teaching reading literature review

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Int J Dev Disabil
• v.66(2); 2020

Developing and sustaining readers with intellectual and multiple disabilities: A systematic review of literature

Turki a. alquraini.

1 Special Education Department, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia,

Shaila M. Rao

2 Department of Special Education and Literacy Studies, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI, USA

Objective: The purpose of this study was to carry out a systematic review of literature of effective reading intervention for students with – intellectual disabilities (ID), intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD), and multiple disabilities (MD). Findings and recommendations for future research are discussed.

Background and rationale: For students with ID, IDD, and MD ability to read can lead to a better quality of life and better integration into the mainstream society. Several studies have expressed a concern over more emphasis placed on social, personal, and vocational skills for individuals with ID, IDD, and MD than on reading and literacy learning. Having a repertoire of effective interventions carried out with this population will help teachers, teacher educators, and anyone else working with the individuals.

Method: This study synthesized findings from previous research with 167 students with ID, IDD, and/or MD to assess effectiveness of instruction for key elements of effective reading instruction such as phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension. The review made it explicit that literature reviewed conforms to standards and quality indicators for experimental and quasi-experimental studies.

Outcomes: The 12 studies identified and included in this review collectively provided evidence-based strategies for developing components of effective reading at elementary grades and sustaining effective reading at secondary levels. Four tables included describe details of participants, setting, strategies, and evidence of effectiveness.

Implications for future research : Recommendations offered included carrying out more studies using qualitative and/or mixed-method approaches to further study use of these strategies in different classrooms and at different grade levels. An exclusive and systematic review of studies that used technology and assistive technology to teach reading could also be carried out.

Introduction

For individuals with intellectual disabilities (ID), students with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD), and students with multiple disabilities (MD) being able to read is one of the fundamental skills that lead to independence in everyday living skills (Thomas, 1996 ). Ekwal and Shanker (cited in Rao 2009 ) stated that for theoretical purposes and discussing the act of reading, the definition of ‘reading’ can be stated as ‘the act of interpreting by the reader, what is written by an author’. The authors proposed that for the purpose of diagnosis and remediation, reading may be thought of as a process of recognizing words and understanding words and ideas. Hoover and Gough (as cited in Shurr and Taber-Doughty 2012 ) provided a traditional description of literacy as ‘the act of reading, decoding, and comprehending language’ (p. 359). According to Justice (cited in Browder et al . 2011 ), emergent literacy includes reading and writing skills that young children display before they become conventional readers. The three basic goals of reading according to Thomas ( 1996 ) are reading for survival, reading for information, and reading for pleasure. As such, reading provides individuals with ID, IDD, and MD much needed support to acquire independence in everyday life, including life in school and beyond. Literacy affords several social and personal benefits as well, which influence an individual’s overall quality of life (Shurr and Taber-Doughty 2012 ). A limited reading ability can hamper an individual throughout life and contribute to great disadvantages in vocational, family, and other life-goal pursuits (Rao 2009 ). According to Lerner and Johns ( 2015 , p. 343), ‘reading failure not only constitutes an educational problem but it also rises to the level of a major health problem, and as such, reading is critical to success in our society’.

Several studies, e.g. Alberto et al. ( 2010 ), Alnahdi ( 2015 ), Allor et al . ( 2010a ); Browder and Xin ( 1998 ), Browder et al . ( 2006 ), Fenlon et al. ( 2010 ), Joseph and Seery ( 2004 ), Katims ( 2000 ), Kliewer and Biklen ( 2001 ), Li ( 2014 ), Lundberg and Reichenberg ( 2013 ), Rao ( 2009 ), Rao and Barkley ( 2009 ), Ratz and Lenhard ( 2013 ), Schnorr ( 2011 ), and Thomas (1996) noted that not enough is done in terms of providing quality reading instruction for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. These studies expressed a concern over more emphasis placed on social, personal, and vocational skills for individuals with ID, IDD, and MD than on reading and literacy learning. Allor et al . ( 2010a , 2010b ) contended that instructional methods for Individuals with IDD, ID, and MD focused on teaching isolated mastery of linear set of sub skills due to a general belief in lack of ability of these students to learn and master reading and literacy, and a notion that at best, they might be taught to recognize a limited number of sight words. Lundberg and Reichenberg ( 2013 , p. 89) indicated a remorse over an assumption that students with ID will not be able to acquire necessary literacy competence for a full societal participation. The authors posited that these individuals if not offered the necessary opportunities would be outside of a ‘social system’ and ‘socially excluded’.

Various previous reviews of reading instruction for individuals with ID, for e.g. Alnahdi ( 2015 ), Browder and Xin ( 1998 ), Browder et al . ( 2006 ), Hill ( 2016 ), Joseph and Seery ( 2004 ), Katims ( 2000 ), Kliewer and Biklen ( 2001 ), and Rao and Barkley ( 2009 ) offered suggestions for enhancing reading of students with ID. These recommendations included a need for more strategies that are effective, intense, motivating, and meaningful instruction that is explicit, with more direct teacher involvement. Hill ( 2016 ) suggested a need for more systematic and comprehensive approach to teaching reading, and posited that individuals with severe intellectual disabilities can show literate presence with support and a belief in their abilities.

In several of these reviews published, the population of focus was students reported as having-intellectual disabilities, developmental disabilities, developmental delay, mental disabilities, emotional impairment, behavior disorders, severe intellectual disabilities, and learning disabilities.

In our current review, we included studies carried out with students with ID, students with IDD, and/or students with MD. Our search for literature yielded studies conducted with students with a label of MD and having concomitant impairments such as intellectual disabilities, emotional and behavioral disorders, and orthopedic/physical disabilities. Participants in four of the twelve studies we included in this review had a label of MD. Impairments under the label of MD included orthopaedic impairments, emotional and behavioral disorder, visual impairment, attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder, sensory impairments, cerebral palsy, and physical disability. In two studies, the labels of MD included intellectual disability and autism.

Conceptual model for review

In 2000, the United States Congress assigned The National Reading Panel (NRP) to conduct an assessment of literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (Lerner and Johns 2015 ). The NRP report and National Institute Child, Health, and Human Development (NICHD) also in 2000) identified five key elements of effective reading as it develops at elementary level. These elements are phonemic or phonological awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. The NRP report (NRP) and elements identified by NICHD do not explicitly mention readers with disabilities, in particular population of interest in this study that includes individuals with ID, IDD, and MD. Lerner and Johns ( 2015 ) posited that competence in phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and text comprehension is needed for to be effective readers. Our literature search yielded intervention studies carried with our focus population to enhance competence in one or more of these key components. Ellery ( 2009 ) offered strategies under each of the five components, and several techniques that educators can use to enhance and maintain students’ mastery of the skills leading to effective reading. Ellery and Rosenboom ( 2011 ) provided various strategies and techniques that focus on word study, fluency, vocabulary and comprehension to sustain and enhance the secondary readers created in elementary classrooms. The authors offered strategies and techniques to enhance four reading components for sustaining the strategic readers: word study, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension.

We based our conceptual framework for this review (see Figure 1 ) on findings in the report by NRP, key findings by NICHD, and suggestions by other experts (Ellery 2009 , Ellery and Rosenboom 2011 , Lerner and Johns 2015 ).

Conceptual framework based on Ellery ( 2009 ), Ellery and Rosenboom ( 2011 ), Lerner and Johns ( 2015 ).

Post-school transition to successful community integration, independence, and where possible employment are the ultimate goals of education of individuals with ID, IDD, and MD. According to Individuals with Disabilities Improvement Act (IDEA 2004), ‘an overarching purpose of special education is to prepare them for further education, employment, and independent living’ (Carter et al . 2010 , p. 194). Carter et al . studied predictors of employability for individuals with ID, IDD, and MD and other post school transition options. Over and above demographic characteristics such as age, gender, socio economic status, and community settings (urban, rural), other more important variables and predictors included self-determination skills, social skills, and job related skills, which are crucial to obtain and maintain employment. The job related skills included writing, ability to follow directions, identifying job opportunities, and interviewing skills among others. These skills require an ability to write, read, and comprehend. This ability to read, comprehend, and communicate leads to the other critical skills such as, for example, self-determination skills and social skills to obtain and sustain employments.

Definitions of ID, IDD, and MD

The focus population for this review was ID, students with IDD, and/or students with MD. We defined ID, IDD, and MD based on definitions used in the United States, in particular, the definitions provided by Centre for Parent Information and Resources ( http://www.parentcenterhub.org/repository/categories ) and US Department of Health and Human Services/National Institute of Health ( https://www.nichd.nih.gov/health/topics/idds/conditioninfo/Pages/default.aspx ). The Centre for Parent Information and Resources uses definitions of different disability terms from the IDEA regulations.

The Centre for Parent Information and Resources defines Intellectual disability (ID) as ‘significantly sub-average general intellectual functioning, existing concurrently with deficits in adaptive behavior and manifested during developmental period that adversely affect child’s educational performance’. The American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD) specifies ‘developmental period’ and ‘adaptive behavior’ in their definition of ID and states the definition as ‘a disability characterized by significant limitations in both intellectual functioning and in adaptive behavior, which covers many everyday social and practical skills. This disability originates before the age of 18’. It is to be noted that mental retardation (MR) was a term in use for intellectual disabilities until 2010. In October 2010, President Obama signed the Rosa’s Law. Rosa’s Law changed the term to be used in future to ‘intellectual disability.’ The definition of the term itself did not change and is what is described above as the definition of intellectual disability ( http://www.parentcenterhub.org/repository/categories ).

Concomitant impairments such as intellectual disability and blindness, emotional or behavioral disorder and orthopedic impairment characterize MD . The definition of multiple disabilities used in IDEA regulations is ‘concomitant [simultaneous] impairments (such as intellectual disability-blindness, intellectual disability, orthopedic impairment, etc.), the combination of which causes such severe educational needs that they cannot be accommodated in a special education program solely for one of the impairments. The term does not include deaf-blindness’( http://www.parentcenterhub.org/repository/categories ).

IDD according to the US Department of Health and Human Services/National Institute of Health are disorders that are usually present at birth and that negatively affect the trajectory of the individual’s physical, intellectual, and/or emotional development. Many of these conditions affect multiple body parts or systems.

Literature search and selection

Based on the conceptual model (see Figure 1 ), we included individuals with ID, IDD, and/or MD in our search for literature. Our purpose was to explore studies that used strategies to enhance reading abilities of this population at elementary/secondary levels and beyond that would help develop readers and sustain their ability to read.

Literature reviews are ‘key building blocks of good research articles in Library of Information Science’ (Dilveko 2007 , p. 451) and are defined as ‘systematic, explicit and reproducible methods for identifying, evaluating, and synthesizing existing body of completed and recorded work’. Dilevko highlighted the importance of making the reviews explicit to enhance replicability of the work, as replicability is the single most important quality of a literature review. Making the review explicit the author posited, enables other researchers to reproduce the review methods. Our review followed a clear conceptual model for selecting studies, followed clearly stated procedures in synthesizing our review, and chose explicit inclusionary and exclusionary criteria. This was to enable other researchers in the field to replicate the procedures.

In order to make our review explicit, we followed several guidelines suggested in PISMA or Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Meta-Analyses by Shamseer et al . ( 2015 ) using the checklist recommended by the authors. The checklist has three broad categories of recommended guidelines: Administrative Information, Introduction, and Methods. Each of the three broad categories has sub categories and statements under these sub categories. There are a total of 17 sub categories and 25 different statements. These 25 statements are the recommended items or guidelines to address in a systematic review (see Shamseer et al . 2015 ). In addition, we also referred to Gersten et al . ( 2005 ), Hill ( 2016 ), and Horner et al . ( 2005 ) in selecting literature. Gersten et al. ( 2005 ) presented quality indicators for experimental and quasi-experimental studies in special education and suggest either one or two conditions to be present when practices could be considered evidence based. The two conditions are, description of at least four acceptable prior quality studies with the strategy explored, and/or effect size significantly greater than zero. Hill ( 2016 ) and Horner et al . ( 2005 ) on the other hand described quality indicators and essential elements of single subject designs. These essential characteristics included detailed description of participant and setting; description of dependent and independent variables, baseline phase; and experimental/internal validity, external validity and social validity. In terms of analysis of data, all studies provided a detailed, visual analysis of the intervention that could establish a causal relationship between the independent and dependent variables studied.

All studies we included in this review met the following inclusionary, and/or exclusionary criteria. Inclusionary criteria were 1) articles written in English, 2) published between 2000 and 2016 in peer reviewed, scholarly journals, 3) studies with individuals identified as having ID, IDD, or MD, 4) studies that reported effect of chosen strategies (independent variables) on any of the components of effective reading in our conceptual model (see Figure 1 ), 5) studies that used qualitative research paradigm; and/or those that followed any of the following experimental designs: single-subject designs, group experimental designs, and/or quasi-experimental design, and 6) studies that reported effect sizes with experimental group designs. We did not specify age as a criterion, as our goal was to look for literature that would give us strategies to help create and sustain readers at all ages in our target population.

The exclusionary criteria were 1) studies that had a focus solely on enhancing social skills, number skills, communication skills, or daily living skills and used these skills as dependent variables and 2) prior research reviews. We found some prior reviews of literature (Alnahdi 2015 , Browder and Xin 1998 , Browder et al . 2006 , Hill 2016 , Joseph and Seery 2004 , Katims 2000 , Kliewer and Biklen 2001 , and Rao and Barkley 2009 ) through our initial computer search. We referred to these reviews and other position papers as broader literature base in our introduction section and to help guide our methods section.

We included the following steps in ensuring a comprehensive search. The search terms used in our electronic search using databases such as Education Abstracts, ERIC, and ProQuest database were combinations of 1) reading, which included effect of chosen strategies (independent variables) on any of the components of effective reading in our conceptual model (see Figure 1 ), 2) literacy 3) intellectual disability, 4) intellectual and developmental disabilities, and 5) MD. We also included ‘mental retardation’, a term in use in early 21st century, but only occasionally being used in the current times. The first total for our computerized search with truncations of descriptors for disability produced 650 articles. Although we did not use descriptors of learning disabilities, behavioral disorders etc. this first search resulted in studies done with different disabilities and involving some other dependent variables such as numeracy, social skills, and self-determination skills. After eliminating studies that were outside of the scope for this review, we had 35 studies in the area of reading and literacy that included intervention studies, position papers, and literature reviews.

