of
teaching context (one-on-one, small group, large group) in mediating the effects of
text.
In a recent article, Allington (2005) stated that matching texts and readers is one
of the five missing pillars of reading instruction. He explained, “All pupils need
texts of an appropriate level of complexity in their hands all day long …. Because
children differ, no single text, nor any single task can be appropriate for all children
in a classroom” (p. 3). Along with other data, this study suggests that teachers need
not search for one perfect textual solution in their classrooms. Instead, the search
begins to understand how different materials can serve different purposes with different readers, and how comprehensive theories of design might improve current
beginning reading materials.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to acknowledge the assistance of Francine Johnston, Shailaja Menon,
and Kathleen Brown, who graciously gave feedback on initial drafts of the survey
instrument.
REFERENCES
Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Allington, R. (1997, August–September). Overselling phonics: Five unscientific assertions about reading instruction. Reading Today, 15, 15.
Allington, R. (2005, June–July). The other five “pillars” of effective reading instruction. Reading Today, 22, 3.
Allington, R., & Woodside-Jiron, H. (1998). Decodable text in beginning reading: Are mandates and
policy based on research? ERS Spectrum, 16, 3–13.
Alreck, P. L., & Settle, R. B. (1995). The survey research handbook (2nd ed.). Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin.
Barksdale-Ladd, M. A., & Thomas, K. F. (1993). Eight teachers’ reported pedagogical dependence on
basal readers. Elementary School Journal, 94, 49–72.
Barr, R., & Duffy, G. (1978, March). The evolution of a research study. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Toronto, Canada.
Baumann, J. F. (1993). Basal reading programs and the deskilling of teachers: A critical examination of
the argument. Reading Research Quarterly, 27, 390–398.
BEGINNING READING MATERIALS
415
Baumann, J. F., & Heubach, K. (1996). Do basal readers deskill teachers? A national survey of educators’ use and opinions of basals. The Elementary School Journal, 96, 511–526.
Baumann, J. F., Hoffman, J. V., Duffy-Hester, A., & Ro, J. M. (2000). “The First R”—Yesterday and today: U.S. elementary reading instruction practices reported by teachers and administrators. Reading
Research Quarterly, 35, 338–377.
Baumann, J. F., Hoffman, J. V., Moon, J., & Duffy-Hester, A. (1998). Where are teachers’ voices in the
phonics/whole language debate? Results from a survey of U.S. elementary classroom teachers. The
Reading Teacher, 51, 636–650.
Beck, I. L. (1997, August–September). Response to “Overselling phonics.” Reading Today, 15, 15.
Bloomfield, L., & Barnhart, C. L. (1961). Let’s read, a linguistic approach. Detroit, MI: Wayne State
University Press.
Brabham, E. G., & Villaume, S. K. (2002). Leveled text: The good news and the bad news. The Reading
Teacher, 55, 438–442.
Bridge, C. A., & Burton, B. (1982). Teaching sight vocabulary through patterned language materials.
In J. A. Niles & L. A. Harris (Eds.), New inquiries reading research and instruction: 31st yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 119–123). Washington, DC: National Reading Conference.
Brown, K. (1999). What kind of text—For whom and when? Textual scaffolding for beginning readers.
The Reading Teacher, 53, 292–307.
California Department of Education. (1999). 1999–2002 K–8 reading/language arts/English language
development adoption criteria. Sacramento, CA: Author.
California English/Language Arts Committee. (1987). English-language arts framework for California public schools (kindergarten through grade twelve). Sacramento: California Department of Education.
Carnine, D. W., Silbert, J. , Kame’enui, E. J., & Traver, S. G. (2004). Direct instruction in reading (3rd
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Cassidy, J., & Cassidy, D. (2003, December–January). What’s hot, what’s not for 2003. Reading Today,
20, 1.
Chall, J. (1967). Learning to read: The great debate. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Clay, M. M. (1985). The early detection of reading difficulties. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Cole, A. (1998). Beginner-oriented texts in literature-based classrooms: The segue for a few struggling
readers. The Reading Teacher, 51, 488–501.
Commeyras, M., & DeGroff, L. (1998). Literacy professionals’ perspectives on professional development and pedagogy. Reading Research Quarterly, 33, 434–472.
Compton, D. L., Appleton, A. C., & Hosp, M. K. (2004). Exploring the relationship between
text-leveling systems and reading accuracy and fluency in second grade students who are average
and poor decoders. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 19, 176–184.
