Article Critique
EDCI 6300
Kim Ramsey
Marlow, L, & Inman, D. (2005). To what extent are literacy initiatives being supported: important questions for administrators. Reading Improvement , 42 (3), 179-186.
I. Statement of the Problem a. Research Topic
This topic of research in the article details how teachers do not feel they have sufficient support in implementing state and district reading initiatives in a manner that would be considered acceptable to present agencies. The author states “responding teachers perceived themselves to be ill prepared to meet accountability mandates associated with literacy.” This set the context for the more specific research problem. b. Research Problem
As the title of the article suggests, literacy initiative support may not be happening as it should. When teachers were surveyed by the authors, items they investigated included whether teachers felt that sufficient professional development opportunities were being provided by the state regarding the state literacy initiative and if sufficient professional development opportunities were being offered by their district.
The authors’ survey also examines the appropriateness of the grade level materials distributed to teachers regarding the state initiatives, and whether the teachers felt they

had an adequate amount of supplemental reading material to use in correlation with the mandated programs. c. Research Questions/Hypothesis
In this article, there was no specific research question or hypothesis listed, but the authors do address the reasoning prompting their quantitative study. They state
“teachers perceive themselves to be ill-prepared to meet accountability mandates associated with literacy” and that those teachers lacked training, had little access to sound instructional materials, and were unfamiliar with the state standards. Therefore, these authors feel that teachers’ perceptions result in questions that administrators must address if teachers are to effectively implement the state mandated literacy initiatives.
II. Review of the Literature
The authors begin by detailing the first governmental initiative that was enacted to address literacy. This Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA 1965) detailed the goal that all children were expected to be able to read by end of third grade.
The authors note that an additional act began supplementing of ESEA called No Child
Left Behind . The authors highlight the fact that both of these government initiatives focused on research based methods. These methods according to some experts, would virtually guarantee a more structured, skills based approach to the teacher of reading.
Next, the authors call the readers’ attention to the results of those acts, which was increased attention to reading and literacy standards. They further provided evidence for literacy success by mentioning that national literacy standards have provided the framework for states to have the ability to develop their own literacy

standards. These standards would assist the states in brining positive changes in literacy in the individual states’ teaching and learning methods.
However, the authors then clearly draw attention to the gap between the legislative acts and implementation/literacy improvement in the states’ schools. They suggest that those people charged with providing literacy instruction must provide ongoing staff development so that the implementation of the reading reform models will occur successfully. The authors further demonstrate evidence of the gap between the ideas of increased literacy to implementation of increased literacy when they state that
“professional development is a powerful process for enhancing the knowledge base for teaching..”
The researchers also review the materials provided to teachers to coincide with their literacy instruction, and the appropriateness for the grade levels. The adequateness of supplemental reading materials that accompany the mandates programs is also reviewed. Finally, the ability of the materials provided to teachers to effectively address the state’s assessment instrument is examined by the authors. The authors conclude that their study provides important questions for administrators to consider when attempting to implement the state/district literacy initiatives.
III. Methods
The authors state that they used a quantitative case study approach. Schools were chosen using the public school directory for each of several southern states. Each district within them was assignment a number, and Gays Table of Random numbers was used to identify 10 schools from each state. The teacher participants were

selected based on principal recommendation of teachers who teach reading. The teacher participants are described in terms of ethnicity/race, number of enrollment at campuses, and grades taught. .There was a wide variety of teaching experience, with
29% teaching experience of over 20 years.
Data collection methods are described in detail for the reader. A survey instrument was used that was comprised of a four point Likert Scale. The scale contained items ranging from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree. The scales items fell into two categories. These categories were described as professional development and reading materials.
The professional development items focused on description of state literacy initiative and provision of the school district and of the state to provide any professional development activities. The items on the survey that pertained to materials included the appropriateness of grade level, effectiveness of those for state assessments, and availability of materials to accompany state reading mandates. The authors conducted a pilot study in spring of 2001 and were able to measure test/retest stability to determine the reliability of scores over time. The authors used a group of approximate 100 K-6 teachers to complete the survey once in January, and had those teachers complete it again in April of 2001.
IV. Results and Conclusions
The authors begin by relating their findings about the survey and reflecting back on their first topics. They demonstrate in their data that more than the majority of participants felt that professional development opportunities were not provided by the

state or by the district in which they worked. The authors point out that when teachers were asked if they felt a thorough description of the literacy program was provided to them, they answers were split. The authors conclude that the results again reiterated what they thought: that teachers felt as if they were knowledgeable about state standards and the literacy initiative mandated by the state, they felt they were disconnected and not given professional development opportunities to enhance their own knowledge base and pedagogy practices being used by other districts and /or other states.
A theme seemed to emerge when teachers were asked if they felt that the primary reading materials were effectively addressing the standards evaluated by the state assessment instruments. More than a majority of teachers felt that the reading materials did not effectively address the state assessment instrument.
The authors found that in reviewing their data, they found there is a breakdown of communication between administration and teachers. The authors suggested that administrators should focus on several questions when examining how information is given to teachers. Some of the q uestions the authors felt were appropriate were “What media is being used to present the teachers with the information about the district reading initiates? Are multiple forms of communication being used?
“
Regarding the appropriateness of materials, the authors found that administration must examine what issues were at the root of the teacher’s feelings that materials did not address state standards. The authors surmised that perhaps funding