We also conducted an ancestral search by checking references from the short listed articles (dating back to 1996) and found several overlaps between the studies cited/referenced. The literature reviews we found (Alnahdi 2015 , Browder and Xin 1998 , Browder et al . 2006 , Hill 2016 , Joseph and Seery 2004 , Katims 2000 , Kliewer and Biklen 2001 , and Rao and Barkley 2009 ) were included as reference but not in our review. Both authors read the articles to ensure inclusionary and exclusionary criteria, and an inter-rater agreement of 100% was reached between the two authors that resulted in final selection of 12 ( n  = 12) studies (see Table 1 ) that met the criteria.

Overview of studies reviewed: in alphabetical order by first author.

Analysis and results

Based on our conceptual model of effective reading at elementary/secondary levels and beyond (see Figure 1 ), we selected 12 studies published in seven different peer-reviewed, scholarly journals following the inclusionary and exclusionary criteria described in the methods section. A closer look at the studies showed that different research designs were used by the researchers. As such, our first level was analysing/categorizing according to type of research . Out of a total of 12 studies reviewed 75% (9 studies) used different variations of single subject designs and 3 (25%) studies used a pre/post-test comparison groups design.

Single subject research, a proven methodology to identify evidence-based practices (Horner et al . 2005 ) especially at individual level and follows a rigorous methodology (Hill 2016 ). The studies that followed single-subject design that we included in our review were also chosen based on the presence of the essential characteristics (Hill 2016 ), or the quality indicators as Horner et al .’s study termed them. All studies chosen had adequate description of participant and setting; dependent and independent variables; baseline phase; experimental/internal validity; external validity and social validity. All studies provided a detailed, visual analysis of the intervention that could establish a causal relationship between the independent and dependent variables studied. Graphical representations and descriptive data analysis used relevant terms to describe effectiveness or effect size of interventions. For example, mean, range, percentage of non-overlapping data points (PNDs), percent of data points exceeding the median (PEM). Table 2 describes characteristics of participants in 9 studies using single-subject research followed by the 3 studies that used pre-test/post-test comparison designs.

Participant characteristics.

MoID: moderate intellectual disability.

Gersten et al . ( 2005 ) described quality indicators of experimental and quasi-experimental research studies in special education. The essential and desirable quality indicators included adequate description of participants; quality indicators for outcome measures; and quality indicators for data analysis. These essential quality indicators and a set of desirable quality indicators in a study collectively had 18 different questions/statements listed that researchers could use to evaluate studies reporting effective strategies (see Gersten et al . 2005 , p. 152). Three studies that used pre-test/post-test comparison designs met guidelines for all 10 indicators under essential quality indicators and most of the eight desirable indicators.

Table 3 describes settings where the studies were carried out, and Table 4 describes details of intervention.

Setting characteristics.

MoID: moderate intellectual disability; MR: mental retardation; P: participants.

Strategies used and components of effective reading addressed.

Participant characteristics

There were 35 participants across the 9 studies that used variations of single subject designs. We wanted to collect information about evidence-based practices used to create and sustain readers from interventions carried out with individuals across the age groups. Age range of the participants was from 6 years to 15 years. Table 2 presents details of participants’ characteristics in all 9 studies that followed variations of single subject designs followed by the participants’ characteristics in 3 studies that used pre-test/post-test groups design.

Allor et al . ( 2010b ), Lundberg and Reichenberg ( 2013 ) and Van der Bijl et al . ( 2006 ) used variations of pre-test/post-test comparison groups design to assess effectiveness of intervention for enhancing comprehension. A total of 132 students participated in these three studies which followed pre-test/post-test groups design.

Setting characteristics

All of the 12 studies with a total of 167 participants took place in various settings. Table 3 describes important aspects of the different settings.

Strategies used and components of effective reading addressed

Nine out of 12 (75%) studies reviewed for this study used the following variations of single subject design:

• Multiple probe design: Browder et al . ( 2011 ) used multiple probes single-case design to successfully evaluate functional relationship between scripted task analytic lessons read-aloud with systematic prompting on engagement and comprehension of three elementary age students with intellectual and multiple disabilities. Students with intellectual disabilities had physical and/or sensory disabilities coupled with intellectual disability. Each student used three different response modes (eye gaze response; object response; and touch response). This study described at length participants, setting, (see Tables 2 and ​ and3) 3 ) materials, data collection procedure, steps/task analyzed shared story reading prompts, research design, different phases of intervention, social validity, and a good graphic representation of intervention and responses for each child. Effectiveness was described using number of correct responses and mean responses for each child across the three response modes for both comprehension and engagement. The authors did not report percentage of non-overlapping data points (PNDs) for the intervention. The effect of intervention was evident through a clear visual representation of intervention phases and PNDs could be easily established. The detailed description provided met quality indicators of single-subject designs (see Hill 2016 , Horner et al . 2005 ) information for easy replicability. Suggestion for future included more such studies for generalizability.

Cohen et al . ( 2008 ) used a three-step (attention getting step, decoding step, reading the word step) decoding strategy along with constant time delay to teach 5 students with mild to moderate intellectual disabilities word reading (see Tables 2 and ​ and3 3 for additional details of the participants and setting). The study used a multiple probe design across the five participants to assess effect of constant time delay procedure on number of words sounded out and read correctly. The three-step decoding strategy was a successful strategy in case of all five students. Results reported in terms of percentage and average increases represented graphically are a clear representation of the successful strategy. The study reported detailed procedures including preintervention assessment and reading level assessment. Clear C-V-C or C-V-V-C combination words were used in the study. Reliability and procedural validity also was described with great details. The authors described design, variables and data collection process, and social validity thoroughly making it easy for researchers to replicate. The data collected and analyzed indicated that the combined three-step decoding strategy using constant time delay was successful. Authors also provided suggestions for further improvement in subsequent studies.

In their study in 2014, Hudson and Browder evaluated effect of peer-delivered least prompts intervention and adapted read-alouds of grade level novel on correct listening comprehension on three students with moderate intellectual disabilities in their fifth grade general education literacy class. The authors also provided examples of several studies that used read-aloud coupled with different additional features and prompts successfully with individuals with intellectual disability and multiple disabilities.

The peer tutors in this study by Hudson and Browder were selected from fifth grade literacy class based on clear observation of intent to participate and studying their willingness to stay with the group. Please see Tables 2 and ​ and3 3 for details of participants as well as the settings. Authors provided detailed account of peer training, materials used, peer tutor scripts, grade-level book, adapted text, listening comprehension questions, participant books, and response boards. Authors also provided details of teacher training, peer delivered intervention, ongoing probe sessions, generalization probe sessions, procedural reliability, social validity, description of research design, dependent variable, data collection, and data analysis. All three participants benefitted from this intervention. Results were reported using clear visual representation of the intervention phases and range of increase in % responses and an overall percentage increase in prompted correct responses (PCI); independent correct responses (ICI) and generalized correct responses (GC). Authors provided information about certain limitations and also recommend tips for future research.

In yet another study that met most quality indicators (Hill 2016 ; Horner et al . 2005 ), Mims et al . ( 2012 ) investigated effect of modified system of least intrusive prompts on text dependent listening comprehension of four middle-school students with intellectual disability during read-alouds of adapted grade level biographies. Improvement for all students is reported using number of correct responses, means, range, actual and percent increases, all represented graphically in very clear and replicable terms. Citing a need for more research the authors carried out this study with 4 adolescents in self-contained classrooms. Replicable study details provided included: details of participants, setting, material (adapted biographies), research design, dependent and independent variables and data collection procedures, data analysis, social validity, and information about generalizability.

Shurr and Taber-Doughty ( 2012 ) described yet another successful read-aloud application paired with picture symbol this time and delivered successfully using a multiple probes design. The authors posited that hearing a text read aloud allows students with moderate intellectual disability to access the content of literature irrespective of their reading skills. The study described several other studies using read louds to teach literacy to students with moderate intellectual disabilities. Shurr and Taber-Doughty worked with four middle school students with moderate intellectual disability in self-contained classrooms about 60% of their day. The study provided a detailed description of the intervention including description of setting, independent and dependent variables, materials, research design, data collection, social validity, and treatment fidelity checklists. Results section of the article included a clear and detailed graphical representation of different phases of intervention. The study used visual analysis of repeated gains made by students during intervention and generalization phase. Percent gains reported in all four participants that are represented graphically ranged between 50 and 100%. Along with limitations cited after a thorough discussion of results, the study provides suggestions for future research that included more studies for generalizability of the procedure.

Read-aloud of adapted grade level biographies and systematic prompting to promote comprehension for four students aged 12–14 years with moderate to severe developmental disabilities was focus of Mims et al . ( 2012 ). Adaptations made to the biographies included summarizing the text using controlled vocabulary and pairing keywords with picture symbols. Authors provided adequate information for possible replication in terms of participants, setting, materials, content validity, questions, research design, dependent, independent variables, data collection procedures and finally, generalization, social validity, limitations, and suggestions for future research. Results were provided using mean number of correct unprompted responses and ranges for baseline, intervention, and generalization for each student.

2) Changing Criterion Design: Three studies (Alberto et al . 2010 , Fredrick et al . 2013 added changing criterion design as a variation to single-subject design to teach sight words.

Alberto et al . ( 2010 ) assessed effectiveness of sight-word instruction in multiple word phrases on reading comprehension of 5 students with moderate intellectual disabilities. Their cognitive functioning scores of 40–46 and adaptive behaviour scores range was 29–56 years. The authors contended that sight-word instruction is memory dependent. As such, words chosen for instruction need to be functional words and those that students see often. To enhance generalizability of these words, the authors used phrases/connected text where the words appear more often to help with memory. As posited by the authors, the study would add to limited research on use of connected text for sight-word recognition literature. For enhanced replicability, Alberto et al . provided detailed information about participants, setting, research design, teacher training, procedure, assessment probes, instructional sessions, generalization probes, procedural fidelity, inter-observer agreement, and social validity. This study described effectiveness of intervention in results section using means and ranges for each group and for each dependent variable. Also used were two measures of effect sizes-percent of non-overlapping data points (PNDs) and percent data points exceeding median (PEM) calculated for each phases.

Limited generalizability of sight-word instruction and a strategy to overcome the limitation was focus in Fredrick et al . ( 2013 ) that developed and used a 2-part phonetic instructional sequence to be used with direct instruction approach. Fredrick et al . ( 2013 ) had word analytic skills (verbal imitation of sounds, letter-sound correspondences, retrieval of learned letter-sounds to a predetermined rate of automaticity, and blending) as dependent variable. The focus was enhanced generalizability of these skills by 5 students with moderate ID with IQ range of 40–45. Participants were successfully taught to generalize the blending skills to untaught CVC words; functional, community words; and environmental, connected-text phrases. Waugh et al .’s study cited good existing support for use of Phonics instruction which helped students learn word-analysis skills and successfully taught 3 students with moderate intellectual disabilities aged 9–11 years and IQ 40–53. This study demonstrated positive gains in letter-sound correspondence and blending skill when taught using simultaneous prompting. Students first learnt how to read five words using sight-word instruction followed by letter-sound correspondence in these five words and blending skills. Students generalized the skills to novel words. Both studies provided good details about participants, teacher training, independent and dependent variables, assessment, design, procedure, data collection and data analysis, teaching sessions, materials, procedural fidelity, inter observer agreement, and social validity. Discussion section provided limitations and suggestions for replicability of the study.

3) Multiple baseline Design: Ruwe et al . ( 2011 ) studied effectiveness of Direct Instruction (DI) flash card system in improving sigh-word knowledge of three middle school boys with ID. Passage reading probe was also used to assess generalizability of the sight word knowledge in the context of passage. Each student read 3 sets of 20 words each and 6 passages that had the sight words. The study found the system to be highly effective for sight word recognition although, the authors felt student success in passage reading could not be directly attributed to the DI flashcard system. The authors provided adequate details of dependent variable (sight words) and independent variable (DI flashcard system); experimental design and data collection procedures, probes, information about reliability, clear graphical representation of results showing enhanced word recognition, and a thorough discussion of the intervention for easy replicability. Results were reported using averages and number of words gained. Average increase for all three sets of 20 words reported was 19.31, 19.2, and 19.35.

Studies using pre-test/post-test groups design

Allor et al . ( 2010b ), Lundberg and Reichenberg ( 2013 ), and Van der Bijl et al . ( 2006 ) used variations of pre-test/post-test comparison groups design to assess effectiveness intervention for enhancing comprehension. A total of 132 students participated in these three studies which followed pre- and post-test groups design. Tables 2 and ​ and3 3 describe participant and setting characteristics of these three studies as well as the other nine that used variations of single-subject case studies designs.

Allor et al . ( 2010a ,2010 b ) carried out a longitudinal experimental study to assess literacy progress of 59 (34 in experimental group and 25 in contrast group) students with mild to moderate ID with IQ 40 to 69 when a comprehensive reading intervention was delivered. The study described in detail instructional design features, instructional strands, staff development procedure to implement the intervention, delivery of intervention to the experimental group and the contrast/control group. The description provided details of assessment and monitoring progress in various components of reading such as concepts of print, phonological and phonemic awareness, oral language, letter and word knowledge, vocabulary, and fluency. The intervention consisted of instruction that integrated and applied concepts of print, phonological and phonemic awareness, oral language, word recognition, vocabulary, fluency and comprehension. In short, all components of effective reading. The contrast group ( n  = 25) received instruction using a structured curriculum. Students in experimental group outperformed students in the contrast group on all (phonemic awareness, vocabulary, decoding, fluency [sight word efficiency, letter-word identification], and reading comprehension) measures with effect sizes ranging from small (.26) to medium (.66) for these different measures.

The second study by Lundberg and Reichenberg in 2013 assessed successful effect of guided social interaction on reading comprehension of 40 adolescents. Participants were grouped in two intervention conditions; reciprocal teaching (RT) for the experimental group and inference teaching (IT) for the control group. They assessed effect of RT to deliver intervention through dialogue between teachers and students using independent variables of prediction, generating questions, clarifying; and summarizing. The study described in detail participants, and the dependent variables focused such as word recognition, sentence comprehension, fluency, reading comprehension, and listening comprehension. In addition, the study provided details of intervention texts, and other materials used in delivering instruction. Although both groups showed improvements, the effect sizes for improvements in different components of reading (word recognition, sentence recognition, fluency, and reading comprehension) were higher (.16 to .45) for group with RT as intervention. In comparison effect sizes ranged from .02 to .32 for the same components for the IT group. The study provided details of interventions and effect sizes for all components for bot RT and IT groups.

