Validation of an instrument for assessing elementary-grade educators’ knowledge to teach reading
In theory, teacher knowledge predicts instructional practice, thus impacting student outcomes. When it comes to knowledge to teach elementary-grade reading, most previous surveys have focused on knowledge essential for word reading development; few surveys have provided a picture of educator knowled...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Reading & writing 2024-10, Vol.37 (8), p.1955-1974 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 1974 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 8 |
| container_start_page | 1955 |
| container_title | Reading & writing |
| container_volume | 37 |
| creator | Hall, Colby Solari, Emily J. Hayes, Latisha Dahl-Leonard, Katlynn DeCoster, Jamie Kehoe, Karen F. Conner, Carlin L. Henry, Alyssa R. Demchak, Alisha Richmond, Cassidi L. Vargas, Isabel |
| description | In theory, teacher knowledge predicts instructional practice, thus impacting student outcomes. When it comes to knowledge to teach elementary-grade reading, most previous surveys have focused on knowledge essential for word reading development; few surveys have provided a picture of educator knowledge to teach both word reading and language comprehension. This article describes the development and validation of the Teacher Understanding of Literacy Constructs and Evidence-Based Instructional Practices (TULIP) survey, which assesses teacher knowledge in the domains of (a) phonological awareness, (b) phonics, decoding, and encoding, (c) reading fluency, (d) oral language, and (e) reading comprehension. The TULIP survey was created using an iterative development process involving a systematic review of research, expert review of items, field testing, and a pilot study. A validation study of the resulting TULIP survey was conducted with a sample of 313 in-service elementary-grade teachers of reading. Confirmatory factor analyses revealed that both one-factor and five-factor models of the survey had acceptable fit. The overall TULIP scale had good reliability, and subscales representing knowledge within specific literacy domains had acceptable reliability (with the oral language subscale having lower reliability than the other four subscales). Knowledge overall and within each literacy domain was significantly related to education level, such that teachers with more education had higher scores. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s11145-023-10456-w |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_3106855928</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3106855928</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c319t-34bbc5f9dd073221300b9352638f1413a6e613c78a4c6b1daadaf09987bb31fe3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kM1KxDAURoMoOI6-gKuA6-hN0jTNUgb_QHCjbkPaJLVjpxmTlMGdr-Hr-SR2HMGdqwuX73yXexA6pXBOAeRFopQWggDjhEIhSrLZQzMqJCegQOyjGSjGSCGlPERHKS0BgFUFn6H62fSdNbkLAw4emwF3Q8pxXLkhYx8iNim5lLqhxa53262J76SNxjrs7NiYHGL6-vjEr0PY9M62DueAszPNC47O2Ak8Rgfe9Mmd_M45erq-elzckvuHm7vF5T1pOFWZ8KKuG-GVtSA5Y5QD1IoLVvLK04JyU7qS8kZWpmjKmlpjrPGgVCXrmlPv-Byd7XrXMbyNLmW9DGMcppOaUygrIRSrphTbpZoYUorO63XsVtNTmoLeutQ7l3pyqX9c6s0E8R2UpvDQuvhX_Q_1Ddr1edA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>3106855928</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Validation of an instrument for assessing elementary-grade educators’ knowledge to teach reading</title><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Hall, Colby ; Solari, Emily J. ; Hayes, Latisha ; Dahl-Leonard, Katlynn ; DeCoster, Jamie ; Kehoe, Karen F. ; Conner, Carlin L. ; Henry, Alyssa R. ; Demchak, Alisha ; Richmond, Cassidi L. ; Vargas, Isabel</creator><creatorcontrib>Hall, Colby ; Solari, Emily J. ; Hayes, Latisha ; Dahl-Leonard, Katlynn ; DeCoster, Jamie ; Kehoe, Karen F. ; Conner, Carlin L. ; Henry, Alyssa R. ; Demchak, Alisha ; Richmond, Cassidi L. ; Vargas, Isabel</creatorcontrib><description>In theory, teacher knowledge predicts instructional practice, thus impacting student outcomes. When it comes to knowledge to teach elementary-grade reading, most previous surveys have focused on knowledge essential for word reading development; few surveys have provided a picture of educator knowledge to teach both word reading and language comprehension. This article describes the development and validation of the Teacher Understanding of Literacy Constructs and Evidence-Based Instructional Practices (TULIP) survey, which assesses teacher knowledge in the domains of (a) phonological awareness, (b) phonics, decoding, and encoding, (c) reading fluency, (d) oral language, and (e) reading comprehension. The TULIP survey was created using an iterative development process involving a systematic review of research, expert review of items, field testing, and a pilot study. A validation study of the resulting TULIP survey was conducted with a sample of 313 in-service elementary-grade teachers of reading. Confirmatory factor analyses revealed that both one-factor and five-factor models of the survey had acceptable fit. The overall TULIP scale had good reliability, and subscales representing knowledge within specific literacy domains had acceptable reliability (with the oral language subscale having lower reliability than the other four subscales). Knowledge overall and within each literacy domain was significantly related to education level, such that teachers with more education had higher scores.