from administration was not as adequate for the materials. If so, they felt that administration would need to examine why funding was not allocated effectively.
In conclusion, the authors state that there is an increasing focus on research based methods that are intended to provide a more structured approach to teaching reading. The authors assert that administrations must ensure that professional development opportunities are provided with support for teachers as they utilize these programs. In addition, the authors determine that in reviewing their survey results, they suggest that administration must take the time to thoroughly investigate the implementation problems associated with the presentation of state literacy programs if the programs are to be successful.
Analysis
The article written by Marlow, et al, is one of great interest to educators and literacy experts. Their research in the field of literacy education was conducted according to educational research standards and their findings support their beliefs regarding teacher knowledge and materials in mandated literacy programs. I felt that this article was well written and had no grammatical errors or jargon. I found the article to be concise and clear. The manner in which the authors described their research methods and results were easy to follow. The structure of the article was one of sound judgment and helped to convey their meaning.
The report title was very clear and accurate. I read it and knew what topics would be covered and how they would be covered. It was not ambiguous and did not confuse me before I began reading.

I found the abstract to be very informative. It gave the reader a clear view of the study and the methods used to research. I found the results in the abstract to be clear and in line with the topic the abstract contained.
The phenomenon of interest that was to be studied was clearly stated. The authors explained the federal acts that prompted the study of literacy and then went on to explain their relation in the study. The research question and phenomenon were consistent as they both detailed the feelings of teachers in regards to literacy programs and mandates.
The purpose of the study was clearly identified and the authors were very clear in explaining data that they would be reviewing. The portions of the study regarding teacher s’ feelings on materials and professional development were very clear. The research report follows the steps of the research process in a logical manner that readers are able to understand clearly. The links to the steps in the process were very clear, and readers were able to connect them as they progress through the article. The authors were able to define what they would be researching and how they would go about gathering the data on their topic
The literature review was logically organized and it offered a balanced critical analysis of the literature. The authors describe how the literature details current literacy mandates and what they entail. The authors also offered a balanced view of the perspective of administration and teachers when undertaking a literacy program. The literature is of recent origin as the authors detail recent federal acts in their findings.

A theoretical framework has been identified in the study, as the authors detailed the feelings of teachers regarding materials and training in the area of literacy mandates. The framework adequately describes the author’s purpose and structure of the theory detailed in the article. The framework is very appropriate and its progression from teacher theories to the case study is logical.
The research questions have been identified in this study and they are listed as what teachers ’ feelings are in regards to state mandates teacher initiatives. The questions are clearly stated and progress the reader into the findings of the researchers.
The target population was identified. The schools were chosen using the public school directory for each of several southern states. Each district within them was assigned a number and Gays Table of Random numbers was used to identify 10 schools from each state. The teacher participants were selected based on principal recommendation of teachers who teach reading. The sample was a nonprobabilty sample and of adequate size. The inclusion/exclusion criteria were clearly identified as the teachers were chosen and included based on principal choice.
Participants were fully informed of the study and its intentions. The autonomy of the participants was guaranteed by using self addressed stamped envelopes. The participants were protected from harm by ensuring that data was kept in groups, as principals that wanted it for review were sent it without names. Ethical permission was granted for the study.

All the terms, theories and concepts mentioned in the study were clearly defined the authors in the beginning of the study. The authors detailed the federal acts that precipitate the literacy mandates and the concepts of literacy and reading initiatives were clearly defined.
The research design was clearly identified. The authors used the survey and research methods to assure the reader what research was being conducted. The data gathering instrument was described in detail. A survey instrument was used that was comprised of a four point Likert Scale. The scale contained items ranging from Strongly
Agree to Strongly Disagree. The scales items fell into two categories. These categories were described as professional development and reading materials
The authors conducted a pilot study in spring of 2001 and were able to measure test/retest stability to determine the reliability of scores over time. The authors used a group of approximate 100 K-6 teachers to complete the survey once in January, and had those teachers complete it again in April of 2001. The data was appropriate as it provide responses to questions the researchers were seeking. Out of 100 studies that were sent, 40% returned.
The findings were linked back to the literature review, as the authors used the data to reiterate what they originally surmised. No hypothesis was identified and the strengths and limitation of the study were not identified. A recommendation for future research was not made, but the authors did provide questions for administrators to review if they were interested in learning to improve the results. The books, articles, etc in the article were accurately referenced.