The Missouri Reading Initiative Spring 2008 Annual Participant Survey Results

Participant Survey The annual MRI Participant Survey gathers information about respondents’ perceptions of the value of the content, process, and outcomes of the Missouri Reading Initiative, ratings of the overall program, reported changes/reinforcement of practice, views of student performance, etc. Because this was the seventh annual implementation of this survey, it allows for year to year comparisons both about and between cohorts. Beginning in 2005, MRI collected participants’ responses in grades 4 and above. In 2007 surveying began for Secondary Level Schools.

Participant Survey The following slides focus on two questions: Change How has the MISSOURI READING INITIATIVE changed or reinforced your teaching? Not at allA Great Deal Rate Reflecting on the effectiveness of the MISSOURI READING INITIATIVE program as a whole, how would you rate it? Poor Excellent We have found that ratings generally go up from year to year as participants become more familiar with the program and, more importantly, begin to see the tangible results of improved student reading in their classrooms. (Follow arrows for examples)

“Change” by MRI Year: How has the MISSOURI READING INITIATIVE changed or reinforced your teaching? On a Scale of 1 (“Not at All”) to 5 (“A Great Deal”) Year st nd4.1 3rdna*4.3 This table shows the annual average response to the “Change” question between when MRI was a K-3 program only.

Year K-3 / 4-6 1st nd4.6na rd4.3na 4.2na In MRI expanded to grades 4-6. At first the average “Change” responses were lower for the 4-6 group, but as MRI staff responded to concerns expressed by participants the scores rose to K-3 levels. “Change” by MRI Year: How has the MISSOURI READING INITIATIVE changed or reinforced your teaching? On a Scale of 1 (“Not at All”) to 5 (“A Great Deal”)

“Rate” by MRI Year: Reflecting on the effectiveness of the MRI program as a whole, how would you rate it? On a scale of 1 (Poor) to 5 (Excellent) This table shows the annual average response to the “Rate” question between when MRI was a K-3 program only.

“RATE” by MRI Year: Reflecting on the effectiveness of the MRI program as a whole, how would you rate it? On a scale of 1 (Poor) to 5 (Excellent) MRI Cohort(N=642)(N=617)(N=489)(N=684) K-34-6K-34-6K-34-6K st Year nd Year4.2na rd Year4.4na4.3na In MRI expanded to grades4-6. At first the average “Rate” responses were lower for the 4-6 group, but as MRI staff responded to concerns expressed by participants the scores rose to K-3 levels. This year, however, 1st year scores at all levels were depressed by an “outlier” district where four participating schools had unusually low scores. MRI staff will use this information to address whatever implementation issues there are and, as a consequence, we would expect to see the scores rebound in

In 2006 MRI developed a professional development program for grades An essential feature of this program was the differentiation of strategies based on whether a classroom teacher’s specialization was communication arts or a content area like social studies, math, etc. In 2007 MRI began to survey participants to help get a measure of their reactions to the program and what knowledge and skills they were receiving. Generally speaking, as we learned when MRI expanded to grades 4-6 two years earlier, content area teachers respond better to the training, and derive more from it, when the training is tailored to their needs; e.g., literacy strategies need to be embedded in their content teaching, assessments need to be efficient, etc. Secondary Program:

The following table compares responses to both the “Change” and “Rate” questions for 2007 and Upper middle school and secondary teachers, regardless of “type”; i.e., communications arts (CA) or content (CON), scored the program higher in 2008 than in As the program matures, and MRI identifies the training approaches that best serve the participants needs, this trend should continue to improve GRADE/TYPE n nChange Rate CA CA Con Con

MRI Participants are asked to respond to a series of questions about various qualities of the trainers relevant to successful program implementation. The scores are on a scale of 1=“Poor” to 5=“Excellent”. Participant Survey: Trainer Ratings

Trainer Summaries: 2008 Survey The data presented in this table shows that, in general, respondents give trainers very favorable scores in all categories NMean OVERALL RATING TEACHING SKILLS KNOWLEDGE OF SUBJECT ORGANIZATION ACCESSIBILITY COMMUNICATION SKILLS INTERPERSONAL SKILLS CLASSROOM EXPERIENCE ADAPTABILITY5894.3