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0922-4777</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-0905</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s11145-023-10456-w</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands</publisher><subject>Decoding ; Education ; Educational attainment ; Educational Practices ; Elementary school teachers ; Evidence Based Practice ; Fluency ; Knowledge ; Language and Literature ; Linguistics ; Literacy ; Neurology ; Oral Language ; Outcomes of Education ; Phonics ; Phonological awareness ; Polls & surveys ; Psycholinguistics ; Reading comprehension ; Reading Fluency ; Reading instruction ; Reading teachers ; Social Sciences ; Spoken language ; Teacher Characteristics ; Teacher education ; Teacher Surveys ; Teachers ; Teaching methods</subject><ispartof>Reading & writing, 2024-10, Vol.37 (8), p.1955-1974</ispartof><rights>The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. 2023. Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c319t-34bbc5f9dd073221300b9352638f1413a6e613c78a4c6b1daadaf09987bb31fe3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c319t-34bbc5f9dd073221300b9352638f1413a6e613c78a4c6b1daadaf09987bb31fe3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-6197-9537 ; 0000-0002-0779-1322 ; 0000-0002-9790-9047 ; 0000-0001-6124-5990 ; 0000-0001-5615-244X ; 0000-0002-8498-9834 ; 0000-0002-8857-1435 ; 0000-0002-1277-1465 ; 0000-0001-9751-6051 ; 0000-0001-7854-5471 ; 0000-0002-2496-5996</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11145-023-10456-w$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11145-023-10456-w$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Hall, Colby</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Solari, Emily J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hayes, Latisha</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dahl-Leonard, Katlynn</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DeCoster, Jamie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kehoe, Karen F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Conner, Carlin L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Henry, Alyssa R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Demchak, Alisha</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Richmond, Cassidi L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vargas, Isabel</creatorcontrib><title>Validation of an instrument for assessing elementary-grade educators’ knowledge to teach reading</title><title>Reading & writing</title><addtitle>Read Writ</addtitle><description>In theory, teacher knowledge predicts instructional practice, thus impacting student outcomes. When it comes to knowledge to teach elementary-grade reading, most previous surveys have focused on knowledge essential for word reading development; few surveys have provided a picture of educator knowledge to teach both word reading and language comprehension. This article describes the development and validation of the Teacher Understanding of Literacy Constructs and Evidence-Based Instructional Practices (TULIP) survey, which assesses teacher knowledge in the domains of (a) phonological awareness, (b) phonics, decoding, and encoding, (c) reading fluency, (d) oral language, and (e) reading comprehension. The TULIP survey was created using an iterative development process involving a systematic review of research, expert review of items, field testing, and a pilot study. A validation study of the resulting TULIP survey was conducted with a sample of 313 in-service elementary-grade teachers of reading. Confirmatory factor analyses revealed that both one-factor and five-factor models of the survey had acceptable fit. The overall TULIP scale had good reliability, and subscales representing knowledge within specific literacy domains had acceptable reliability (with the oral language subscale having lower reliability than the other four subscales). Knowledge overall and within each literacy domain was significantly related to education level, such that teachers with more education had higher scores.