Cunningham, P. M., & Allington, R. L. (1991). Words, letters, sounds, and big books: A beary good approach. Learning, 20(2), 91–92.
Cunningham, P. M., Hall, D. P., & Defee, M. (1991). Nonability grouped, multilevel instruction: A year
in a first grade classroom. The Reading Teacher, 44, 566–571.
Cunningham, J. W., Spadorcia, S. A., Erickson, K., Koppenhaver, D. A., Sturm, J. M., & Yoder, D. E.
(2005). Investigating the instructional supportiveness of leveled texts. Reading Research Quarterly,
40, 410–427.
Daniels, H., Zemelman, S., & Bizar, M. (1999). Whole language works: Sixty years of research. Educational Leadership, 57(2), 32–37.
de Vaus, D. (2002). Surveys in social research (5th ed.). London: Routledge.
Dillman, D. (2002). Mail and internet surveys: A tailored design method. New York: Wiley.
Dudley-Maring, C., & Murphy, S. (2001). Changing the way we think about language arts. Language
Arts, 78, 574–578.
416
MESMER
Fletcher, J. M., Francis, D. J., & Foorman, B. (1997, October–November). Only 15–20 percent. Reading Today, 15, 18.
Foorman, B. R., Francis, D. J., Davidson, K. C., Harm, M. W., & Griffin, J. (2004). Variability in text
feature in six grade 1 basal reading programs. Scientific Studies of Reading, 8, 167–197.
Fountas, I., & Pinnell, G. S. (1996). Guided reading: Good first teaching for all children. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Fountas, I., & Pinnell, G. S. (1999). Matching texts and readers: Using leveled texts in grades K–3.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Fountas, I., & Pinnell, G. S. (2002). Leveled books for readers, grades 3–6: A companion volume for
guiding readers and writers. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Freeman, Y. S. (1997). California’s reading revolution: What happened? New Advocate, 10(10),
31–47.
Fresch, M. J. (2001). A national survey of spelling instruction: Investigating teachers’ beliefs and practice. Journal of Literacy Research, 35, 819–848.
Gates, A. I., & Russell, D. H. (1938). Types of materials, vocabulary burden, word analysis, and other
factors in beginning reading. The Elementary School Journal, 39, 27–35.
Gove, M. K. (1983). Clarifying teachers’ beliefs about reading. The Reading Teacher, 37, 261–268.
Guthrie, J. (1979). Research views: Vocabulary control. The Reading Teacher, 33, 240–242.
Harris, T. L., & Hodges, R. E. (1995). The literacy dictionary. Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.
Harste, J., & Burke, C. L. (1977). A new hypothesis for reading teacher research: Both teaching and
learning of reading are theoretically based. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Reading theory, research, and
practice: 26th yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 32–40). Rochester, NY: National
Reading Conference.
Heald-Taylor, G. (1987). How to use predictable books for K–2 language arts instruction. The Reading
Teacher, 40, 656–661.
Hibbert, K., & Iannacci, L. (2005). From dissemination to discernment: The commodifcation of literacy instruction and the fostering of “good teacher consumerism.” The Reading Teacher, 58,
716–727.
Hicks, C. P., & Villaume, S. K. (2000). Finding our own way: Critical reflections of literacy development of two Reading Recovery children. The Reading Teacher, 54, 398–412.
Hiebert, E. (1998). Text matters in learning to read. (CIERA Rep. No. 1–001). Ann Arbor, MI: Center
for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement.
Hiebert, E., & Fisher, C. W. (April, 2002). Text matters in developing fluent reading. Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Hiebert, E., Menon, M., & Martin, L. (2006). Are there alternatives in beginning reading textbooks? An
examination of three beginning reading textbooks. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 21, 5–20.
Hiebert, E., & Mesmer, H. A. (2006). Perspectives on the difficulty of beginning reading texts.
In D. Dickinson & S. Neuman (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy (2nd ed.). New
York: Guilford.
Hirsch, E. D. (1999). Core knowledge sequence: Content guidelines for grades K–8 (Rev. ed.). Charlottesville, VA: Core Knowledge Foundation.
Hoffman, J. V. (2002). WORDs (on words in leveled texts for beginning readers). In D. Schallert, C. M.
Fairbanks, J. Worthy, B. Maloch, & J. V. Hoffman (Eds.), 51st yearbook of the National Reading
Conference (pp. 59–81). Oak Creek, WI: National Reading Conference.
Hoffman, J. V., McCarthey, S. J., Abbott, J., Christian, C., Corman, L., Curry, C., et al. (1993). So
what’s new in the new basals? A focus on first grade. Journal of Reading Behavior, 26, 47–73.
Hoffman, J. V., Roser, N. L., Salas, R., Patterson, E., & Pennington, J. (2001). Text leveling and little
books in first grade. Journal of Literacy Research, 33, 507–528.
BEGINNING READING MATERIALS
417
Hoffman, J. V., Sailors, M., & Patterson, J. (2003). Decodable texts for beginning reading instruction:
The year 2000 basals (CIERA Rep. No. 1–016). Retrieved December 20, 2003, from http://
www.ciera.org/library/reports/
Holdaway, D. (1979). The foundations of literacy. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Huck, C., Hepler, S., Hickman, J., & Kiefer, B. (2001). Children’s literature in the elementary school.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
International Reading Association. (2000). Making a difference means making it different: Honoring
children’s rights to excellent reading instruction. Newark, DE: Author.
Jenkins, J., Peyton, J. A., Sanders, E. A., & Vadasy, P. (2004). Effects of decodable texts in supplemental first grade tutoring. Scientific Studies of Reading, 8, 53–83.
Jenkins, J., Vadasy, P., Peyton, J. A., & Sanders, E. A. (2003). Decodable text: Where to find it. The
Reading Teacher, 57, 185–188.
Johnston, F. (1998). The reader, the text, and the task: Learning words in first grade. The Reading
Teacher, 51, 666–667.
Johnston, F. (2000). Word learning in predictable text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92,
248–255.
Juel, C., & Roper-Schneider, D. (1985). The influence of basal readers on first grade reading. Reading
Research Quarterly, 20, 134–152.
Kame’enui, E. J., & Simmons, D. C. (1997, October–November). Decodable texts and language of dichotomy: A response to Allington. Reading Today, 15, 18.
Mathes, P. G., Denton, C. A., Fletcher, J. M., Anthony, J. L., Francis, D. J., & Schatschneider, C. (2005).
The effects of theoretically different instruction and student characteristics on the skills of struggling
readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 40, 148–182.
Menon, S., & Hiebert, E. H. (2005). A comparison of first graders’ reading with little books or literature-based basal anthologies. Reading Research Quarterly, 40, 12–38.
Mesmer, H. A. (2005). What is driving basal adoptions? Unpublished manuscript.
Mesmer, H. A. (1999). Scaffolding a crucial transition using texts with some decodability. The Reading
Teacher, 53, 130–142.
Mesmer, H. A. (2001a). Decodable text: A review of what we know. Reading Research and Instruction,
40, 462–483.
Mesmer, H. A. (2001b). Examining the theoretical claims about decodable text: Does text decodability
lead to greater application of letter/sound knowledge in first grade readers? In D. Schallert, C. M.
Fairbanks, J. Worthy, B. Maloch, and J. V. Hoffman (Eds.) The yearbook of the National Reading
Conference (pp. 462–483). Oak Creek, WI: National Reading Conference
Mesmer, H. A. (2005). Decodable text and the first grade reader. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 2, 61–86.
Mesmer, H. A., & Griffith, P. (2005–2006). Everybody’s selling it but just what is explicit, systematic
phonics instruction? Reading Teacher, 59, 366–376.
National Center on Education and the Economy. (1998). The new standards. Washington, DC: Author.
National Center on Education and the Economy. (2005). America’s choice. Retrieved June 21, 2006,
from http://www.ncee.org/acsd/acindex.jsp?setProtocol=true
Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. (2005). Onward to excellence. Retrieved January 3, 2005,
from http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/ote/on
Pressley, M., Yokoi, L., Wharton-McDonald, R., & Mistretta, J. (1997). Survey of the instructional
practices of grade 5 teachers nominated as effective in promoting literacy. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1, 145–160.
Rashotte, C., & Torgeson, J. K. (1985). Repeated reading and reading fluency in learning disabled children. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 180–188.
Richardson, V., Anders, P., & Tidwell, D. (1991). The relationship between teachers’ beliefs and practices in reading comprehension. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 559–586.
418
MESMER
Rog, L. J., & Burton, W. (2002). Matching texts and readers: Leveling early reading materials for assessment and instruction. The Reading Teacher, 55, 348–357.
Routman, R. (1997, October–November). Routman thanks Allington. Reading Today, 15, 30.
Shannon, P. (1983). The use of commercial reading materials in American elementary schools. Reading
Research Quarterly, 19, 185–198.
Shannon, P. (1987). Commercial reading materials, a technological ideology, and the deskilling of
teachers. Elementary School Journal, 87, 307–329.
Shannon, P., & Goodman, K. (Eds.). (1994). Basal readers: A second look. Katonah, NY: Richard C.
Owen.
Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Dolan, L. J., & Wasik, B. A. (1996). Every child, every school: Success
for all. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin.
Snow, C., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences Press.
Stahl, S. A., Duffy-Hester, A., & Stahl, K. A. D. (1998). Everything you wanted to know about phonics
(but were afraid to ask). Reading Research Quarterly, 33, 338–355.
Stein, M., Johnson, B., & Gutlohn, L. (1999). Analyzing beginning reading programs: The relationship
between decoding instruction and text. Remedial and Special Education, 20, 257–287.
Stevens, J. (1999). Intermediate statistics: A modern approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Strickland, D. S., & Morrow, L. M. (1990). Sharing big books (Emerging readers and writers). The
Reading Teacher, 43, 342–343.
Texas Education Agency. (1990). Proclamation of the State Board of Education advertising for bids on
textbooks (Proclamation 68). Austin, TX: Author.
Texas Education Agency. (1997). 1997 Proclamation of the State Board of Education advertising for
bids on instructional materials. Austin, TX: Author.
Texas Education Agency. (1999). Report and recommendations of the commissioner of education
concerning materials for adoption in 1999. Retrieved December 11, 2006 from http://www.tea.state.
tx/sboe/schedule/9911/txtreport.html.
Thorndike, E. L. (1921). Teacher’s word book. New York: Teachers College Press.
Vadasy, P. F., Sanders, E. A., & Peyton, J. A. (2005). Relative effectiveness of reading practice or
word-level instruction in supplemental tutoring: How text matters. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
38, 364–382.
Watson, D. (1997). Beyond decodable texts, supportive and workable literature. Language Arts, 7,
635–644.
Worthy, J., Moorman, M., & Turner, M. (1999). What Johnny likes to read is hard to find in school.
Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 12–27.
APPENDIX: SURVEY
Degree of Choice
HOW READING MATERIALS ARE CHOSEN IN YOUR SCHOOL
1. Which statement best describes your freedom to choose materials to teach
reading? Fill in ONE.
䊊 I am required to use specific reading books and cannot supplement with
other materials.
䊊 I am required to use specific reading books but I may supplement with
additional books that I choose.
BEGINNING READING MATERIALS
419
䊊 I am required to teach specific objectives but I may choose any materials that I wish to achieve these objectives.
2. In your state, are basal reading materials selected from a state approved
list? Fill in ONE.
䊊 Yes
䊊 No
䊊 Don’t know
3. How much do you think each of the following factors influences the selection and purchase of basal reading materials? Circle ONE in each row.
Research
A great deal
Some
Very little
Unsure
Price
A great deal
Some
Very little
Unsure
Appearance
A great deal
Some
Very little
Unsure
Teacher input
A great deal
Some
Very little
Unsure
Publisher
A great deal
Some
Very little
Unsure
State policies
A great deal
Some
Very little
Unsure
Match to standards
A great deal
Some
Very little
Unsure
Well-known authors
A great deal
Some
Very little
Unsure
LEARNER NEEDS
TYPES OF MATERIALS USED
4. Do you use a basal reading series to teach reading?
䊊 No → SKIP to 8.
䊊 Yes → Continue with 5.
5. If you use a basal reading series, who publishes it?
_________________________ Publisher name (e.g., SRA, Houghton
Mifflin, Harcourt Brace, Scott Foresman)
6. What is the basal reading series titled?
_________________________ Series name (e.g., Trophies, Open Court,
Treasury of Literature)
7. Approximately when was the basal reading series published? Fill in ONE.
䊊 2000 through 2003
䊊 1996 through 1999
䊊 1995 or before
8. How many books do you have in your classroom library for free, independent reading? Fill in ONE.
䊊 Less than 50
䊊 51–100
䊊 101–200
䊊 201 or more
420
MESMER
9. Of these books (from Question #8), how many have you purchased with
your own money? Fill in ONE.
䊊 Less than 50
䊊 51–100
䊊 101–200
䊊 201 or more
Predictable books—contain rhyming, repetition, and illustrations that match print
(e.g., “Brown bear, brown bear, what do you see? I see a yellow duck looking at me”).
10. In a typical week, how often did you use predictable books? Fill in ONE.
䊊 0 times
䊊 1–2 times
䊊 3–4 times
䊊 More than 5 times
Decodable books—words contain simple letter–sound correspondences that children have been taught (e.g., “The pig sits with a fig”).
11. In a typical week, how often did you use decodable print? Fill in ONE.
䊊 0 times
䊊 1–2 times
䊊 3–4 times
䊊 more than 5 times
Leveled books—contain natural language, print–picture match, repeated sentences (e.g., Leveling systems—Fountas/Pinnel or Reading Recovery).
12. In a typical week, how often did you use leveled books? Fill in ONE.
䊊 0 times
䊊 1–2 times
䊊 3–4 times
䊊 more than 5 times
Children’s literature—stories written by children’s authors with no manipulation
of words or language (e.g., Where the Wild Things Are, Ramona the Pest).
13. In a typical week, how often did you use children’s literature? Fill in ONE.
䊊 0 times
䊊 1–2 times
䊊 3–4 times
䊊 more than 5 times
BEGINNING READING MATERIALS
421
Vocabulary controlled—words in one story are repeated in the following story
(e.g., Book 1 words “have, cat, come”; Book 2 words “have, cat, come, is, the”).
14. In a typical week, how often do you use vocabulary controlled books? Fill
in ONE.
䊊 0 times
䊊 1–2 times
䊊 3–4 times
䊊 more than 5 times
15. In a typical week, how often do you use the basal? Fill in ONE.
䊊 0 times
䊊 1–2 times
䊊 3–4 times
䊊 more than 5 times
16. In a typical week, how often do you use phonics workbooks? Fill in ONE.
䊊 0 times
䊊 1–2 times
䊊 3–4 times
䊊 more than 5 times
HOW YOU USE MATERIALS
17. To teach children to read independently, how useful are the following?
Circle ONE in each row:
Decodable print
Essential Very useful Somewhat useful
Not useful at all
Leveled books
Essential Very useful Somewhat useful
Not useful at all
Trade books/literature
Essential Very useful Somewhat useful
Not useful at all
Workbooks
Essential Very useful Somewhat useful
Not useful at all
Big books
Essential Very useful Somewhat useful
Not useful at all
Vocabulary controlled
books
Essential Very useful Somewhat useful
Not useful at all
18. To teach children concepts of print, which of the following materials are
best? Check all that apply.
䊐 Decodable print
䊐 Leveled books
䊐 Children’s literature
䊐 Big books
䊐 Predictable books
䊐 Vocabulary-controlled books
422
MESMER
19. To teach children how to sound out words, which of the following are best?
Check all that apply.
䊐 Decodable print
䊐 Leveled books
䊐 Children’s literature
䊐 Big books
䊐 Predictable books
䊐 Vocabulary-controlled books
20. To teach children basic sight words, which of the following are best? Check
all that apply.
䊐 Decodable print
䊐 Leveled books
䊐 Children’s literature
䊐 Big books
䊐 Predictable books
䊐 Vocabulary-controlled books
21. To teach children comprehension skills, which of the following are best?
Check all that apply.
䊐 Decodable print
䊐 Leveled books
䊐 Children’s literature
䊐 Big books
䊐 Predictable books
䊐 Vocabulary-controlled books
22. To teach children fluency, which materials are best? Check all that apply.
䊐 Decodable print
䊐 Leveled books
䊐 Children’s literature
䊐 Big books
䊐 Predictable books
䊐 Vocabulary-controlled books
23. To teach struggling readers, which materials are best? Check all that apply.
䊐 Decodable print
䊐 Leveled books
䊐 Children’s literature
䊐 Big books
䊐 Predictable books
䊐 Vocabulary-controlled books
24. To teach English language learners, which materials are best? Check all
that apply.
䊐 Decodable print
䊐 Leveled books
BEGINNING READING MATERIALS
423
䊐 Children’s literature
䊐 Big books
䊐 Predictable books
䊐 Vocabulary-controlled books
䊐 Not sure
25. When you select materials to teach reading, which of the following criteria
are most important to you?
Quality of the literature
Essential
Very
important
Somewhat
important
Not
important
Research-based instruction
Essential
Very
important
Somewhat
important
Not
important
Letter/sounds presented match
phonics lessons
Essential
Very
important
Somewhat
important
Not
important
Illustrations are appealing to
children
Essential
Very
important
Somewhat
important
Not
important
Words can be decoded easily by
students
Essential
Very
important
Somewhat
important
Not
important
26. How do you judge whether or not the instructional materials that you are
using are appropriate for your students? Check all that apply.
䊐 I listen to the children read and make on-the-spot judgments
䊐 I use running records and calculate the % of words read accurately
䊐 I use the suggested guidelines of the basal reading series
䊐 I think about how my phonics instruction coordinates with the books I
am using
Philosophy
BELIEFS ABOUT AND APPROACHES TO TEACHING READING
27. Which of the following methods do you use to teach reading? Check all
that apply.
䊐 Guided Reading
䊐 Success for All
䊐 Core Knowledge
䊐 Direct Instruction
䊐 Onward to Excellence
䊐 Reading Recovery
䊐 4-Blocks/6-Blocks
䊐 America’s Choice
䊐 Other _________________________ (Please specify)
424
MESMER
28. The following statements represent various perspectives, philosophies, or
beliefs toward reading. Check all that apply.
䊐 I would describe myself as a “traditionalist” when it comes to reading
methods and materials.
䊐 I have an “eclectic” attitude toward reading instruction, which means
that I would draw from multiple perspectives and sets of materials when
teaching reading.
䊐 I would describe myself as a whole language teacher.
䊐 I believe in a balanced approach to reading instruction, which combines skills development with literature and language-rich activities.
䊐 I believe that teaching students to decode words is one of my most important goals for early reading instruction.
䊐 I believe that phonics needs to be taught directly to beginning readers
in order for students to become fluent, skillful readers.
䊐 I believe in a literature-based approach to reading instruction, in
which trade books (i.e., children’s books or library books) would be
used exclusively or heavily.
䊐 I believe that basal reading materials are useful tools for teaching students to read, either as the primary instructional material or along with
trade books (i.e., children’s books or library books).
䊐 I believe students need to be immersed in literature and literacy experiences in order to become fluent readers.
29. In your opinion, which of the following phonics activities are “systematic
and explicit?”
Highly
Systematic
and Explicit
Somewhat
Systematic
and Explicit
Not at All
Systematic
and Explicit
Not Sure
Songs
Highly
Somewhat
Not at all
Not sure
Word sorts
Highly
Somewhat
Not at all
Not sure
Cunningham’s making words
Highly
Somewhat
Not at all
Not sure
Scripted teacher directions
Highly
Somewhat
Not at all
Not sure
Worksheets
Highly
Somewhat
Not at all
Not sure
Games
Highly
Somewhat
Not at all
Not sure
30. Which of the following statements best describes your opinion about
teaching phonics? Fill in ONE.
䊊 Synthetic phonics (systematic instruction in which students are taught letter–sound correspondences first and then are taught how to decode words)
䊊 Analytic phonics/word sorts and word study (systematic instruction
in which students are taught some sight words first and then are taught
phonics generalization from these words)
BEGINNING READING MATERIALS
425
䊊 Instruction in phonics by way of word families or phonograms (e.g.,
-all, -ain, -ake words)
䊊 Only as needed (not systematic instruction; rather, students are taught
phonic analysis skills as the need arises)
䊊 In the context of literature (phonics skills are presented and taught
through trade books or literature anthologies)
䊊 In the context of writing and spelling (phonics skills are presented and
taught through children’s writing)
DECODABLE PRINT
31. Many states now require that the materials used to teach beginning readers
be “decodable.” Are you required to teach reading using decodable text?
䊊 Yes
䊊 No
䊊 Don’t know
32. What is your opinion about decodable text?
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
Demographic Information
33. What is your current teaching position? Fill in ONE.
䊊 K–5 classroom teacher of just one grade level (I teach grade _____)
䊊 K–5 classroom teacher in a multigrade
䊊 prekindergarten teacher
䊊 reading teacher (e.g., Title I)
34. How many students are in your classroom? Fill in ONE.
䊊 less than 15
䊊 16–20
䊊 21–25
䊊 more than 25
35. In which state/commonwealth do you teach? _________________________
36. How many total years have you spent as an elementary teacher? _____
years (write number of years)
37. How would you describe your school? Fill in ONE.
䊊 Rural in a small town
䊊 Suburban in a medium-sized town
䊊 Suburban, outside of a major city
䊊 Urban, in a major city
Thank you for your assistance J