In the third study, Van der Bijl et al . ( 2006 ) used a comparison pre-test/post-test design with a withdrawal period in assessing through comparison, two strategies of sight word recognition. The study described in clear terms the treatment or independent variables (modified orthography (MO) and modified orthography with additional association made with traditional orthography MO/TO). Material and equipment details including details of other stimulus materials, data recording sheets, teaching procedure, and evaluation procedures were convincing. A pre-test/post-test comparison group design with a withdrawal period was used to determine effectiveness of the strategies. The results described and discussed showed that 33 individuals with moderate to severe mental disability in the assigned groups were able to learn to recognize sight words using any of the two strategies and retain them. Effect size values on day 10 were reported as .25; .31, and .56. For retention the effect sizes reported were .15, .27; and .42.

Evidence of effectiveness

Of the 12 studies selected, 9 studies (Alberto et al . 2010 , Browder et al . 2011 , Cohen et al . 2008 , Fredrick et al . 2013 , Hudson and Browder 2014 , Mims et al . 2012 , Ruwe et al . 2011 , Shurr and Taber-Doughty 2012 , Waugh et al . 2009 ) used variation of single subject research designs. According to Hill ( 2016 ) and Horner et al . ( 2005 ), single subject research or single case designs offer rigorous methodology. The documents offer experimental control and each participant serves as his/her own control. This enables researchers to use a smaller sample size to include in research studies to assess effectiveness of intervention. The social validity of the study/intervention that was described in each of these 9 studies that followed single subject designs is an added advantage of this design; it helps include dependent variables that have social and functional importance. Each study published vivid graphical representations of the intervention showing clear improvement in dependent variables which were different components of effective reading instruction in our conceptual framework. All graphical representations and descriptive data analysis used relevant terms to describe effectiveness or effect size of interventions. For example, mean, range, PND, PEM (Alberto et al . 2010 ); Mean and ranges (Browder et al . 2011 , Mims et al . 2012 , Waugh et al . 2009 ); Percent (%) improvement in dependent variables in question (Cohen et al . 2008 , Shurr and Taber-Doughty 2012 ); range and % improvement (Hudson and Browder 2014 ); numerical data and Mean (Fredrick et al . 2013 ); average and percent increase in responses (Ruwe et al . 2011 ) were used to indicate changes in different dependent variables in all phases of intervention, including generalization phase. Clearly described aspects of a single subject research in all of the 9 studies contributed to replicability by future researchers.

With reference to the three studies that had pre-post-intervention group designs, all three studies (Alberto et al . 2010 , Lundberg and Reichenberg 2013 , Van der Bijl et al . 2006 ) included an adequate section on discussion of the results presented in clear tables. These three studies met guidelines for quality indicators (see Gersten et al . 2005 ) for group experimental and quasi-experimental research in special education. The studies adequately described conceptualization underlying the studies, participants and sampling, details of independent and dependent variables, implementation of the intervention, data collection and analysis, outcome measures, and generalization of skills achieved. Allor et al . ( 2010a ), Lundberg and Reichenberg ( 2013 ), and Van der Bijl et al . ( 2006 ) reported effect sizes (medium to strong) for interventions for different components of reading targeted. Evidence of other studies that used similar strategies was included in literature review sections of these studies. As such, these studies satisfied the standards Gersten et al . ( 2005 ) suggested for determining a practice to be evidence-based.

We based our conceptual model for this review (see Figure 1 ) on findings in the report by National Reading Panel (NRP 2000); key findings by NICHD 2000, and suggestions by other experts (Ellery 2009 , Ellery and Rosenboom 2011 , Lerner and Johns 2015 ). Our focus was to explore studies that used strategies to enhance reading abilities of students with individuals identified as having ID, IDD, or MD in any one, or combination of the contributing factors of effective reading ( Figure 1 ) that would help develop and sustain their reading ability.

Effective strategies described

Read-aloud strategy was used successfully by five of the 12 (41%) of reviewed studies that used variations of single subject designs. Read-aloud has been successfully used by educators to teach a variety of subject areas in different settings for both, students with and students without disabilities. Details provided by all of these 5 studies (Browder et al . 2011 , Cohen et al . 2008 , Hudson and Browder 2014 , Mims et al . 2012 , Shurr and Taber-Doughty 2012 ) contributing to the replicability of the studies would offer encouragement to future researchers to use read-aloud strategy to enhance comprehension. The remaining 4 studies (Alberto et al . 2010 , Fredrick et al . 2013 , Ruwe et al . 2011 , Waugh et al . 2009 ) used variations of single subject research designs to enhance sight-word recognition using 2-part phonics instruction sequence using direct instruction approach, sight words with connected text; and direct instruction flashcards system. These studies focused on phonological awareness, phonics, and vocabulary components from the five essential components of effective reading in our conceptual framework ( Figure 1 ) The three studies that used pre-test/post-test experimental design in their research used 1) intervention that integrated and applied concepts of print, phonological and phonemic awareness, oral language, word recognition, vocabulary, fluency and comprehension (Allor et al . 2010a ); 2) reciprocal teaching (Lundberg and Reichenberg 2013 ), and 3) comparison using two strategies- modified orthography (MO) and modified orthography with additional association made with traditional orthography MO/TO (Van der Bijl et al . 2006 ).

During our search for literature, we came across various previous reviews of reading instruction for individuals with ID, for e.g. Alnahdi ( 2015 ), Browder and Xin ( 1998 ), Browder et al . ( 2006 ), Hill ( 2016 ), Joseph and Seery ( 2004 ), Katims ( 2000 ), Kliewer and Biklen ( 2001 ), and Rao and Barkley ( 2009 ) that offered suggestions for enhancing reading of students with ID. These recommendations included a need for more strategies that are effective; intense, motivating, and meaningful instruction that is explicit and with more direct teacher involvement. To this end, this review further contributed to the literature base. The studies we included provided replicable descriptions of research procedure for all 9 studies that used single subject research design, as well the three studies that used pre-test/post-test group designs effectively to enhance different (all five) components of effective instruction recommended in literature (Ellery 2009 ; Ellery and Rosenboom 2011 ; Lerner and Johns 2015 ; NICHD 2000; NRP 2000) and which we included in our conceptual framework. We offer suggestions and recommendations in the following section for future research to expand the literature base of evidence-based strategies to enhance reading of individuals with ID, IDD, and MD.

Conclusion and recommendations

This review synthesized findings from 12 different studies that assessed effectiveness of various strategies to create and sustain readers with intellectual and multiple disabilities. Collectively, the studies addressed all five components of effective reading recommended in literature (Ellery 2009 ; Ellery and Rosenboom 2011 ; Lerner and Johns 2015 , NICHD 2000; NRP 2000) and on which we based our conceptual framework. These strategies will help in developing and sustaining effective readers.

We recommend carrying out more studies using qualitative and/or mixed-method approaches to further study use of these strategies in different classrooms and grades. The differences in the approach between quantitative and qualitative paradigms, such as for example, multiple sources of data, inductive and deductive data analysis, participants’ meanings, and emergent design quality (Creswell 2014 ) will help gather more and better information and evidence of how the strategies are actually being implemented and evidence of their effectiveness.

According to Creswell ( 2014 ), the two forms of data are integrated in the design analysis and different perspectives drawn from qualitative and quantitative data can provide stronger and richer evidence. The quantitative portion of the study could use either face-to-face surveys or online surveys to collect data about teachers’ knowledge and interventions. The data can be analyzed using quantitative data analysis techniques. An open-ended method of qualitative paradigm using observation and/or open-ended questions providing descriptive answers can then follow.

Another recommendation for future studies would be to carry out an exclusive and systematic review of studies that used technology and other assistive technology to teach reading. For example, researchers could pair an augmentative and alternative communication device or other any other assistive technology and/or technology as a current evidence-based intervention is carried out. It would also help if more research could be carried out to assess effectiveness of interventions to teach students with ID, IDD, and MD standards-based curriculum. More studies could be carried out according to the chronological age groups. This would add to the repertoire and database of successful age-appropriate strategies that may benefit adolescents and adults with ID, IDD and/or individuals with MD. Such interventions would help to create and sustain effective readers and provide individuals with ID, IDD, and MD much needed support to acquire independence in everyday life, including life in schools and beyond.

Funding Statement

The author would like to extend sincere appreciation to the Deanship of Scientific Research at King Saud University for funding this research. Fund: RG-1437-001.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

• Alnahdi, G. H. 2015. Teaching reading for students with intellectual disabilities: A systematic review . International Education Studies , 8 , 79–87. [ Google Scholar ]
• Allor, J. H, et al.. 2010a. Methods of increasing the intensity of reading instruction for students with intellectual disabilities . Education & Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities , 45 , 500–511. [ Google Scholar ]
• Allor, J. H, et al.. 2010b. Comprehensive reading instruction for students with intellectual disabilities: Findings from the first three years of a longitudinal study . Psychology in the Schools , 47 , 445–466. [ Google Scholar ]
• Alberto, P. A, et al.. 2010. Teaching the reading of connected text through sight-word instruction to students with moderate intellectual disabilities . Research in Developmental Disabilities , 31 , 1467–1474.[ 10.1016/S0891-4222(10)00106-X] doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2010.06.011 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Browder, D. M, et al.. 2011. Using shared stories and individual modes to promote comprehension and engagement in literacy for students with multiple, severe disabilities . Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities , 46 , 339–351. [ Google Scholar ]
• Browder, D. M, et al.. 2006. Research on reading instruction for individuals with significant disabilities . Exceptional Children , 72 , 392–408. [ Google Scholar ]
• Browder, D. M. and Xin, Y. P. 1998. A meta-analysis and review of sight word research and its implications for teaching functional reading to individuals with moderate to severe disabilities . The Journal of Special Education , 32 , 130–153. [ Google Scholar ]
• Carter, E. W, et al.. 2010. Summer employment and community experiences of transition-age youth with severe disabilities . Exceptional Children , 76 , 194–212. Retrieved from http://libproxy.library.wmich.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/201197548?acountid=15099 [ Google Scholar ]
• Cohen, E. T, et al.. 2008. Using a three-step decoding strategy with constant time delay to teach word reading to students with mild and moderate mental retardation . Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities , 23 , 67–78. [ Google Scholar ]
• Creswell, J. W. 2014. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches . 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dilveko, J. 2007. Guest editorial: Reading literature and literature reviews . Library and Information Science Research , 29 , 451–454. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ellery, V. 2009. Creating strategic reader: Techniques for developing competency in phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension . 2nd ed. Newark, DL: International Reading Association. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ellery, V. and Rosenboom, J. 2011. Sustaining strategic reader: Techniques for supporting content literacy in grades 6–12 . Newark, DL: International Reading Association. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fenlon, A., et al.. 2010. “So much potential in reading!”: Developing meaningful literacy routines for students with multiple disabilities . Teaching Exceptional Children , 43 , 42–48. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fredrick, L., et al.. 2013. From Initial to functional phonics: teaching word-analysis-skills to students with moderate intellectual disability, Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities , 48 , 49–66. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gersten, R., et al.. 2005. Quality indicators for group experimental and quasi-experimental research in special education . Exceptional Children , 71 , 149–164. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hill, D. 2016. Phonics based reading interventions for students with intellectual disability: A systematic literature review . Journal of Education and Training Studies , 5 , 205–214. [ Google Scholar ]
• Horner, R. H., et al.. 2005. The use of single-subject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education . Exceptional Children , 71 , 165–179. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hudson, M. E. and Browder, D. M. 2014. Improving listening comprehension responses for students with moderate intellectual disability during literacy class . Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities , 39 , 11–29. [ Google Scholar ]
• Joseph, L. and Seery, M. 2004. Where is the phonics? A review of the literature on the use of phonetic analysis with students with mental retardation . Remedial and Special Education , 25 , 55–94. [ Google Scholar ]
• Katims, S. 2000. Literacy instruction for people with mental retardation: Historical highlights and contemporary analysis . Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities , 35 , 3–15. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kliewer, C. and Biklen, D. 2001. “School’s not really a place for reading”: A research synthesis of the literate lives of students with severe disabilities . The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps , 26 , 1–12. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lerner, J. W. and Johns, B. H. 2015. Learning disabilities and related mild disabilities . 12th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. [ Google Scholar ]
• Li, H. 2014. The effects of read-aloud accommodations for students with and without disabilities: A meta-analysis . Educational Measurement Issues and Practice , 33 , 3–16. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lundberg, I. and Reichenberg, M., 2013. Developing reading comprehension among students with mild intellectual disabilities: An intervention study . Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research , 57 , 89–100. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mims, P., et al.. 2012. Using read-alouds of grade-level biographies and systematic prompting to promote comprehension for students with moderate and severe developmental disabilities . Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities , 27 , 67–80. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rao, S. 2009. From isolation to combination: a multi-step, multi-component approach to developing literacy skills of students with cognitive impairments . Reading Improvement , 46 , 63–77. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rao, S. and Barkley, E. 2009. Read and reach the whole child: using adapted/created/enhanced (ACE) stories for content representation . Reading Improvement , 46 , 50–60. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ratz, C. and Lenhard, W. 2013. Reading skills among students with intellectual disabilities . Research in Developmental Disabilities , 34 , 1740–1748. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ruwe, K., et al.. 2011. The multiple effects of direct instruction flashcards on sight word acquisition, passage reading, and errors for three middle school students with intellectual disabilities . Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities , 23 , 241–255. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schnorr, R. F. 2011. Intensive reading instruction for learners with developmental disabilities . The Reading Teacher , 65 , 35–45. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shamseer, L., et al.. 2015. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation . BMJ , 349 , g7647. Retrieved from http://www.prismastatement.org/Extensions/Protocols.aspx [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shurr, J. and Taber-Doughty, T. 2012. Increasing comprehension of middle school students with moderate intellectual disability on age-appropriate texts . Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities , 47 , 359–372. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/23879971 [ Google Scholar ]
• Thomas G. E. 1996. Teaching students with mental retardation: A life goal curriculum planning approach . Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. [ Google Scholar ]
• Van der Bijl C, et al.. 2006. A comparison of two strategies of sight word instruction in children with mental disability . Research in Developmental Disabilities , 27 , 43–55. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Waugh, R. E, et al.. 2009. Using simultaneous prompting to teach sounds and blending skills to students with moderate intellectual disabilities . Research in Developmental Disabilities , 30 , 1435–1447. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

• < Previous

Home > Teaching and Learning and Leadership > School and system improvement > 32

School and system improvement

Teaching reading: literature review: a review of the evidence-based research literature on approaches to the teaching of literacy, particularly those that are effective in assisting students with reading difficulties.

Ken Rowe , Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER) National Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy (Australia)

Publication Date

Educational practices, Literacy, Literacy education, Phonics, Reading teaching, Student assessment, Teacher education, Teacher effectiveness, Teaching effectiveness, Teaching methods, Whole language approach

Underlying a key purpose of the present review is the conviction that claims about what constitute effective literacy teaching, and of reading in particular, should be grounded in findings from rigorous evidence-based research. To this end, the present review of the research literature on teaching practices for students, with and without reading difficulties, relies largely, though not exclusively, on well-designed meta analytic syntheses that: (a) partial out methodological artefacts from the effect sizes; and (b) base their analyses on the actual procedures and components of instruction used in the studies reviewed. Following a brief outline of the background and purposes related to the National Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy, attention is given to the prevailing contexts of: the importance of literacy in schooling; the overlap between students' under-achievement in literacy (especially in reading) and their poor behavioural health and wellbeing; the complexities entailed in literacy teaching and learning; and contemporary understandings of effective teaching practice. Despite a lack of supporting evidence for its effectiveness, the prevailing educational philosophy of constructivism (as a theory of knowing) has had marked influences on pre-service teacher education, and subsequent professional practice, by shaping teachers' interpretations of how they should teach. However, there is a strong body of evidence that constructivist approaches to teaching, including whole-language, are not in the best interests of students with learning difficulties and especially for those with reading difficulties. For beginning reading during the early years of schooling, findings from meta analytic syntheses of a large volume of local and international evidence-based research consistently indicate that direct, systematic instruction in phonics makes significantly greater contributions to children's initial and subsequent growth in reading, writing, spelling and comprehension, than do alternative approaches involving unsystematic or no phonics instruction.

Recommended Citation

Rowe, K., & National Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy (Australia). (2005). Teaching reading: literature review: a review of the evidence-based research literature on approaches to the teaching of literacy, particularly those that are effective in assisting students with reading difficulties . Department of Education, Science and Training. https://research.acer.edu.au/tll_misc/32

Copyright Statement

Copyright Australian Council for Educational Research 2005

Place of Publication

Canberra, Australia

Department of Education, Science and Training

Since June 04, 2019

Included in

Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Research Commons , Elementary Education Commons , Language and Literacy Education Commons

Search repository

Advanced Search

• Notify me via email or RSS

Browse repository links

• All authors
• All publications
• ACER researchers profiles
• Research Conference
• Journals and newsletters
• Submit Research

Related links

• ACER website
• Cunningham Library

Article Locations

• View articles on map
• View articles in Google Earth

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Teaching reading: a case study through mixed methods.

• 1 Departamento de Didácticas Específicas, Universidad de la Laguna, San Cristóbal de la Laguna, Spain
• 2 Departamento de Psicología Evolutiva y de la Educación, Universidad de la Laguna, San Cristóbal de La Laguna, Spain
• 3 Departamento de Psicología Clínica, Psicobiología y Metodología, Universidad de La Laguna, San Cristóbal de La Laguna, Spain

The present study analyzes the relationship between teachers’ beliefs about learning to read, teaching practices, and discourse. To carry out this study, we benefited from the collaboration of six teachers in kindergarten and the first levels of primary education. First, an attribution questionnaire was used to analyze beliefs about learning to read ( Jiménez et al., 2015 ). Secondly, to study teaching practices, an observation tool was used ( Suárez et al., 2018 ). Thirdly, in order to know the opinion of teachers about how to teach reading, we adapted the instrument to assess teaching perspectives elaborated by Clark and Yinger (1979) . Finally, all the information was triangulated and analyzed using mixed methods. The results indicated that the relationship between beliefs, practices, and discourse is not always consistent. In all teachers, a relationship was found between some of their beliefs, practices, and discourse. At the level of beliefs, all teachers presented one predominant attributional profile, although to a lesser extent, their beliefs were also attributable to other learning theories. The results indicated that all the teachers carried out teaching practices associated with the different learning theories. Similarly to their discourse, all teachers showed diverse opinions about the learning processes involved in reading. These results indicate that teachers maintain eclectic approaches, both when they carry out activities in the classroom and when they think about learning to read.

Introduction

For almost three decades, research has documented the influence of teachers’ beliefs on educational practice ( Berthelsen and Brownlee, 2007 ; Kuzborska, 2011 ; Barrot, 2015 ). Teacher’s beliefs are thoughts, perceptions, and values about their roles as educators, education, and how students learn ( Vartuli, 2005 ). It has even been shown that if teachers are aware of their own beliefs, the repertoire of teaching skills can be increased ( Tracey and Mandel, 2012 ), leading to a change in classroom decision making, and teaching strategies and evaluation. If we want to achieve improvements in teaching, it is necessary to examine the teachers’ beliefs and modify them ( McAlpine and Weston, 2002 ). A great deal of research in this direction has shown that instructional events can be catalysts for changing beliefs ( Stevens, 2002 ; Theurer, 2002 ; Fazio, 2003 ), since beliefs are permeable mental structures susceptible to change ( Thompson, 1992 ), although there appears to be no consensus on this ( Block and Hazelin, 1995 ; Richardson, 1996 ).

More recent studies have provided us with more detailed information on how beliefs and implicit knowledge influence teachers’ instructional practices ( Cunningham and Zibulsky, 2009 ), actions, and strategies that they implement to teach reading in the classroom. The research carried out in this regard has focused on differentiating three traits appearing in the teaching and learning of reading. Thus, Tolchinsky and Ríos (2009) analyzed the relationship between what teachers say and do (2.250), teaching practice ( N = 2), and students’ knowledge ( N = 814). To do this, they used a self-report questionnaire of 30 questions, with high reliability (α = 0.81) and a Likert scale (0–6). Through a cluster analysis, they detected three differentiated profiles: instructional practices focused on teaching the names of letters, letter–sound relationships, as well as the importance of learning products; a situational approach to activities arising from classroom situations, where students look for the means to understand texts that they do not know; and multidimensional activities such as letter knowledge, recognition, and letter–sound association, as well as reading and writing work from situations that arise in the classroom. The results showed the following distribution: instructional (33.87%), situational (37.06%), and multidimensional (29.06%). Also, they found that 30% of the children were able to recognize unknown words and did not seem to have difficulty in mastering the code, and that teachers used explicit, early, and systematic teaching practices.

Also, in Spain, Barragán and Medina (2008) , analyzed the practices teachers use through questionnaires. They found significant differences depending on the profile and educational level. Thus, nursery/kindergarten teachers showed a higher profile of situational practices (50%), compared to elementary school teachers who showed a profile of instructional practices (70%). Subsequently, they analyzed the profile of practices according to geographical area, finding that the teachers who carried out the greatest number of situational practices were those of the Basque country, followed by teachers from Almería, Cantabria, Catalonia, and the Community of Madrid (more than 50%). Catalonia and Cantabria showed a lower frequency of instructional practices (less than 20%); however, the teachers from León and Asturias used these practices more frequently (more than 55%). The same authors also observed six Early Childhood Education classrooms in Almeria. The results showed a relationship between the declared belief profile and its practices in the classroom. In another study, Ríos et al. (2010) demonstrated the relationship between the knowledge learned and the practices in teaching reading of two Infant Education teachers. They found that the contents worked on by the teacher with a situational profile were reading and writing functions, identification of words in reading, and letter names and sound values.

The teacher with an instructional profile used word identification and word reading. In the study carried out by Baccus (2004) , a direct relationship was found between the teachers’ beliefs and the instructional time dedicated to the teaching of reading. In addition, Rapoport et al. (2016) focused on analyzing the beliefs that teachers maintain ( N = 144) regarding the contribution of executive functions in reading performance and their teaching practice. Their results showed a positive relationship between these two variables ( r = 0.512, p < 0.01).

Ethnicity has been another feature highlighted in studies assessing the dyad of beliefs and practices in teaching. The Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement [CIERA] (2001) examined the beliefs and practices of 250 early childhood teachers. Their results showed a relationship between beliefs (based on the importance of the development of alphabetic knowledge, word recognition, stories, and oral language) and practices. Differences in relation to beliefs were found based on the ethnicity of teachers. African American teachers tended to believe that it was more important for the child to learn to read through teaching the alphabet (e.g., naming letters, saying their sounds), while white teachers thought it was more important for children to learn to read from teaching oral language activities (e.g., answering questions about a story or telling a story from a drawing). On the other hand, they found significant differences depending on the academic training received, so teachers with a higher academic level believed that teaching of oral language was more important, while teachers with lower academic levels did not share this belief.

Also, the report presented by the Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) ( OCDE, 2009 ) provides detailed information on the development of variables involved in the teaching and learning process. This report analyzed the beliefs of secondary school teachers in several countries. Their results indicated that most countries (Northeastern Europe, Scandinavia, Australia, and Korea) showed constructivist positions ( p < 0.05). Humanities teachers presented more structured beliefs and were little oriented toward students ( p < 0.05), also with differences depending on teaching experience, so the teachers with more years of experience thought and performed more structured practices ( p < 0.05). The analyses also revealed a positive correlation between constructivist beliefs and practices in teachers from different countries ( p < 0.05), except in Korea, where a weak relationship was found between beliefs and practices with a direct style. Finally, they found that positioning depended largely on the quality of the learning environment and job satisfaction ( p < 0.05). In subsequent reports ( OCDE, 2013 ), an average 95% of OECD teachers stated that they agree with constructivist practices.

Other lines of research have not found a bidirectional relationship between the teachers’ thinking and their action in the classroom. An example is the study carried out by Miglis et al. (2014) with 90 Norwegian teachers. They used a 130-item questionnaire to measure beliefs (e.g., their role as teachers, the role of teachers in teaching reading, consistency with current research about the importance of early literacy) and teaching practices (e.g., books, book contents, alphabetic knowledge, phonological awareness, and reading and writing). They found that teachers reported moderately positive beliefs about their role as a teacher in their students’ reading success, and they “agreed” with the idea that research has found that early literacy is necessary. These beliefs were not related to their practices, since the time devoted to this type of instruction was minimal. However, they discovered that the most widely used practice was “shared reading and reading aloud for 10 min a day” (29.3%). There are numerous studies that have not found a relationship between these two variables ( Wilcox-Herzog, 2001 ). Thus, for example, through two teachers’ collaboration, Pérez-Peitx (2013) was able to observe classroom practices and analyze interviews. Their results also indicated that there was no relationship between these two variables. Along the same lines, another recent study ( Utami et al., 2019 ) based on socio-cognitive theory studied teacher beliefs and practices in reading comprehension tasks. They found that the practices were not always consistent with their beliefs.

To our knowledge, there is no research assessing the profile of the teacher and teaching practices, in relation to all the theoretical principles that govern the teaching and learning processes of reading (i.e., innatist, maturationist, corrective, repetition, sociocultural, constructivist, psycholinguistic approaches).

The objective of this study is to find out whether or not there is a relationship between the beliefs, practices, and discourse used in teaching reading in the classroom, in order to propose more effective teaching strategies.

Materials and Methods

The study was carried out from a mixed methods perspective, integrating qualitative and quantitative sources of information through “merge” ( Creswell and Plano-Clark, 2007 ). The proposed design was triangulation ( Morse, 2003 ; Creswell and Plano-Clark, 2007 ; Tashakkori and Teddlie, 2010 ; Anguera et al., 2012 , 2018 ; Creswell, 2014 ), which was found suitable for the aims. A direct observation of teaching reading practices was carried out. The observational study was configured based on three criteria: study’s units, temporality, and dimensionality ( Anguera et al., 2011 ). The observational design can be classified as Nomothetic/Follow-up/Multidimensional (N/F/M) ( Sánchez-Algarra and Anguera, 2013 ; Portell et al., 2015 ). Frequency was analyzed. In order to analyze the relationship between teacher’s beliefs, practices, and discourse, a Pearson’s correlation was carried out.

Participants

Six teachers with an age between 25 and 50 years participated. The teachers’ years of experience ranged from 10 to 35 years. They belonged to different Infant and Primary Education units on the island of Tenerife (Canary Islands, Spain). The selection criteria were based mainly on the fact that the staff member taught the subject Spanish Language and Literature, devoting an average time period of 1 h a day to the teaching of reading.

To carry out this study, three fundamental tools were used: a questionnaire to know the teachers’ beliefs, an observation tool to analyze their practices, and a semi-structured interview to analyze the teachers’ speech about teaching and learning to read.

– Questionnaire on Beliefs about Learning and Teaching Reading , composed of 60 items (see Suárez et al., 2013 ; Jiménez et al., 2014 , 2015 ) corresponding to the basic postulates of each learning theory: innatist, maturationist, sociocultural, constructivist, corrective, repetition, and psycholinguistic (see for review Tracey and Mandel, 2012 ). Teachers had to respond according to their degree of agreement or disagreement using a Likert scale of 0–10, where 0 means strongly disagree, and 10, strongly agree. Cronbach’s Alpha was 0.88.

Observation Tool on Reading Teaching Practices. This tool used here was developed by Suárez et al. (2018) and combines a field format and systems of categories. This consists of 14 criteria—alphabetic knowledge, phonological awareness, use of teaching resources, prior knowledge of children, reinforcement, feedback, modeling, direct instruction, guided oral instruction, extracurricular tasks, reading and writing, psychomotor skills, functional reading skills, and vocabulary—and 77 categories on practices in teaching reading. For the measurement plan, the results showed that the absolute and relative generalizability measures were acceptable (at 0.970 and 0.989) at 30 sessions and that 40 sessions were needed to reach 0.977 and 0.992, respectively. For the generalizability indexes to measure inter- and intraobserver reliability, a four-faceted SRC/O (Session, Criterion, Category/Observer) design was used, and analysis showed the greatest percentage of variability to be related to the Criterion facet (33%), while the Observer facet showed no variability at all. The absolute generalizability coefficient was 0.999, and the relative coefficient was also 0.999. With respect to the intra-rater reliability, using a four-faceted SRC/M (Session, Criterion, Category/Moment) design, analysis showed that 32% of variability corresponded to the Session facet and 33% corresponded to Criterion, while Moment showed no variability. The absolute and relative generalizability coefficients obtained for Observer 1 were both 0.999. The absolute and relative coefficients for Observer 2 were both 0.997, facet showed no variability at all. The absolute generalizability validity using a two-faceted model [Observation (2) and Criterion (74)] showed a value of 0.000 (absolute and relative validity).

– Four digital video cameras and Match Vision 3.0 software ( Perea et al., 2006 ) were used for the sessions to record teaching practices. Data quality was analyzed using the Generalizability Study (GT) version 2.0.E program ( Ysewijn, 1996 ) and the SAS 9.1 statistical package. Teacher discourse was analyzed using Atlas.ti 6.0 ( Friese, 2011 ).

– Structured Teacher Interview on Teaching Practices . We adapted the interview on teaching perspectives elaborated by Clark and Yinger (1979) , composed of 28 questions on aspects related to teaching and learning: general questions about teaching, daily classes, teaching and learning, curriculum, time, and teachers’ “philosophy.” Changes were included in the nomenclature of the subjects of the curriculum and in the section on teacher philosophy (F), where the questions were guided toward the field of reading (see Table 1 ).

Table 1. Interview adapted from Clark and Yinger (1979) .

– For the interviews, a video camera and two Panasonic recorders, model RR-US455 (with 66 h of recording capacity), were used to ensure safe information storage.

– To transcribe information, the program Naturally Dragon Speaking ( Baker, 1975 ), version 12 was employed, and Atlas.ti, version 6, for information analysis ( Friese, 2011 ).

Before the recordings were made, authorization was obtained from both the teachers and the pupils’ parents. All participants provided written informed consent prior to their participation. Likewise, a schedule was agreed on for when the study would be carried out. On the day indicated, the belief questionnaire was applied to the participating teachers, their doubts in this regard were clarified, and approximately an hour was spent to complete it. Seven recording sessions per teacher (twice a week for 1 h each day) led to total of 42 h of recording (see Suárez et al., 2018 ). The interviews were held with the participating teachers and recorded in classrooms devoid of noise. Cameras were located in front of each teacher, and the furniture was arranged in an interview layout. The interviews of the six teachers were recorded, each lasting approximately 1 h. The audio was later transferred to the computer for the literal transcription of the interviews. Subsequently, the available information was collated and all the material subject to data processing organized. To conclude this phase, each interview was reviewed to gain an overall impression of the information provided by each teacher.

In the next phase, the document was segmented and coded through the Atlas.ti 6.0 program. The data were processed using the thematic analysis technique, according to the proposal of Braun and Clarke (2006) . Initially, the hermeneutic units were defined according to the interview questions, taking into account the theories about learning to read. Subsequently, the primary documents were worked on and information segmented. In this case, we focused on words as well as phrases/sentences and texts. The relevant information was then selected, and these units were encoded. Later, we established code families composed of the different variables affecting teaching and its context. Teachers’ opinions about learning to read were categorized. The code families structured the relationship between the previously identified categories and theories on the learning of reading (e.g., innatist, maturationist, sociocultural, constructivist, corrective, repetitive, and psycholinguistic).

In order to classify each teacher according to his/her attributional profile, factor scores for each theoretical approach defined the teachers’ beliefs according to the percentiles (see Table 2 ).

Table 2. Teachers’ profiles in each theory in percentiles.

To determine which theory should be attributed most to each teacher, the score was set around the percentile ≥75, and to determine which theories fitted less, around percentile ≥50 (see Figure 1 ).

Figure 1. Example teacher F. profile.

Although all teachers were characterized by a predominant attributional profile that defined their particular beliefs, we found that their reading teaching behavior could also be attributed to any of the other theories to a lesser extent (see Table 3 ).

Table 3. Summary of teachers’ profiles.

Regarding teaching reading practices, it was found that the most used was feedback (praising or correcting the student), followed by the use of teaching resources (e.g., stories, songs, or poetry), direct instruction (e.g., individual–group reading, aloud or silent, with or without intonation, and fluency) and functional knowledge of reading (e.g., summary, questions, comprehension exercises). To a lesser extent, they used literacy activities, reinforcement through praise (e.g., tangible or verbal), reading and writing, and work on alphabetic knowledge.

The latter strategy indicated that teachers mostly referred to constructivist theory, except teacher M.C., who chose to position herself in psycholinguistic theory. Similarly, teacher F. emphasized that students should build their learning and that teachers should function as a guide. To a lesser extent, she commented on aspects of the maturation and behaviorist theory (see Figure 2 ). Teacher M. also focused on the foundations of constructivism (e.g., prior knowledge, children discover their learning). She also talked about the importance of psychomotor skills, correctness in reading, as well as the involvement of parents. Teacher C. commented that students learn through construction and must discover reading autonomously through the support offered by the teacher. She also emphasized the role that parents play in reading, the importance of resources, oral language work, phonological awareness, as well as maturity in the development of reading. Teacher M.C. placed greater emphasis on the development of phonological awareness and oral language to teach reading. However, teacher S. focused more on student autonomy in the learning process and to a lesser extent on oral language, use of resources, and correction during reading (feedback). Teacher I. focused mostly on the construction of learning and less so on the role of oral language and the use of resources (library).

Figure 2. Teacher F. Network summarizing key concepts associated with the teaching process.

Subsequently, the information was triangulated after analyzing the beliefs, practices, and discourse of the teachers. For this, several researchers who are experts in the learning and teaching of reading skills agreed on the following relationship, in accordance with the basic postulates of each of the theories considered (see Table 4 ).

Table 4. Triangulation between theoretical profile, teaching practices, and teacher discourse.

Then the teachers’ scores were compared in relation to their beliefs, teaching practices (in terms of frequency), as well as teacher discourse, previously analyzed through its categorization into teaching–learning processes and their context (see Table 5 ). Finally, the results were interpreted according to Pearson’s correlation analysis. The results showed a high correlation ( r = 0.72, p < 0.05) in teacher F. and in teacher I. ( r = 0.71, p < 0.05) and a negative and high correlation in teacher M. ( r = −0.81, p < 0.05) between beliefs and practices. Moreover, they showed a moderate correlation in teacher C. ( r = 0.52) and in teacher M. ( r = 0.45) between beliefs and discourse. Finally, the results showed a negative and high correlation in teacher I. ( r = −0.74, p < 0.05) and in teacher M.C. ( r = −0.76, p < 0.05) between practices and discourse.

Table 5. Percentages of teachers’ beliefs, reading practices, and discourse.

Teacher F. showed links between his theoretical profile and his practices. A relationship between corrective beliefs (27.8%) and practices (29.2%) was found. On the other hand, we observed that in his practices, he used activities associated with other theories: repetition (23.5%), constructivism (19.9%), and psycholinguistic (16%). This also happened when he thought about how children learn to read, since he considered that the construction of learning (77.8%), maturation (11.1%), and providing feedback (11.1%) were fundamental. Other discourse makers, teacher M. did not show a link between her sociocultural (22%) and maturationist (23.4%) theoretical profile and her practices (5.7% and 0.6%). However, the results indicated that her maturationist (23.4%), sociocultural (22%) beliefs were related only to her discourse. So, she thought that the use of psychomotor skills (21.4%), teaching resources such as stories, stories, poems, and texts (14.3%), and teaching previous knowledge (50%) were important. However, practices based on other currents were observed: corrective reading (32.6%) and repeated reading (25.2%), as well as constructivism (19.1%), such as working previous knowledge or reading and writing and psycholinguistic skills (16.6%) [e.g., alphabetic knowledge: teaching letter names and sounds, rules with support rhymes, etc.; phonological awareness: stimulating children to become aware of letter sounds, saying words that begin with a certain sound, separating words into syllables, playing the game veo-veo (I spy.); vocabulary: teaching the meaning of words]. During the interview, opinions related to other theories were also found (i.e., corrective).

As for teacher C., there was a bidirectional relationship between her sociocultural theoretical profile (39.6%) (e.g., use of teaching resources such as stories, songs, writings from different sources, etc.) and her discourse (33.3%). Also, it was found that her psycholinguistic profile (28.9%) was related to her discourse (11.1%) (e.g., oral language or phonological awareness). However, the results indicated that this teacher carried out other practices not related to her theoretical beliefs, such as: feedback (50.8%) and repetition (16.9%). The same occurred with her discourse; she thought that maturation was also important (22.3%).

Regarding teacher M.C., a negative relationship was found between her psycholinguistic discourse (59.3%) and her teaching practices (4.1%). The same happened with her corrective practices (37.6%) and her discourse (14.8%) (e.g., correct when the child is wrong, point out, provide examples, deny). However, when we analyzed her practices, we found activities justified by other theories, such as functional knowledge of reading or use of teaching resources (13%) or repetition (19.6%) and constructivism (13%) (e.g., previous reading and writing, and likewise when we asked her opinion about how children learn to read (e.g., constructivism).

Regarding teacher S., she showed a corrective (17.6%), innatist (17.6%), sociocultural (17.6%), maturationist (16.6%), and constructivism (15.3%) profile. Then, she carried out corrective (35.1%) practices (e.g., feedback, direct instruction). During her discourse, opinions were also found that were constructivist (47.9%) and psycholinguistic (20%). Nevertheless, repetition practices (36%) were observed that had nothing to do with her expressed beliefs.

A relationship was found between the constructivism profile (23%) of teacher I. and her practices (19.3%). Then the result showed a relationship between corrective (12.6%) and repetitive (12.6%) beliefs and practices. Furthermore, this teacher used other practices unrelated to any of her attributed beliefs, such as: sociocultural (10.6%). No relationship between corrective (23%) and repetition (25.3%) practices and discourse were found. In the same way, she referred to the implication of other (e.g., sociocultural and psycholinguistic) theories in infant readers’ learning. The innatist profile of teacher I. was not related to her practices or discourse.

The results of the present study are congruent with previous study results that showed that teachers hold eclectic positions ( Clemente, 2008 ; Jiménez and O’Shanahan, 2008 ; Clemente et al., 2010 ; Rodríguez and Clemente, 2013 ). Other research has shown quite different results, from studies finding a relationship between beliefs and teaching practices in reading learning ( Cunningham and Zibulsky, 2009 ; Tolchinsky and Ríos, 2009 ; Rapoport et al., 2016 ) to studies which indicated a moderate correlation ( Baumann et al., 1998 ). On the opposite side, other authors found no such relationship ( Pérez-Peitx, 2013 ; Miglis et al., 2014 ; Enyew and Melesse, 2018 ; Utami et al., 2019 ).

The data extracted from the belief questionnaires have been complemented with the analysis of teaching practices and each teacher’s interviews, which allowed us to provide additional information ( Castañer et al., 2013 ). In our case, the interview helped us complete the teacher’s profile. We found that the teaching and learning processes are mediated by multiple contextual variables that were not identified by the questionnaire or recorded observations.

Analysis of the practices allowed us to identify not only what activities the teachers performed in their real teaching context but also how their sequence of instruction was oriented in all cases toward the use of their own multiple resources, applying other theories. The relationship found between some beliefs and practices in this study suggests that if teachers are aware of their own beliefs, the repertoire of teaching practices can be increased ( Tracey and Mandel, 2012 ), causing changes in decision making in the classroom and in teaching and evaluation strategies. In addition, as all teachers used many activities characteristic of other theories they did not explicitly hold, we focused on the opposite process, modifying their practices to cause a change in their beliefs ( Fazio, 2003 ), since these are permeable mental structures that can be modified ( Thompson, 1992 ). But how can we achieve this? Some studies confirm that people form their implicit theories through the knowledge they acquire ( Suárez and Jiménez, 2014 ).

The first step is to achieve the teacher’s predisposition to change, always through invitation ( Baena, 2000 ), by encouraging reflection. To do this, they should become aware how their own beliefs are involved in their teaching practice and how they influence student performance. In addition, the false myths about learning to read and teaching practices should be recognized, as prescribed by the National Reading Panel [NRP] (2000) . The question remains whether teachers have received training based on the latest advances in scientific research on the teaching of reading, in order to provide young students (who may or may not have difficulties) with the tools necessary for their learning to proceed optimally.

Online training offers teachers the opportunity to recycle their knowledge ( Costi et al., 2005 ; Jiménez, 2015 ; Jiménez et al., 2015 ; Jiménez and O’Shanahan, 2016 ), which generates an important pillar supporting success, integration, and sustainability in education ( Haydon and Barton, 2007 ; Somekh, 2008 ). It is also an alternative solution to the lack of time and difficulties in reconciling work and family life. It has been found that experience with these resources plays a fundamental role, since it favors a positive attitude of teachers and also confidence in the use of these tools for education ( BECTA, 2009 ). Joshi et al. (2009) found that the training teachers receive is inadequate because textbooks and courses in education reflect superstitions, anecdotes, and beliefs that are not based on scientific evidence. Research has also found that teachers do not properly use the practices that are based on scientific evidence ( Moats, 2009 ). If the learning environment is effective, it can even happen that only a small percentage of students present difficulties in learning to read ( Cunningham and Zibulsky, 2009 ).

The updating of knowledge according to research conclusions is proposed as an alternative for teachers who specialize in teaching reading, since teaching quality is one of the main factors determining the academic success of students ( European Council, 2008 ). For teachers to learn good practices, it is important that they have the following knowledge at their disposal: (1) fundamental research and theories about the development of language and reading; (2) strategies for use in the classroom to teach word recognition, vocabulary, text comprehension, and fluency; (3) tools to work on reading and writing at the same time; (4) the best strategies to teach reading and the materials to use; (5) different techniques for student evaluation; (6) how to maintain a good balance between theory, practice, and information technologies; (7) knowledge of dyslexia and other learning disorders ( IRA, 2007 ); and (8) how to interpret and administer assessment tests to plan teaching ( IDA, 2010 ). In addition, they must learn to ask more complex questions to help students make inferences and more elaborate reflections, as well as work with students’ prior knowledge ( RAND, 2002 ). However, the teacher alone should not be responsible for this process, because we have confirmed that in the teaching environment, there are other strong factors such as society or culture ( Quintana, 2001 ). The challenge now consists of achieving a change in the ways of thinking of those responsible for educational administration. The necessary means should also be provided to facilitate refresher courses and ongoing e-learning for teachers, with training programs that include content based on scientific evidence. One limitation is that the study consisted of six teachers and is not generalizable to a greater audience.

In general terms, we can conclude that the relationship between beliefs, practices, and discourse varies according to certain nuances. Thus, of the two beliefs attributed to teacher F., only one (corrective) was related to his form of instruction and his opinion. Among the four beliefs attributed to teacher M. (sociocultural, maturationist, repetition, and psycholinguistic), a relationship was found only between her maturationist and sociocultural profile and her discourse. Both beliefs attributed to teacher C. (sociocultural and psycholinguistic) were related to the discourse content. Of the two beliefs attributed to teacher M.C. (corrective and psycholinguistic), neither of them was related to her actions and reflections. Among the five beliefs attributed to teacher S. (sociocultural, innatist, corrective, maturationist, and constructivist) only two (corrective and sociocultural) were related to her active practices and discourse comments. Finally, of the two beliefs of teacher I. (innatist and constructivist), only constructivism was related to her practices or her opinion.

Although it is true that a relationship was found in all the teachers between some of their beliefs, practices, and discourse, as revealed in their discursive talks, all the teachers thought that learning to read depended on factors underlying other theories not related to their attributional profile. Therefore, despite attributing to them certain beliefs when they teach children to read and when they think of learning to read, it can be concluded that all teachers maintain an eclectic approach.

Data Availability Statement

All datasets generated for this study are included in the article/supplementary material.

Ethics Statement

Ethical review and approval was not required for the study on human participants in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. Written informed consent to participate in this study was provided by the participants’ legal guardian/next of kin.

Author Contributions

NS: this author’s grant was used to run the project Integrando creencias y prácticas de enseñanza de la lectura (Integrating beliefs and practices about teaching reading), ref: PSI2009-11662. She participated actively in the research, analyzed the teaching practices and discourse, and was responsible for the literature review and drafting of this manuscript. JJ: supervised the project and the preparation of the study, offered theoretical guidance, and was responsible for reviewing the manuscript. CS: supervised the design and preparation of the study, offered guidance on methodology, and helped review the manuscript. All authors approved the final version of this article.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

This research has been funded through the Plan Nacional I + D + i (R+D+i National Research Plan of the Spanish Ministry of Economics and Competitiveness), project ref: PSI2009-11662 and project ref: PSI2015-65009-R, with the second author as the principal investigator. We also gratefully acknowledge the support of a Spanish Government subproject, Integration ways between qualitative and quantitative data, multiple case development, and synthesis review as main axis for an innovative future in physical activity and sports research (PGC2018-098742-B-C31) (2019–2021) (Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación, y Universidades/Agencia Estatal de Investigación/Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo regional), that is part of the coordinated project New approach to research in physical activity and sport from a mixed methods perspective (NARPAS_MM) (SPGC201800 × 098742CV0).

Key Concepts

Anguera, M. T., Blanco, A., Hernández, A., and Losada, J. L. (2011). Diseños observacionales, ajuste y aplicación en psicología del deporte. [Observational designs, adjustment and application in Sports Psychology]. Cuad. Psych. Deport. 11, 63–76.

Google Scholar

Anguera, M. T., Camerino, O., and Castañer, M. (2012). “Mixed methods procedures and designs for research on sport, physical education and dance,” in Mixed Methods Research in the Movement Sciences: Case studies in sport, physical education and dance , eds O. Camerino, M. Castañer, and M. T. Anguera (Abingdon: Routledge), 3–27. doi: 10.4324/9780203132326

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Anguera, M. T. M., Chacón-Moscoso, S., and Sanduvete-Chaves, S. (2018). Indirect observation in everyday contexts: concepts and methodological guidelines within a mixed methods framework. Front. Psychol. 9:13. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00013

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Baccus, A. A. (2004). Urban Fourth and Fifth Grade Teachers’ Reading Attitudes and Efficacy Beliefs: Relationships to Reading Instruction and to Students’ Attitudes and Efficacy Beliefs. Ph.D. thesis, University of Maryland, College Park, MD.

Baena, D. (2000). Pensamiento y acción en la enseñanza de las ciencias [Thought and action in science education]. Invest. Didác. 18, 217–226.

Baker, J. (1975). The DRAGON System - An Overview. IEEE Trans. Acoust. Speech Sign. Process. 23, 24–29. doi: 10.1109/TASSP.1975.1162650

Barragán, C., and Medina, M. M. (2008). Las prácticas de la lectura y escritura en Educación Infantil [Reading and writing practices in Elementary Education]. Rev. de Educ. 10, 149–165.

Barrot, J. S. (2015). A socio-cognitive-transformative instructional materials design model for second language (L2) pedagogy in the Asia Pacific: development and validation. Asia Pac. Educ. Res. 24, 283–297. doi: 10.1007/s40299-014-0179-0

Baumann, J., Hoffman, J., Moon, J., and Duffy-Hester, A. (1998). Where are teachers’ voices in the phonics/whole language debate? Results from a survey of U. S. elementary classroom teachers. Read. Teach. 51, 636–650.

BECTA (2009). The Becta Review 2009: Evidence on The Progress of ICT in Education. Coventry: BECTA.

Berthelsen, D., and Brownlee, J. (2007). Working with toddlers in childcare: practitioners’ beliefs about their role. E. Child. Res. Quart. 22, 347–362. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2006.12.002

Block, J. H., and Hazelin, K. (1995). “The teacher’s beliefs and belief systems,” in International Encyclopedia of Teaching and Teacher Education , 2nd Edn, ed. L. W. Anderson (New York, NY: Pergamon), 25–28.

Braun, V., and Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualit. Res. Psychol. 3, 77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Castañer, M., Camerino, O., and Anguera, M. T. (2013). Métodos mixtos en la investigación de las ciencias de la actividad física y el deporte [Mixed methods in physical activity and sports science research]. Ap. Edu. Fís. i Esp. 112, 31–36. doi: 10.5672/apunts.2014-0983.es.(2013/2).112.01

Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement [CIERA] (2001). Put. (Reading)First: The Research Building Blocks for Teaching Children to Read. Washington DC: National Institute for Literacy.

Clark, C., and Yinger, R. (1979). Research on teacher planning: a progress report. J. Curric. Stud. 11, 175–177. doi: 10.1080/0022027790110209

Clemente, L., Rodríguez, E., and Sánchez, M. C. (2010). Enfoques teóricos y prácticas docentes en la enseñanza inicial de la lengua escrita [Theoretical approaches and teaching practices in the initial teaching on written language]. Infan. y Aprend. 22, 313–328. doi: 10.1174/113564010804932175

Clemente, M. (2008). La complejidad de las relaciones teoría-práctica en educación [The complexity of theory-practice relationships in education]. Rev. Teo. de la Educ. 19, 25–46.

Costi, L., Passerino, L., Carnero, M., and Geller, M. (2005). Programa de Formación de Profesores a Distancia y En Servicio. Visando la Inclusión Digital/Social. PROISNEP [Training Program for Distance and in-Service Teachers. Seeking Digital/Social Inclusion]. Avalaible online at: http://capacidad.es/ciiee07/Brasil.pdf (accessed May 5, 2019).

Creswell, J. W. (2014). A Concise Introduction to Mixed Methods Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Creswell, J. W., and Plano-Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cunningham, A. E., and Zibulsky, J. (2009). Perspectives on teachers’ disciplinary knowledge of reading processes, development, and pedagogy. Read. Writ. 22, 375–378. doi: 10.1007/s11145-009-9161-2

Enyew, C., and Melesse, S. (2018). Nexus between beliefs college english instructors’ held about teaching reading strategies and their classroom practice. Res. Pedag. 8, 121–131. doi: 10.17810/2015.78

European Council (2008). Presidency Conclusions of the Brussels European Council, 13-14 March, 2008. 7652/1/08 REV 1.20 May. Brussels: European Council.

Fazio, M. (2003). Constructive comprehension and metacognitive strategy reading instruction in a field-based teacher education program: effecting change in preservice and in-service teachers, participant one. Year. Coll. Read. Asstn. 25, 23–45.

Friese, S. (2011). Atlas. Ti 6. User Guide and Reference. Berlin: Scientific Software Development GmbH.

Haydon, T., and Barton, R. (2007). First do no harm: developing teachers’ ability to use ICT in subject teaching: some lessons from the UK. Br. J. Educ. Tech. 38, 365–368. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00639.x

IDA (2010). Knowledge and Practice Standards for Reading Teachers. Baltimore: International Dyslexia Association Individuals with Disabilities Education.

IRA (2007). Teaching Reading Well: A Synthesis of the International Reading Association’s Research on Teacher Preparation for Reading Instruction. Newark, DE: IRA.

Jiménez, J. E. (2015). “The letra program: a web-based tutorial model for preparing teachers to improve reading in early grades,” in Advances in Reading Intervention: Research to Practice to Research , eds P. McArdle and C. Connor (Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing Co), 181–195.

Jiménez, J. E., and O’Shanahan, I. (2008). Enseñanza de la lectura: de la teoría y la investigación a la práctica educativa [Teaching reading: from theory and research to educational practice]. Rev. Iber. Educ. 45, 5–25. doi: 10.35362/rie4552032

Jiménez, J. E., and O’Shanahan, I. (2016). Effects of web-based training on Spanish pre-service and in-service teacher knowledge and implicit beliefs on learning to read. Teach. Teach. Educ. 55, 175–187. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2016.01.006

Jiménez, J. E., Rodríguez, C., Suárez, N., and O’Shanahan, I. (2014). Coinciden nuestras ideas con lo que dicen las teorías científicas sobre el aprendizaje de la lectura? [Do our ideas coincide with what scientific theories say about learning to read?]. Rev. Esp. de Pedag. 259, 395–412.

Jiménez, J. E., Rodríguez, C., Suárez, N., O’Shanahan, I., Villadiego, Y., Uribe, C., et al. (2015). Teacher implicit theories of learning to read: a cross-cultural study in Iberoamerican countries. Read. Writ. 28:6. doi: 10.1007/s11145-015-9574-z

Joshi, R. M., Binks, E., Hougen, M., Dahlgren, M., Oker-Dean, F., and Smith, D. (2009). Why elementary teachers might be inadequately prepared to teach reading? J. Lear. Disabil. 42, 444–457. doi: 10.1177/0022219409338736

Kuzborska, I. (2011). Links between teachers’ beliefs and practices and research on reading. Read. For. Lang. 23, 102–128.

McAlpine, L., and Weston, C. (2002). “Reflection: issues related to improving teachers’ teaching and students’ learning,” in Teacher Thinking, Beliefs and Knowledge in Higher Education , eds Goodyear and Hativa (Dordrecht: Kluwer), 59–78. doi: 10.1007/978-94-010-0593-7_4

Miglis, J., van Daal, V., and Dèar, H. (2014). Emergent literacy: preschool teachers’ beliefs and practices. J. Early Child. Liter. 14, 28–52. doi: 10.1177/1468798413478026

Moats, L. (2009). Knowledge foundations for teaching reading and spelling. Read. Writ. 22, 379–399. doi: 10.1007/s11145-009-9162-1

Morse, J. M. (2003). “Principles of mixed methods and multimethod research design,” in Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research , eds A. Tashakkori and C. Teddlie (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage), 189–208.

National Reading Panel [NRP] (2000). Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence-Based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and Its Implications for Reading Instruction: Reports of the Subgroups. Bethesda, MD: National Institute of Child health and Human Development.

OCDE (2009). TALIS. Teaching and Learning International Survey. Madrid: Ministerio de Educación. doi: 10.1787/9789264068780-en

OCDE (2013). TALIS. Teaching and Learning International Survey. Madrid: Ministerio de Educación.

Perea, A., Castellano, J., and Alday, N. (2006). MatchVision Studio Premium V.3. Vitoria: Universidad del País Vasco.

Pérez-Peitx, M. (2013). Perfils de pràctiques docents i creences de dues mestres de parvulari.[Practical profiles and teacher’s beliefs in Kindergarten]. Bellat. J. Teach. Learn. Lang. Literat. 6, 56–71. doi: 10.5565/rev/jtl3.473

Portell, M., Anguera, M. T., Chacón-Moscoso, S., and Sanduvet, S. (2015). Guidelines for reporting evaluations based on observational methodology. Psicoth 27, 283–289. doi: 10.7334/psicothema2014.276

Quintana, J. M. (2001). Las creencias y la educación [Beliefs and education]. Pedagogía cosmovisual, Barcelona: Herder.

RAND (2002). Reading for understanding: Towards an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Rapoport, S., Rubinsten, O., and Katzir, T. (2016). Teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding the role of executive functions in reading and arithmetic. Front. Psychol. 7:1567. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01567

Richardson, V. (1996). “The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach,” in Handbook of Research on Teacher Education , 2nd Edn, ed. J. Sikula (New York: Macmillan), 102–119.

Ríos, I., Fernández, P., and Gallardo, I. (2010). La contribución de las prácticas de aula a los logros de aprendizaje [The contribution of classroom practices to learning achievements]. II Congrés Internacional de didactiques. Girona: Universitat. 322–329.

Rodríguez, I., and Clemente, M. (2013). Creencias, intenciones y prácticas en la enseñanza de la lengua escrita: estudio de caso [Beliefs, intentions and practices in the teaching of written language]. Rev. Elec. Interu. de Form. del Prof. 16, 41–54. doi: 10.6018/reifop.16.1.179431

Sánchez-Algarra, P., and Anguera, M. T. (2013). Qualitative/quantitative integration in the inductive observational study of interactive behaviour: impact of recording and coding predominating perspectives. Qual. Quant. 47, 1237–1257. doi: 10.1007/s11135-012-9764-6

Somekh, B. (2008). “Factors affecting teachers’ pedagogical adoption of ICT,” in International Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education , eds J. Voogt and G. Knezek (Amsterdam: Springer), 449–460. doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-73315-9_27

Stevens, L. P. (2002). Making the road by walking: the transition from content area literacy to adolescent literacy. Read. Res. Instr. 41, 267–278. doi: 10.1080/19388070209558370

Suárez, N., and Jiménez, J. E. (2014). ¿Influyen los años de experiencia y la especialidad de los profesores en las teorías implícitas que se atribuyen sobre el aprendizaje de la lectura? [Do years of experience and expertise of teachers influence the implicit theories attributed to learning to read?]. Int. J. Dev. Educ. Psychol. 2, 257–262. doi: 10.17060/ijodaep.2014.n1.v2.438

Suárez, N., Jiménez, J. E., Rodríguez, C., O’Shanahan, J., and Guzmán, R. (2013). Las teorías sobre la enseñanza de la lectura desde una perspectiva sociohistórica. [Teaching Reading theories from a sociohistorical perspective]. Rev. Psic. Educ. 8, 171–186.

Suárez, N., Sánchez, C. R., Jiménez, J. E., and Anguera, M. T. (2018). Is reading instruction evidence-based? Analyzing teaching practices using T-patterns. Front. Psychol. 9:7. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00007

Tashakkori, A., and Teddlie, C. (2010). Sage Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. doi: 10.4135/9781506335193

Theurer, J. L. (2002). The power of retrospective miscue analysis: one preservice teacher’s journey as she reconsiders the reading process. Read. Matr. 2:1.

Thompson, A. G. (1992). “Teachers’ beliefs and conceptions: a synthesis of the research,” in Handbook of Research in Mathematics Teaching and Learning , ed. D. A. Grouws (New York, NY: Macmillan), 127–146.

Tolchinsky, L., and Ríos, I. (2009). ¿Qué dicen los maestros que hacen para enseñar a leer y a escribir? [What do teachers say they do to teach reading and writing?]. Au. de Innov. Educ. 174, 1–7.

Tracey, D., and Mandel, L. (2012). Lenses on Reading: An Introduction to Theories and Models. New York: The Guilford Press.

Utami, L., Nurkamto, J., Suryani, N., and Gunarhadi (2019). Teacher’s beliefs and practices in teaching reading: a sociocognitive perspective. Intern. J. Adv. Res. 7, 127–135. doi: 10.21474/IJAR01/9203

Vartuli, S. (2005). Beliefs: the heart of teaching. Young Child. 60, 76–86.

Wilcox-Herzog, A. (2001). Is there a link between teachers’ beliefs and behaviors? Educ. Dev. 13, 81–106. doi: 10.1207/s15566935eed1301_5

Ysewijn, P. (1996). GT Software for Generalizability Studies. London: Mimeograph.

Keywords : beliefs, teaching practices, reading, teacher discourse, triangulation, mixed methods

Citation: Suárez N, Jiménez JE and Sánchez CR (2020) Teaching Reading: A Case Study Through Mixed Methods. Front. Psychol. 11:1083. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01083

Received: 30 November 2019; Accepted: 28 April 2020; Published: 10 June 2020.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2020 Suárez, Jiménez and Sánchez. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Natalia Suárez, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Teaching Literature Reviews

Here we provide recommendations on how to teach literature reviews to both undergraduate and graduate students, drawing from various sources and articles on what literature reviews are and how students can write them (included at the end for you to review as further reading). Literature reviews, like all kinds of writing, are best taught in their specific disciplinary contexts, although there are some overall principles about them that we focus on below.

First , some important questions to keep in mind as you think about literature reviews in your courses:

• Why are you assigning literature reviews? Think about your   learning outcomes . What do you want students to be able to do by the end of the course, and how does a literature review fit in? Does it need to be a formal “literature review” for the kinds of thinking and engagement you want students to demonstrate?
• How much   prior experience   does your class have with literature reviews? Where else in their education might they have learned about it? (This can also be a great survey to send out to students, or a conversation to have with the full class)
• What   kind   of literature review are you working with—a   stand-alone literature review   as an assignment, or a literature review   nestled within a larger paper ? There are some nuances between these types, and it can be helpful for you as the instructor to determine what it is you want students to do and demonstrate in the assignment as well as learn more about their prior knowledge of it.

Next , here are some recommendations we have for you to keep in mind as you teach and discuss literature reviews with your   undergraduate students .

1. Discuss what a literature review is . A literature review is a synthesis and critical analysis of a body of research related to a particular topic or question. It can be stand-alone or part of a larger body of work, like a research paper. It consists of multiple voices from a body of scholarship and discusses them together. Helping students realize this and how it differs from plain summary is an important and productive place to start.

2. Explain the purpose of literature reviews . In academic contexts, we write literature reviews for specific reasons, including to:

• Generate new insights about how a particular topic is currently and has been previously understood by the existing literature
• Provide context for a new study, research, report or grant
• Provide justification for the new study, research, or grant

All writing is writing in particular; that is, we write things (including literature reviews) for specific purposes and to respond to specific needs. Helping students learn about why they and others write literature reviews in your specific context is thus beneficial to explicitly discuss.

3. Break up and teach the different parts of a literature review . For literature reviews that are part of a larger study, there are typically three major parts to them:

• Big picture problem being explored
• What has been said on the subject
• Author’s goals and intervention

Students could benefit from learning about working on each part separately, perhaps first understanding and thinking about what their big picture problem is before focusing on what it is they want to be able to do. It’s easy for the different parts of the literature review to blend together into one unit, but it can be helpful for students to conceptually think about each part and section.

4. Scaffold the literature review into manageable steps, or “chunks.”   This recommendation directly builds from the last one. We know from the research on learning theory that students learn best when learning smaller pieces of a whole that further connect (Ambrose et al., 2011). To that end, students benefit from working on smaller pieces of a literature review across time. One assignment earlier on in the semester might be asking students to identify sources and determine who exactly is in conversation with one another on a given topic. A follow-up assignment could be asking students to write two paragraphs showing how the sources are writing about the same theme and building from (or diverging from) each other. Then, they could write more directly about how it is they want to intervene. For an example of this kind of smaller-step assignment, see the   reverse genealogy assignment   from one of our Faculty Writing Fellows Kate de Medeiros or insight on   how to introduce students to research   from Faculty Writing Fellow Elizabeth Hoover.

5. Help students create a reading matrix . A crucial part of writing literature reviews is reading a large amount of scholarship. As part of your scaffolding efforts, consider asking students to keep a running matrix about readings that includes information like main argument or hypothesis, method(ology), and themes; the organization of a matrix can help students distill and keep track of important information pertinent to a review of the literature. For examples, see ideas from   this article using Excel   or the sample chart in   this resource on literature reviews .

6. Conduct a literature review genre analysis in class . Especially for students brand new to the idea of a literature review, it can be extremely helpful to walk them through multiple student examples (at least 3, preferably more like 4 or 5) where you ask students to identify patterns they see across the examples. We know from the research that students learn better if they can see something for themselves rather than being told something, so consider asking your students to look at examples of literature reviews and answer the following questions about them:

• What conditions call for the genre? (why do we write it?)
• What sort of content is typically contained in this genre? (what is here?)
• What form does this genre take? (what does it look like?)
• What makes this genre what it is? (and what is not here?)

Students can then discuss together as a whole group and compare what they’ve said for each answer, building their knowledge of literature reviews together.

7. Contrast synthesis and summary skills . Learning the difference between summarizing and synthesizing is a notable challenge for students learning how to write literature reviews. Building from the previous suggestion, it could be helpful to have students look at examples of summary and synthesis and explicate the difference between the two, and then write out perhaps a concrete list of things one does when synthesizing that doesn’t appear in summary (and vice versa). This could be a quick class activity or a homework assignment.

8. Encourage revision . Revision is a key part of any writing task but especially when writing literature reviews tied to larger projects. It may take a few times to get right, and many of us in our own scholarly work often go back and add to/revise literature reviews as we write. Consider asking students to revisit their literature review at a later stage of the writing process, after they’ve completed a full draft and have moved on to other stages of writing (for larger projects).

Additional recommendations for teaching literature reviews to graduate students

We also wanted to provide some recommendations specifically for teaching literature reviews to   graduate students , who often interact with scholarship in different ways than undergraduate students. Literature reviews look different for students at the graduate-level, who are entering more specialized, academic conversations and often work on larger projects that require more engagement with research and scholarly conversations. The following recommendations are made with that specific context in mind.

1. Help students think about the scope . Is this literature review just for one course/project, or might they use this review as a starting point for a larger project like a thesis or dissertation? Does this literature end in the course/lab, or can it live and extend elsewhere? Graduate students experience these longer-form types of writing for the first time, so they need extra support determining scope, including how much literature to cover in a review and what needs to be there now and what can be added later.

2. Frame literature reviews as scholarly conversations . Drawing from threshold concepts of writing (Adler-Kassner and Wardle, 2015) as well as work from Kamler and Thomson (2014), doctoral writing is a social practice that engages in conversation with many scholars. Kamler and Thomson propose pitching literature reviews as hosting a dinner party and inviting selected literatures/scholars, noting that one can't invite everyone and that they carve their own territory in who to invite and what to cover. There’s an important nuance between being too quiet as the host where the guests do all the talking as well and overpowering the guests and not giving them a chance to explain themselves. Helping students conceive of literature reviews in these ways can be a helpful way for them to cross some important thresholds in their thinking.

3. Encourage experimentation with citation software . At the graduate level, students read a lot of research that can be useful to them later and keeping it organized is essential to alter writing about it. Encourage students to try many of the citation softwares available to them, such as Zotero and Mendeley.

4. Play around with concept mapping . We know from the research on graduate education that conceptual frameworks (which are connected to literature reviews) are a threshold concept for graduate students (Kiley & Wisker, 2009), meaning it’s something they will struggle with and that takes time and acclimation. Concept mapping is one proposed way to help students visually see and connect the ideas and theories they are studying to see how they come together to inform their own work. You can read   this article for ideas about mindmapping software , or check out   Lucidchart   for a free account.

5. Incentivise the thinking process . Writing literature reviews and developing conceptual frameworks for understanding graduate research takes a lot of time and thinking that can often be and feel invisible to graduate learners. Much of the learning that occurs when writing these documents happens off the page, so it could be helpful to assign thought process-type assignments that encourage students to reflect on the current state of their thinking and how they see ideas blending together. This could be paired with assigning mindmaps, as well as reading matrices, to help students see the fuller-picture.

6. Break down your own process . Especially when working with master’s or doctoral students who seek to write academic publications or pursue a career in academia, it can be helpful for them to learn from their mentors and instructors their own processes and struggles when working on literature reviews (and other genres). Students appreciate seeing the “curtain pulled back,” so to speak, and could benefit from their instructor working through how they work through literature reviews in their own work, and from perhaps seeing some of the messier, less-polished parts that we noted above is a very important part of the process.

Resources/Further Reading

For students on how to approach literature reviews:

• “ Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper ” from University of Southern California Libraries
• “ Literature Reviews ” from the Howe Writing Center
• “ Writing A Literature Review and Using a Synthesis Matrix ” from Florida International University Writing & Speaking Tutorial Services
• “ Literature Review: A Self-Guided Tutorial ” from Williams College Libraries
• Levy, Y., & Ellis, T. J. (2006). A Systems approach to conduct an effective literature review in support of information systems research.   Informing Science Journal , 9, 181-212.

For faculty on teaching literature reviews:

• Ambrose, S. Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How learning works:   Seven research-based principles for smart teaching . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Casanave, C., & Li, Y. (2015). Novices’ struggles with conceptual and theoretical framing in writing dissertations and papers for publication.   Publications , 3, 104–119.
• Kamler, B., & Thomson, P. (2014). Helping doctoral students write:   Pedagogies for supervision . London, UK: Routledge.
• Kiley, M., & Wisker, G. (2009). Threshold concepts in research education and evidence of threshold crossing.   Higher Education Research and Development , 28(4), 431–441.
• Pickering, C., Grignon, J., Steven, R., Guitart, D., & Byrne, J. (2015). Publishing not perishing: how research students transition from novice to knowledgeable using systematic quantitative literature reviews.   Studies in Higher Education , 40(10), 1756–1769.   http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2014.914907 .

Howe Writing Across the Curriculum Programs

The mission of the Howe Writing Across the Curriculum Programs is to ensure that all Miami faculty and graduate teaching assistants can effectively include writing as a means to support learning in their courses and programs.

Popular Destinations

• Faculty Writing Fellows
• University Libraries
• Academic Integrity

151 S. Campus Ave King Library Oxford, OH 45056 [email protected] 513-529-6100

2022 Writing Program Certificate of Excellence

2022 Exemplary Enduring WAC Program

501 E. High Street Oxford, OH 45056

• Online: Miami Online
• Main Operator 513-529-1809
• Office of Admission 513-529-2531
• Vine Hotline 513-529-6400
• Emergency Info https://miamioh.edu/emergency

1601 University Blvd. Hamilton, OH 45011

• Online: E-Campus
• Main Operator 513-785-3000
• Office of Admission 513-785-3111
• Campus Status Line 513-785-3077
• Emergency Info https://miamioh.edu/regionals/emergency

4200 N. University Blvd. Middletown, OH 45042

• Main Operator 513-727-3200
• Office of Admission 513-727-3216
• Campus Status 513-727-3477

7847 VOA Park Dr. (Corner of VOA Park Dr. and Cox Rd.) West Chester, OH 45069

• Main Operator 513-895-8862
• From Middletown 513-217-8862

Chateau de Differdange 1, Impasse du Chateau, L-4524 Differdange Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

• Main Operator 011-352-582222-1
• Email [email protected]
• Website https://miamioh.edu/luxembourg

217-222 MacMillan Hall 501 E. Spring St. Oxford, OH 45056, USA

• Main Operator 513-529-8600

Initiatives

• Miami THRIVE Strategic Plan
• Miami Rise Strategic Plan
• Boldly Creative
• Annual Report
• Moon Shot for Equity
• Miami and Ohio
• Majors, Minors, and Programs
• Inclusive Excellence
• Employment Opportunities
• University Safety and Security
• Parking, Directions, and Maps
• Equal Opportunity
• Consumer Information
• Land Acknowledgement
• Privacy Statement
• Title IX Statement
• Report an Accessibility Issue
• Annual Security and Fire Safety Report
• Report a Problem with this Website
• Policy Library

Maureen and Mike Mansfield Library

View All Hours | My Library Accounts

Research and Find Materials

Technology and Spaces

Archives and Special Collections

Teaching and Learning Research Guide

• Children's & YA Literature
• Conduct a Literature Review
• Keep Current
• Citation Style Guides & Management Tools This link opens in a new window

Literature Review Overview

A literature review involves both the literature searching and the writing. The purpose of the literature search is to:

• reveal existing knowledge
• identify areas of consensus and debate
• identify gaps in knowledge
• identify approaches to research design and methodology
• identify other researchers with similar interests
• clarify your future directions for research

List above from Conducting A Literature Search , Information Research Methods and Systems, Penn State University Libraries

A literature review provides an evaluative review and documentation of what has been published by scholars and researchers on a given topic. In reviewing the published literature, the aim is to explain what ideas and knowledge have been gained and shared to date (i.e., hypotheses tested, scientific methods used, results and conclusions), the weakness and strengths of these previous works, and to identify remaining research questions: A literature review provides the context for your research, making clear why your topic deserves further investigation.

Before You Search

• Select and understand your research topic and question.
• Identify the major concepts in your topic and question.
• Brainstorm potential keywords/terms that correspond to those concepts.
• Identify alternative keywords/terms (narrower, broader, or related) to use if your first set of keywords do not work.
• Determine (Boolean*) relationships between terms.
• Begin your search.
• Review your search results.
• Revise & refine your search based on the initial findings.

*Boolean logic provides three ways search terms/phrases can be combined, using the following three operators: AND, OR, and NOT.

Search Process

The type of information you want to find and the practices of your discipline(s) drive the types of sources you seek and where you search.

For most research you will use multiple source types such as: annotated bibliographies; articles from journals, magazines, and newspapers; books; blogs; conference papers; data sets; dissertations; organization, company, or government reports; reference materials; systematic reviews; archival materials; curriculum materials; and more. It can be helpful to develop a comprehensive approach to review different sources and where you will search for each. Below is an example approach.

Utilize Current Awareness Services  Identify and browse current issues of the most relevant journals for your topic; Setup email or RSS Alerts, e.g., Journal Table of Contents, Saved Searches

Consult Experts   Identify and search for the publications of or contact educators, scholars, librarians, employees etc. at schools, organizations, and agencies

• Annual Reviews and Bibliographies   e.g., Annual Review of Psychology
• Internet   e.g., Discussion Groups, Listservs, Blogs, social networking sites
• Grant Databases   e.g., Foundation Directory Online, Grants.gov
• Conference Proceedings   e.g., American Educational Research Association Online Paper Repository
• Newspaper Indexes   e.g., Access World News, Ethnic NewsWatch, New York Times Historical
• Be sure to follow the tips in the "Finding Empirical Studies" box on the right side of the page if you need to find an empirical study.
• Citation Indexes   e.g., ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Educational Administration Abstracts, PsycINFO
• Specialized Data   e.g., GEMS ( Growth and Enhancement of Montana Students) , IPEDS ( Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System)
• Book Catalogs – e.g., local library catalog or discovery search, WorldCat
• Library Web Scale Discovery Service  e.g., OneSearch
• Web Search Engines   e.g., Google, Yahoo
• Digital Collections   e.g., Archives & Special Collections Digital Collections, Digital Public Library of America
• Associations/Community groups/Institutions/Organizations   e.g., Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Montana Office of Public Instruction, National Education Association

Remember there is no one portal for all information!

Database Searching Videos, Guides, and Examples

ProQuest (platform for ERIC, PsycINFO, and Dissertations & Theses Global databases, among other databases) search videos:

• Basic Search
• Advanced Search
• Search Results

ERIC (Educational Resources Information Center)

• Comprehensive guide to the database, including Sample Searches
• Searchable Fields
• Comprehensive guide to the database
• Education topic guide
• Child Development topic guide
• Performing Basic Searches
• Performing Advanced Searches
• Search Tips

If you are new to research , check out the Searching for Information tutorials and videos for foundational information.

Finding Empirical Studies

In ERIC : Check the box next to “143: Reports - Research” under "Document type" from the Advanced Search page

In PsycINFO : Check the box next to “Empirical Study” under "Methodology" from the Advanced Search page

In OneSearch : There is not a specific way to limit to empirical studies in OneSearch, you can limit your search results to peer-reviewed journals and or dissertations, and then identify studies by reading the source abstract to determine if you’ve found an empirical study or not.

Summarize Studies in a Meaningful Way

The Writing and Public Speaking Center at UM provides not only tutoring but many other resources for writers and presenters. Three with key tips for writing a literature review are:

• Literature Reviews Defined
• Tracking, Organizing, and Using Sources
• Organizing and Integrating Sources

If you are new to research , check out the Presenting and Organizing Information tutorials and videos for foundational information. You may also want to consult the Purdue OWL Academic Writing resources or APA Style Workshop content.

• << Previous: Children's & YA Literature
• Next: Keep Current >>
• Last Updated: Mar 21, 2024 1:47 PM
• URL: https://libguides.lib.umt.edu/teach

How Does Writing Fit Into the ‘Science of Reading’?

• Share article

In one sense, the national conversation about what it will take to make sure all children become strong readers has been wildly successful: States are passing legislation supporting evidence-based teaching approaches , and school districts are rushing to supply training. Publishers are under pressure to drop older materials . And for the first time in years, an instructional issue—reading—is headlining education media coverage.

In the middle of all that, though, the focus on the “science of reading” has elided its twin component in literacy instruction: writing.

Writing is intrinsically important for all students to learn—after all, it is the primary way beyond speech that humans communicate. But more than that, research suggests that teaching students to write in an integrated fashion with reading is not only efficient, it’s effective.

Yet writing is often underplayed in the elementary grades. Too often, it is separated from schools’ reading block. Writing is not assessed as frequently as reading, and principals, worried about reading-exam scores, direct teachers to focus on one often at the expense of the other. Finally, beyond the English/language arts block, kids often aren’t asked to do much writing in early grades.

“Sometimes, in an early-literacy classroom, you’ll hear a teacher say, ‘It’s time to pick up your pencils,’” said Wiley Blevins, an author and literacy consultant who provides training in schools. “But your pencils should be in your hand almost the entire morning.”

Strikingly, many of the critiques that reading researchers have made against the “balanced literacy” approach that has held sway in schools for decades could equally apply to writing instruction: Foundational writing skills—like phonics and language structure—have not generally been taught systematically or explicitly.

And like the “find the main idea” strategies commonly taught in reading comprehension, writing instruction has tended to focus on content-neutral tasks, rather than deepening students’ connections to the content they learn.

Education Week wants to bring more attention to these connections in the stories that make up this special collection . But first, we want to delve deeper into the case for including writing in every step of the elementary curriculum.

Why has writing been missing from the reading conversation?

Much like the body of knowledge on how children learn to read words, it is also settled science that reading and writing draw on shared knowledge, even though they have traditionally been segmented in instruction.

“The body of research is substantial in both number of studies and quality of studies. There’s no question that reading and writing share a lot of real estate, they depend on a lot of the same knowledge and skills,” said Timothy Shanahan, an emeritus professor of education at the University of Illinois Chicago. “Pick your spot: text structure, vocabulary, sound-symbol relationships, ‘world knowledge.’”

The reasons for the bifurcation in reading and writing are legion. One is that the two fields have typically been studied separately. (Researchers studying writing usually didn’t examine whether a writing intervention, for instance, also aided students’ reading abilities—and vice versa.)

Some scholars also finger the dominance of the federally commissioned National Reading Panel report, which in 2000 outlined key instructional components of learning to read. The review didn’t examine the connection of writing to reading.

Looking even further back yields insights, too. Penmanship and spelling were historically the only parts of writing that were taught, and when writing reappeared in the latter half of the 20th century, it tended to focus on “process writing,” emphasizing personal experience and story generation over other genres. Only when the Common Core State Standards appeared in 2010 did the emphasis shift to writing about nonfiction texts and across subjects—the idea that students should be writing about what they’ve learned.

And finally, teaching writing is hard. Few studies document what preparation teachers receive to teach writing, but in surveys, many teachers say they received little training in their college education courses. That’s probably why only a little over half of teachers, in one 2016 survey, said that they enjoyed teaching writing.

Writing should begin in the early grades

These factors all work against what is probably the most important conclusion from the research over the last few decades: Students in the early-elementary grades need lots of varied opportunities to write.

“Students need support in their writing,” said Dana Robertson, an associate professor of reading and literacy education at the school of education at Virginia Tech who also studies how instructional change takes root in schools. “They need to be taught explicitly the skills and strategies of writing and they need to see the connections of reading, writing, and knowledge development.”

While research supports some fundamental tenets of writing instruction—that it should be structured, for instance, and involve drafting and revising—it hasn’t yet pointed to a specific teaching recipe that works best.

One of the challenges, the researchers note, is that while reading curricula have improved over the years, they still don’t typically provide many supports for students—or teachers, for that matter—for writing. Teachers often have to supplement with additions that don’t always mesh well with their core, grade-level content instruction.

“We have a lot of activities in writing we know are good,” Shanahan said. “We don’t really have a yearlong elementary-school-level curriculum in writing. That just doesn’t exist the way it does in reading.”

Nevertheless, practitioners like Blevins work writing into every reading lesson, even in the earliest grades. And all the components that make up a solid reading program can be enhanced through writing activities.

4 Key Things to Know About How Reading and Writing Interlock

Want a quick summary of what research tells us about the instructional connections between reading and writing?

1. Reading and writing are intimately connected.

Research on the connections began in the early 1980s and has grown more robust with time.

Among the newest and most important additions are three research syntheses conducted by Steve Graham, a professor at the University of Arizona, and his research partners. One of them examined whether writing instruction also led to improvements in students’ reading ability; a second examined the inverse question. Both found significant positive effects for reading and writing.

A third meta-analysis gets one step closer to classroom instruction. Graham and partners examined 47 studies of instructional programs that balanced both reading and writing—no program could feature more than 60 percent of one or the other. The results showed generally positive effects on both reading and writing measures.

2. Writing matters even at the earliest grades, when students are learning to read.

Studies show that the prewriting students do in early education carries meaningful signals about their decoding, spelling, and reading comprehension later on. Reading experts say that students should be supported in writing almost as soon as they begin reading, and evidence suggests that both spelling and handwriting are connected to the ability to connect speech to print and to oral language development.

3. Like reading, writing must be taught explicitly.

Writing is a complex task that demands much of students’ cognitive resources. Researchers generally agree that writing must be explicitly taught—rather than left up to students to “figure out” the rules on their own.

There isn’t as much research about how precisely to do this. One 2019 review, in fact, found significant overlap among the dozen writing programs studied, and concluded that all showed signs of boosting learning. Debates abound about the amount of structure students need and in what sequence, such as whether they need to master sentence construction before moving onto paragraphs and lengthier texts.

But in general, students should be guided on how to construct sentences and paragraphs, and they should have access to models and exemplars, the research suggests. They also need to understand the iterative nature of writing, including how to draft and revise.

A number of different writing frameworks incorporating various degrees of structure and modeling are available, though most of them have not been studied empirically.

4. Writing can help students learn content—and make sense of it.

Much of reading comprehension depends on helping students absorb “world knowledge”—think arts, ancient cultures, literature, and science—so that they can make sense of increasingly sophisticated texts and ideas as their reading improves. Writing can enhance students’ content learning, too, and should be emphasized rather than taking a back seat to the more commonly taught stories and personal reflections.

Graham and colleagues conducted another meta-analysis of nearly 60 studies looking at this idea of “writing to learn” in mathematics, science, and social studies. The studies included a mix of higher-order assignments, like analyses and argumentative writing, and lower-level ones, like summarizing and explaining. The study found that across all three disciplines, writing about the content improved student learning.

If students are doing work on phonemic awareness—the ability to recognize sounds—they shouldn’t merely manipulate sounds orally; they can put them on the page using letters. If students are learning how to decode, they can also encode—record written letters and words while they say the sounds out loud.

And students can write as they begin learning about language structure. When Blevins’ students are mainly working with decodable texts with controlled vocabularies, writing can support their knowledge about how texts and narratives work: how sentences are put together and how they can be pulled apart and reconstructed. Teachers can prompt them in these tasks, asking them to rephrase a sentence as a question, split up two sentences, or combine them.

“Young kids are writing these mile-long sentences that become second nature. We set a higher bar, and they are fully capable of doing it. We can demystify a bit some of that complex text if we develop early on how to talk about sentences—how they’re created, how they’re joined,” Blevins said. “There are all these things you can do that are helpful to develop an understanding of how sentences work and to get lots of practice.”

As students progress through the elementary grades, this structured work grows more sophisticated. They need to be taught both sentence and paragraph structure , and they need to learn how different writing purposes and genres—narrative, persuasive, analytical—demand different approaches. Most of all, the research indicates, students need opportunities to write at length often.

Using writing to support students’ exploration of content

Reading is far more than foundational skills, of course. It means introducing students to rich content and the specialized vocabulary in each discipline and then ensuring that they read, discuss, analyze, and write about those ideas. The work to systematically build students’ knowledge begins in the early grades and progresses throughout their K-12 experience.

Here again, available evidence suggests that writing can be a useful tool to help students explore, deepen, and draw connections in this content. With the proper supports, writing can be a method for students to retell and analyze what they’ve learned in discussions of content and literature throughout the school day —in addition to their creative writing.

This “writing to learn” approach need not wait for students to master foundational skills. In the K-2 grades especially, much content is learned through teacher read-alouds and conversation that include more complex vocabulary and ideas than the texts students are capable of reading. But that should not preclude students from writing about this content, experts say.

“We do a read-aloud or a media piece and we write about what we learned. It’s just a part of how you’re responding, or sharing, what you’ve learned across texts; it’s not a separate thing from reading,” Blevins said. “If I am doing read-alouds on a concept—on animal habitats, for example—my decodable texts will be on animals. And students are able to include some of these more sophisticated ideas and language in their writing, because we’ve elevated the conversations around these texts.”

In this set of stories , Education Week examines the connections between elementary-level reading and writing in three areas— encoding , language and text structure , and content-area learning . But there are so many more examples.

Please write us to share yours when you’ve finished.

Want to read more about the research that informed this story? Here’s a bibliography to start you off.

Berninger V. W., Abbott, R. D., Abbott, S. P., Graham S., & Richards T. (2002). Writing and reading: Connections between language by hand and language by eye. J ournal of Learning Disabilities. Special Issue: The Language of Written Language, 35(1), 39–56 Berninger, Virginia, Robert D. Abbott, Janine Jones, Beverly J. Wolf, Laura Gould, Marci Anderson-Younstrom, Shirley Shimada, Kenn Apel. (2006) “Early development of language by hand: composing, reading, listening, and speaking connections; three letter-writing modes; and fast mapping in spelling.” Developmental Neuropsychology, 29(1), pp. 61-92 Cabell, Sonia Q, Laura S. Tortorelli, and Hope K. Gerde (2013). “How Do I Write…? Scaffolding Preschoolers’ Early Writing Skills.” The Reading Teacher, 66(8), pp. 650-659. Gerde, H.K., Bingham, G.E. & Wasik, B.A. (2012). “Writing in Early Childhood Classrooms: Guidance for Best Practices.” Early Childhood Education Journal 40, 351–359 (2012) Gilbert, Jennifer, and Steve Graham. (2010). “Teaching Writing to Elementary Students in Grades 4–6: A National Survey.” The Elementary School Journal 110(44) Graham, Steve, et al. (2017). “Effectiveness of Literacy Programs Balancing Reading and Writing Instruction: A Meta-Analysis.” Reading Research Quarterly, 53(3) pp. 279–304 Graham, Steve, and Michael Hebert. (2011). “Writing to Read: A Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Writing and Writing Instruction on Reading.” Harvard Educational Review (2011) 81(4): 710–744. Graham, Steve. (2020). “The Sciences of Reading and Writing Must Become More Fully Integrated.” Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1) pp. S35–S44 Graham, Steve, Sharlene A. Kiuhara, and Meade MacKay. (2020).”The Effects of Writing on Learning in Science, Social Studies, and Mathematics: A Meta-Analysis.” Review of Educational Research April 2020, Vol 90, No. 2, pp. 179–226 Shanahan, Timothy. “History of Writing and Reading Connections.” in Shanahan, Timothy. (2016). “Relationships between reading and writing development.” In C. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (2nd ed., pp. 194–207). New York, NY: Guilford. Slavin, Robert, Lake, C., Inns, A., Baye, A., Dachet, D., & Haslam, J. (2019). “A quantitative synthesis of research on writing approaches in grades 2 to 12.” London: Education Endowment Foundation. Troia, Gary. (2014). Evidence-based practices for writing instruction (Document No. IC-5). Retrieved from University of Florida, Collaboration for Effective Educator, Development, Accountability, and Reform Center website: http://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/tools/innovation-configuration/ Troia, Gary, and Steve Graham. (2016).“Common Core Writing and Language Standards and Aligned State Assessments: A National Survey of Teacher Beliefs and Attitudes.” Reading and Writing 29(9).

A version of this article appeared in the January 25, 2023 edition of Education Week as How Does Writing Fit Into the ‘Science of Reading’?

Sign Up for EdWeek Update

Edweek top school jobs.

Sign Up & Sign In