</description><subject>Decoding</subject><subject>Education</subject><subject>Educational attainment</subject><subject>Educational Practices</subject><subject>Elementary school teachers</subject><subject>Evidence Based Practice</subject><subject>Fluency</subject><subject>Knowledge</subject><subject>Language and Literature</subject><subject>Linguistics</subject><subject>Literacy</subject><subject>Neurology</subject><subject>Oral Language</subject><subject>Outcomes of Education</subject><subject>Phonics</subject><subject>Phonological awareness</subject><subject>Polls & surveys</subject><subject>Psycholinguistics</subject><subject>Reading comprehension</subject><subject>Reading Fluency</subject><subject>Reading instruction</subject><subject>Reading teachers</subject><subject>Social Sciences</subject><subject>Spoken language</subject><subject>Teacher Characteristics</subject><subject>Teacher education</subject><subject>Teacher Surveys</subject><subject>Teachers</subject><subject>Teaching methods</subject><issn>0922-4777</issn><issn>1573-0905</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kM1KxDAURoMoOI6-gKuA6-hN0jTNUgb_QHCjbkPaJLVjpxmTlMGdr-Hr-SR2HMGdqwuX73yXexA6pXBOAeRFopQWggDjhEIhSrLZQzMqJCegQOyjGSjGSCGlPERHKS0BgFUFn6H62fSdNbkLAw4emwF3Q8pxXLkhYx8iNim5lLqhxa53262J76SNxjrs7NiYHGL6-vjEr0PY9M62DueAszPNC47O2Ak8Rgfe9Mmd_M45erq-elzckvuHm7vF5T1pOFWZ8KKuG-GVtSA5Y5QD1IoLVvLK04JyU7qS8kZWpmjKmlpjrPGgVCXrmlPv-Byd7XrXMbyNLmW9DGMcppOaUygrIRSrphTbpZoYUorO63XsVtNTmoLeutQ7l3pyqX9c6s0E8R2UpvDQuvhX_Q_1Ddr1edA</recordid><startdate>20241001</startdate><enddate>20241001</enddate><creator>Hall, Colby</creator><creator>Solari, Emily J.</creator><creator>Hayes, Latisha</creator><creator>Dahl-Leonard, Katlynn</creator><creator>DeCoster, Jamie</creator><creator>Kehoe, Karen F.</creator><creator>Conner, Carlin L.</creator><creator>Henry, Alyssa R.</creator><creator>Demchak, Alisha</creator><creator>Richmond, Cassidi L.</creator><creator>Vargas, Isabel</creator><general>Springer Netherlands</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7T9</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6197-9537</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0779-1322</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9790-9047</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6124-5990</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5615-244X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8498-9834</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8857-1435</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1277-1465</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9751-6051</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7854-5471</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2496-5996</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20241001</creationdate><title>Validation of an instrument for assessing elementary-grade educators’ knowledge to teach reading</title><author>Hall, Colby ; Solari, Emily J. ; Hayes, Latisha ; Dahl-Leonard, Katlynn ; DeCoster, Jamie ; Kehoe, Karen F. ; Conner, Carlin L. ; Henry, Alyssa R. ; Demchak, Alisha ; Richmond, Cassidi L. ; Vargas, Isabel</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c319t-34bbc5f9dd073221300b9352638f1413a6e613c78a4c6b1daadaf09987bb31fe3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Decoding</topic><topic>Education</topic><topic>Educational attainment</topic><topic>Educational Practices</topic><topic>Elementary school teachers</topic><topic>Evidence Based Practice</topic><topic>Fluency</topic><topic>Knowledge</topic><topic>Language and Literature</topic><topic>Linguistics</topic><topic>Literacy</topic><topic>Neurology</topic><topic>Oral Language</topic><topic>Outcomes of Education</topic><topic>Phonics</topic><topic>Phonological awareness</topic><topic>Polls & surveys</topic><topic>Psycholinguistics</topic><topic>Reading comprehension</topic><topic>Reading Fluency</topic><topic>Reading instruction</topic><topic>Reading teachers</topic><topic>Social Sciences</topic><topic>Spoken language</topic><topic>Teacher Characteristics</topic><topic>Teacher education</topic><topic>Teacher Surveys</topic><topic>Teachers</topic><topic>Teaching methods</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hall, Colby</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Solari, Emily J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hayes, Latisha</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dahl-Leonard, Katlynn</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DeCoster, Jamie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kehoe, Karen F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Conner, Carlin L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Henry, Alyssa R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Demchak, Alisha</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Richmond, Cassidi L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vargas, Isabel</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA)</collection><jtitle>Reading & writing</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Hall, Colby</au><au>Solari, Emily J.</au><au>Hayes, Latisha</au><au>Dahl-Leonard, Katlynn</au><au>DeCoster, Jamie</au><au>Kehoe, Karen F.</au><au>Conner, Carlin L.</au><au>Henry, Alyssa R.</au><au>Demchak, Alisha</au><au>Richmond, Cassidi L.</au><au>Vargas, Isabel</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Validation of an instrument for assessing elementary-grade educators’ knowledge to teach reading</atitle><jtitle>Reading & writing</jtitle><stitle>Read Writ</stitle><date>2024-10-01</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>37</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>1955</spage><epage>1974</epage><pages>1955-1974</pages><issn>0922-4777</issn><eissn>1573-0905</eissn><abstract>In theory, teacher knowledge predicts instructional practice, thus impacting student outcomes. When it comes to knowledge to teach elementary-grade reading, most previous surveys have focused on knowledge essential for word reading development; few surveys have provided a picture of educator knowledge to teach both word reading and language comprehension. This article describes the development and validation of the Teacher Understanding of Literacy Constructs and Evidence-Based Instructional Practices (TULIP) survey, which assesses teacher knowledge in the domains of (a) phonological awareness, (b) phonics, decoding, and encoding, (c) reading fluency, (d) oral language, and (e) reading comprehension. The TULIP survey was created using an iterative development process involving a systematic review of research, expert review of items, field testing, and a pilot study. A validation study of the resulting TULIP survey was conducted with a sample of 313 in-service elementary-grade teachers of reading. Confirmatory factor analyses revealed that both one-factor and five-factor models of the survey had acceptable fit. The overall TULIP scale had good reliability, and subscales representing knowledge within specific literacy domains had acceptable reliability (with the oral language subscale having lower reliability than the other four subscales). Knowledge overall and within each literacy domain was significantly related to education level, such that teachers with more education had higher scores.</abstract><cop>Dordrecht</cop><pub>Springer Netherlands</pub><doi>10.1007/s11145-023-10456-w</doi><tpages>20</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6197-9537</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0779-1322</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9790-9047</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6124-5990</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5615-244X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8498-9834</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8857-1435</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1277-1465</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9751-6051</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7854-5471</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2496-5996</orcidid></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0922-4777 |
| ispartof | Reading & writing, 2024-10, Vol.37 (8), p.1955-1974 |
| issn | 0922-4777 1573-0905 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_3106855928 |
| source | SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings |
| subjects | Decoding Education Educational attainment Educational Practices Elementary school teachers Evidence Based Practice Fluency Knowledge Language and Literature Linguistics Literacy Neurology Oral Language Outcomes of Education Phonics Phonological awareness Polls & surveys Psycholinguistics Reading comprehension Reading Fluency Reading instruction Reading teachers Social Sciences Spoken language Teacher Characteristics Teacher education Teacher Surveys Teachers Teaching methods |
| title | Validation of an instrument for assessing elementary-grade educators’ knowledge to teach reading |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-05T18%3A04%3A08IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Validation%20of%20an%20instrument%20for%20assessing%20elementary-grade%20educators%E2%80%99%20knowledge%20to%20teach%20reading&rft.jtitle=Reading%20&%20writing&rft.au=Hall,%20Colby&rft.date=2024-10-01&rft.volume=37&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=1955&rft.epage=1974&rft.pages=1955-1974&rft.issn=0922-4777&rft.eissn=1573-0905&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s11145-023-10456-w&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3106855928%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=3106855928&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |