This article was downloaded by: [University of California Santa Cruz]On: 02 November 2014, At: 17:03Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Literacy Research and InstructionPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ulri20

Teaching Against the Grain: One Title ISchool's Journey Toward Project-BasedLiteracy InstructionSeth A. Parsons a , Salem Rainey Metzger b , Jeanna Askew b &Ashley R. Carswell ca George Mason University , Fairfax, Virginiab Hunter Elementary , Greensboro, North Carolinac Nebo Elementary , Nebo, North CarolinaPublished online: 15 Dec 2010.

To cite this article: Seth A. Parsons , Salem Rainey Metzger , Jeanna Askew & Ashley R. Carswell(2010) Teaching Against the Grain: One Title I School's Journey Toward Project-Based LiteracyInstruction, Literacy Research and Instruction, 50:1, 1-14, DOI: 10.1080/19388070903318413

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19388070903318413

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Literacy Research and Instruction, 50: 1–14, 2011Copyright © Association of Literacy Educators and ResearchersISSN: 1938-8071 print / 1938-8063 onlineDOI: 10.1080/19388070903318413

Teaching Against the Grain: One Title I School’sJourney Toward Project-Based Literacy Instruction

SETH A. PARSONS

George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia

SALEM RAINEY METZGER AND JEANNA ASKEW

Hunter Elementary, Greensboro, North Carolina

ASHLEY R. CARSWELL

Nebo Elementary, Nebo, North Carolina

The current high-stakes testing environment is compelling many educators to teach reading in pro-grammatic ways. This type of teaching contrasts research on effective literacy instruction. Thisarticle describes a Title I elementary school’s effort to improve literacy instruction not by adopt-ing a program but rather by providing professional development emphasizing project-based literacyinstruction. A teacher research study examined how teachers implemented project-based literacyinstruction and how they felt about using such instruction. This study found several themes in (a) thetypes of projects teachers implemented, (b) what went well in using project-based instruction, and(c) obstacles teachers faced in implementing this type of instruction.

Keywords qualitative research, elementary

Under pressure to prepare students to perform well in math and reading, teach-ers engage in repetitious instruction that boils down content to isolated bits ofinformation, leaving little time to engage in creative interdisciplinary activitiesor project-based inquiry. (Nichols & Berliner, 2008, p. 15)

The current high-stakes testing environment compels many elementary schools, par-ticularly high-poverty schools, to promote reading instruction that is restricted andprogrammatic (Cummins, 2007). In the attempt to raise test scores, many schools andschool systems are implementing policies and mandates that emphasize test preparationand reduce teachers’ instruction to little more than reading from a script. Such teachingpractices contrast research on effective literacy instruction, which emphasizes meaningfulassignments and teacher autonomy (Barron & Darling-Hammond, 2008; Pearson, 2007).

In spite of tremendous pressure on schools, administrators, and teachers to raise testscores and in spite of numerous programs that promise increased test scores, there arehigh-poverty schools combating this trend toward programmatic literacy instruction byproviding high-level literacy instruction to all students. High-level literacy instruction,

Address correspondence to Seth A. Parsons, Ph.D., George Mason University, College of Education andHuman Development, 4400 University Dr., MSN 4B3, Fairfax, VA 22030. E-mail: sparson5@gmu.edu

1

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 17:

03 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

2 S. A. Parsons et al.

such as project-based instruction, includes assignments that are authentic, challenging,student-directed, and that include an end product. These assignments allow students toactively construct knowledge through meaningful interactions with text (Gambrell, Malloy,& Mazzoni, 2007). This sort of instruction not only gives students the skills and strategiesto read and write well but also empowers students to read and write for their own purposes(e.g., Miller & Meece, 1999). In short, high-level instruction helps develop self-regulatedlearners, students who are strategic and metacognitive (Perry, Turner, & Meyer, 2006).

In the current accountability climate, however, implementing high-level literacyinstruction in high-poverty schools requires teachers to “teach against the grain” (Duffy,1991). That is, teachers must resist the pressure to simplify instruction with a singularfocus on raising test scores. This article describes one Title I school’s effort to improveliteracy instruction not by adopting a program but rather by providing professionaldevelopment emphasizing high-level literacy instruction. In this article we first describethe school and the professional development that took place. Then, we describe how theteachers in this school implemented high-level literacy instruction using projects and theteachers’ views of using such instruction.

Background

This elementary school was a diverse Title I school in the Southeast. Eighty-six percentof the students received free or reduced lunch, 92% were minority, 35% were English lan-guage learners, and 50% came from single-parent families. Like many Title I schools, mostof the teachers in this school were new to the profession. The classroom teachers in thisschool had a mean of 4.16 years of experience and a median 2 years experience. This schoolhas performed well on standardized tests of reading over the last seven years, raising its testscores from a 50% passage rate to 79%. Over the last four years at least 73% of the studentspassed the reading test each year. Such impressive improvements led to numerous honorssuch as “School of Progress,” “School of Distinction,” and “Title I Distinguished School.”

After experiencing such success, this school’s high-stakes test scores began to plateauover the last three years. In the 2005–2006 school year, the school did not meet the NoChild Left Behind’s Adequate Yearly Progress in reading. This disappointment led toschool-wide discussions on how to improve literacy instruction. A growing number ofteachers became disenchanted by the notion that all their hard work was not yielding thesame growth as in the past. Teacher and principal turnover coupled with an ever-changingstudent population added to the frustration of the faculty. In the spring of 2006, a group offaculty members realized the strategies that had previously catapulted test scores neededto be revised to reach higher levels of achievement. Working with a local university, theadministrators and teachers in this school developed a plan to move beyond a focus pri-marily on skills and strategies instruction, which had helped them achieve success in thepast, to focus also on creating self-regulated literacy learners. In staff meetings, teachersdiscussed instruction that would work toward this end. The result was a focus on project-based literacy instruction. The teachers defined such instruction as authentic, challenging,student-directed, and including an end product. With this goal in place, school leaders orga-nized an ongoing professional development plan to support teachers as they moved towardthis type of literacy instruction.

The Professional Development

The professional development at this school, then, was initiated by teachers’ desire toimprove their literacy instruction. School leaders and university personnel organized and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 17:

03 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Teaching Against the Grain 3

facilitated ongoing professional development to support teachers as they moved towardthis goal. The professional development consisted of school-wide reading of professionalresources and activities that explored project-based instruction and self-regulated learning.The curriculum facilitator located relevant resources for the teachers to read. Readingsfocused primarily on Stead’s (2006) book on nonfiction reading comprehension andParsons’ (2008) article on tasks that promote self-regulated literacy learning. Tony Stead’sbook, Reality Checks, presents a workshop approach to teaching literacy that emphasizesauthentic experiences with text and mini-lessons on skills and strategies. Parsons’ articlepresents ACCESS as an organizational framework for implementing literacy instructionthat includes authenticity, collaboration, challenge, an end product, sustained learning, andstudent choice.

The professional development included four foundational activities in addition toweekly grade-level meetings to reflect on and plan projects. The first foundational activ-ity occurred in September during an afternoon reserved for staff development. Grade-levelteams met with their support staff to discuss the characteristics of project-based learningusing the Frayer model (Frayer, Frederick, & Klausmeier, 1969). The Frayer model is atool for concept development that includes four sections: definition, characteristics, exam-ples, and non-examples. Each team was given a copy of a Frayer model that includedthe definition of project-based learning. Therefore, the grade-level teams described thecharacteristics of project-based learning, created examples, and identified non-examples.Through these discussions, grade levels generated ideas about how to incorporate project-based learning into their curriculum. The Frayer models also helped teachers see that manyassignments they implemented included components of project-based instruction.

To continue learning about project-based instruction and self-regulated learners, theschool’s faculty reviewed the definition of project-based instruction at an October staffmeeting. In the meeting, faculty and staff identified characteristics of project-based instruc-tion as assignments that are authentic, challenging, student-directed, and that include anend product. To explore the concept of self-regulated learning, the faculty discussed stu-dents as independent thinkers, independent learners, and independent workers. Faculty andstaff then explored self-regulated learning in light of project-based instruction. In smallgroups, faculty created visuals to display the connection, which were presented to theircolleagues.

Another foundational activity occurred on a teacher workday in November. Eachgrade-level team created a display to share a literacy project they had implemented.The teachers used different formats including posters, PowerPoint presentations, and BigBooks. The displays were set up in the media center and teachers examined the dif-ferent projects. The purpose of this activity was to celebrate teachers’ efforts in thisschool-wide movement as well as to promote thinking about how to implement this typeof instruction. This format allowed for extended discussion about project-based literacyinstruction.

The final foundational activity was a “scavenger hunt” that occurred in December. Intheir common planning time, grade-level groups visited classrooms at each grade level.Each group member had a role during the scavenger hunt. Roles consisted of a data collec-tor who completed an observation tool to document whole-group instruction, small-groupinstruction, students working in pairs, and students working independently. A recorderscripted dialogue that portrayed self-regulated learning. A photographer captured studentsin learning environments, and a collector gathered artifacts from classrooms such as stu-dent work. The scavenger hunt gave the staff an opportunity to see their colleagues andstudents at work. The teams used the data they collected to create a data board, displayingthe school’s steps toward using project-based literacy instruction to develop self-regulated

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 17:

03 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

4 S. A. Parsons et al.

learners. These data boards were placed in the media center, and time was arranged forteachers to view and discuss the displays.

This arrangement follows findings from research on effective professional devel-opment because it is “homegrown,” collaborative, ongoing, structured, and responsiveto teachers’ needs (Hawley & Valli, 1999; Sailors, 2009; Taylor, Pearson, Peterson, &Rodriguez, 2005). This professional development was homegrown in the sense that itoriginated from teachers’ desire to improve their literacy instruction. It was collaborativebecause teachers worked together in grade-level teams to learn more about project-basedliteracy instruction and to use what they learned in their own classrooms. Lasting through-out an entire school year, this professional development was ongoing. The professionaldevelopment was structured because there were common professional readings for theteachers and clearly organized activities in which teachers participated. These activitieswere responsive to teachers’ needs because teachers initiated the focus on project-basedliteracy instruction and helped plan the professional development experiences.

The Study

The authors of this article designed a teacher research project to examine this school’smovement toward project-based literacy instruction. Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1990)defined teacher research as “systematic, intentional inquiry by teachers” (p. 2). Threeteachers and one university teacher educator examined (a) how teachers used what theywere learning in the professional development and (b) how teachers felt about it. This studyfollowed standards of teacher research because it systematically examined a school’s effortto improve instruction by studying teachers’ implementation and interpretations (Cochran-Smith & Donnell, 2006). This inquiry is important because the professional development,which focused on project-based literacy instruction and self-regulated literacy learning,contrasted the ubiquitous movement, both locally and nationally, toward programmatic lit-eracy instruction in high-poverty schools (Roeser, Peck, & Nasir, 2006). We wonderedwhat happens when a Title I school attempts to “teach against the grain.”

Specifically, two research questions guided this study:

1. How do the teachers involved in this professional development implement project-basedliteracy instruction?

2. What are these teachers’ views of using project-based literacy instruction?

Answering these questions informs future efforts toward this type of instruction, both atthis school and others, by documenting not only what the teachers did but also how theyfelt about it.

Theoretical Framework

This study was informed by previous research and theory on high-level literacy instruction.The teachers in this school conceptualized high-level literacy instruction as project-basedliteracy instruction. For the purposes of this study, we used the teachers’ definition ofproject-based literacy instruction: tasks that are authentic, challenging, student-directed,and that include an end product. Research and theory support the type of instructionthe teachers described as being advantageous for students’ learning and self-regulation.However, researchers have often warned that this type of instruction is difficult for teachers.

In their influential article, Blumenfeld and colleagues (1991) outlined the benefits ofusing project-based instruction. They asserted that an essential feature of project-based

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 17:

03 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Teaching Against the Grain 5

instruction is the completion of an end product. The end product, they argued, drives theinstruction and provides an authentic purpose for engaging in the assignment. Similarly, theend product compels students to be metacognitive because they must monitor their progressand reflect on their work as they complete a task. Moreover, the authenticity of project-based instruction contextualizes students’ learning, which promotes strategic behavior(Blumenfeld et al., 1991). These authors also indicated that projects should be student-directed, giving students opportunities to make choices. They concluded that project-basedinstruction is a desirable framework for instruction because it enhances students’ learningand self-regulation.

Turner’s (1995) research supported Blumenfeld and her colleagues’ (1991) assertions.Turner observed teachers and students in whole language and skills-based classrooms. Shefound that the type of task teachers implemented was the salient feature of classroomenvironments in influencing students’ self-regulated learning. When teachers implementedtasks that allowed students choices within authentic, challenging assignments, they weremore strategic and metacognitive in their literacy learning. Therefore, this study addedfurther support for engaging students in assignments such as project-based instruction toenhance their self-regulated learning.

More recently, Barron and Darling-Hammond (2008) reviewed the research onproject-based instruction in the book Powerful Learning (Darling-Hammond, 2008). Theydemonstrated that when students participated in project-based instruction, they acquiredfactual knowledge as well as students receiving more traditional forms of instruction.However, students completing projects were better able to transfer their learning to newsituations. Similarly, they found that project-based instruction improved students’ criticalthinking, oftentimes with the most significant gains for low-achieving students. Project-based instruction, then, gave students a deeper understanding of content that they can applyto new situations and enhanced students’ critical thinking.

Therefore, research and theory have indicated that project-based instruction is ben-eficial for students’ learning and self-regulation. However, researchers have frequentlypresented the caveat that implementing such instruction is difficult for teachers. For exam-ple, Barron and Darling-Hammond (2008) stated that project-based instruction is “muchmore complex than teachers’ direct transmission of knowledge to students via textbooks orlectures” (p. 53). Project-based instruction is more ambiguous than the traditional forms ofinstruction (Barron & Darling-Hammond, 2008; Doyle, 1983), there are likely to be manyactivities taking place at once, and students often require more assistance (Blumenfeldet al., 1991). Perry and her colleagues (2006) explained, “For students to successfullycomplete ‘challenging’ or ‘meaningful’ tasks, they needed effective and multifacetedinstructional support” (p. 337).

In sum, research has demonstrated that project-based instruction is beneficial for stu-dents, but it frequently comes with the caveat that this sort of instruction is difficult forteachers. Research specifically examining this aspect of project-based instruction, teachers’perspectives, is nearly absent in the research literature. For this reason, our study focusedon teachers’ implementation and interpretations of using project-based literacy instruction.

Methods

To answer our research questions, we collected the following data: (a) teachers’ monthlydescriptions of their progress toward implementing project-based instruction; (b) notesand artifacts from weekly grade-level and monthly staff meetings; (c) teachers’ end-of-the-year reflections on the professional development, describing “how you have worked

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 17:

03 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

6 S. A. Parsons et al.

Table 1Crosswalk displaying data informing each research question

Data sources/research questions RQ 1 RQ 2

Teachers’ monthly descriptions of project-based instruction XNotes and artifacts from grade-level and staff meetings X XTeachers’ end-of-the-year reflections X XWeekly responses to open-ended questions X

this year to move students towards being self-regulated learners”; and (d) teachers’ weeklyresponses to the following open-ended questions regarding their opinions of project-basedinstruction:

1. What is going well with project-based instruction?2. What obstacles are there in implementing project-based instruction?

We analyzed these data using a grounded theory approach (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). First,we read through all of the data to get of sense of the how they addressed our researchquestions. A crosswalk illustrates how the data related to our research questions (seeTable 1).

To analyze the data for the first research question, we examined what teachers didto implement project-based literacy instruction. We first created a list of all the projectsteachers described. Then we examined the data to identify relevant segments of text, whichwere labeled with codes describing teachers’ instruction. We then collapsed these codesinto themes that described teachers’ implementation of project-based literacy instruction.Therefore, we identified both specific projects and themes within these projects.

To analyze the second research question, we examined teachers’ perspectives of whatwas going well with project-based literacy instruction and what obstacles they were facing.We first read through the data and identified pertinent text segments, which we labeled withcodes describing how teachers felt about using project-based literacy instruction. We thencollapsed the codes into themes that described what teachers thought went well in usingproject-based literacy instruction and obstacles they faced.

Findings

The first research question asked how teachers in this Title I elementary school imple-mented project-based literacy instruction. To answer this question, we first discuss commonthemes in teachers’ descriptions of using literacy projects. We then describe specificprojects teachers implemented throughout the year.

How Teachers Implemented Project-Based Instruction. We found four themes in teachers’implementation of project-based literacy instruction: interdisciplinary instruction, collab-oration, student choice, and active participation. The first theme was interdisciplinaryinstruction. Teachers often integrated literacy instruction with other subject matter inprojects to cover the curriculum. Teachers discussed the benefits of using projects toteach science and social studies content while also teaching reading and writing skills andstrategies. For example, a fifth-grade teacher described integrating literacy into science:“we have embarked on several inquiry-based lessons including using various websitesin technology, writing lab reports while conducting experiments, writing expository and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 17:

03 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Teaching Against the Grain 7

persuasive pieces, [and] journaling” (April 21, 2008). Similarly, a third-grade teacherexplained how she integrated subjects using projects: “One of the things I did this year wasincorporate extended, integrated units of study. I began with the [State] Standard Courseof Study for science and math, gathered materials, and designed units” (April 24, 2008).

The second theme was collaboration. In projects they created, teachers often usedcooperative grouping structures, placing students in pairs or small groups. For instance, asecond-grade teacher expressed, “I have been more apt to put my students in partnershipsand small groups so that they can use each other as resources rather than always asking theteacher” (April 23, 2008). A fourth-grade teacher explained, “This year I have spent moretime using cooperative learning groups in my classroom. . . . I use small groups designedby teachers and students. They work together to accomplish a common goal” (April 25,2008).

The third theme was student choice. When implementing project-based literacyinstruction, teachers tried to give students more choices. In their various reports, teach-ers often mentioned letting students choose topics of study within a curriculum unit, peerswith whom they would work, and the type of product they would turn in to demonstratetheir learning. For example, one teacher explained,

They were able to choose topics from the standard course of study that theywere interested in and then create a project that would meet other objec-tives in our curriculum. This way we could frame the project together, createa deadline, outline the steps until completion, and then talk about teacherresponsibilities versus student responsibilities. (April 22, 2008)

Similarly, a first-grade teacher described one project she implemented: “The children weregiven the freedom to choose who they wanted to work with, what they wanted to create,and how they were going to create it” (April 22, 2008).

The final theme was active participation. The projects teachers designed often allowedstudents to actively construct knowledge. Teachers frequently mentioned “discovery-based” or “hands-on” activities. For example, a second-grade teacher explained, “I havetried to move away from teacher talk to children exploring, discovering, and explainingwhat they have noticed” (April 23, 2008). A primary teacher explained a change she madeto an interdisciplinary pumpkin activity: “Prior to this year, I would buy one pumpkin andstudents would watch while I weighed it, measured circumference, counted seeds, etc. Thisyear each pair had their own pumpkins with all the ‘tools’ to do each job” (April 23, 2008).

Examples from classrooms. In the following section, we describe in detail two projectsteachers created—one from primary grades and one from intermediate grades—to illustratethe themes teachers used to explain how they implemented project-based instruction.

A project first-grade teachers created was a polar animal unit that integrated (a) lit-eracy objectives in the form of readers’ and writers’ workshop; (b) science objectives,including how animals adapt, basic needs of animals, and importance of habitats; and (c)social studies objectives, studying geography and mapping. The teachers structured learn-ing activities that included whole-group modeling, partner research, small-group guidedreading, individual conferencing, and a time for student researchers to share their progress.After learning about the Polar Regions and animals that inhabit them, students chose oneanimal to research and write about. Teachers modeled how to take notes on importantinformation and how to summarize main ideas. Children spent time daily selecting “justright” texts that pertained to their research topics and reading for the authentic purpose of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 17:

03 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

8 S. A. Parsons et al.

researching their animal. Teachers helped students design experiments such as comparingpolar bear blubber and human skin. Baggies of shortening mimicked blubber, so studentstested the coldness of ice water on their skin versus the coldness of the ice water underneatha polar bear’s “blubber.”

Third grade teachers used popular culture to implement a project-based literacy assign-ment. Based on the reality show Kid Nation, teachers worked together to create a uniton communities that integrated literacy and social studies curricula. In this assignment,students created their own nations. The unit began with an in-depth study of Americansymbols and maps, where students read extensively to research local and national sym-bols. Then students worked in groups to choose nation names and symbols and to createmaps. In writers’ workshop, students wrote explanations of their nations’ symbols andwrote scripts for the presentations of their nations. The students presented their nations toschool personnel and parents.

These projects illustrate the four themes in teachers’ descriptions of their imple-mentation of project-based literacy instruction. These assignments were interdisciplinarybecause they integrated literacy, social studies, and science curricula. Both projects per-mitted students to collaborate in pairs and small groups. The students were given choices,being allowed to choose topics of study. Students actively participated in these projectsby creating final products to display their knowledge. Table 2 lists other projects teachersimplemented throughout the school year.

Teachers’ Views of Using Project-Based Instruction. The second research question askedabout teachers’ views of implementing project-based literacy instruction, specifically whatwas going well and what obstacles they faced.

What went well. Four themes emerged from the data concerning what went well withusing project-based literacy instruction: student engagement, student learning, student col-laboration, and student independence. The first theme was student engagement, which weconceptualized as on-task involvement. Teachers frequently expressed that students wereengaged, on-task, and involved in the projects they designed. For example, speaking of aproject on leaves, a kindergarten teacher stated, “Response has been that the students havea high interest and are staying on task and involved” (November 1, 2007). Likewise, afirst-grade teacher explained,

Table 2Examples of projects teachers implemented

K–2 3–5

Reptile and amphibian research How to conserve energy at home and schoolHolidays around the world An in-depth study of a historical cityHow to care for the class pet Study of the muscular and skeletal systemsStudy of leaves Figurative language book makingBuilding block homes on uneven bases Studying and creating muralsStudying the food pyramid Authors as mentors (how-to articles)Life cycles unit Wright brothers book projectCareer exploration project U.S. symbols and government research

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 17:

03 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Teaching Against the Grain 9

The students are very engaged and are rising to the challenge. This is the firsttime I have given them a task like this and have allowed them to figure it outfor themselves within their groups. They love being in charge and usually stayfocused longer because they want their product to illustrate their knowledge.(October 11, 2007)

Another teacher shared, “Today we began independent/partner research on animals oftheir choice. Oh my goodness, the excitement was high but all were working and on task”(November 15, 2007). A third-grade teacher described the beginning of a soil unit, “Theyexplored different types of soil and their properties. The class was absolutely engaged andeager to investigate, observe, and share” (October 25, 2007).

The second theme was student learning. Teachers noted that students’ learning wasenhanced through the use of project-based literacy instruction. For example, a first-gradeteacher explained,

Students are actively thinking about what they have learned and how it relatesto the project. They are also planning their project and making revisions totheir plans as they work on the project. This is a great way to point out/connectediting and revisions in writing. (October 18, 2007)

Similarly, a third-grade teacher noted, “Students are actively involved and are thinking forthemselves about data. Students are relating reading to hands on and observation investiga-tions. They read about volcanoes and lava and made the connection to the candle meltinginto the water” (November 8, 2007).

The third theme describing what went well with using project-based literacy instruc-tion was student collaboration. Teachers frequently expressed that utilizing more cooper-ative grouping structures encouraged better collaboration among students. For example, akindergarten teacher saw many benefits to more collaborative grouping:

My students seem more willing to take risks when they are in an environ-ment with their peers in small groups rather than whole group. They feel lessthreatened when they are learning through exploration and are so much moreengaged when they have to rely on themselves and their classmates. (April 22,2008)

A first-grade teacher explained,

[Students] are able to work collaboratively much more than I expected duringthe first couple months of first grade. I have been able to see groups think aloudabout a project and then assign jobs for each student. They give constant feed-back to the other members of the group and are very helpful when somethingneeds to be changed or if someone needs assistance. (October 11, 2007)

Similarly, a second-grade teacher expressed,

They are having to make sure everyone in the group gets information or factswritten on the graphic organizer. Most are making sure they help students whoare struggling with no reminders from me. They are helping one another spellwords or showing others where to find words in the books. (November 8, 2007)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 17:

03 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

10 S. A. Parsons et al.

Finally, a fourth-grade teacher explained, “Again this week, the students really enjoy thetime to work together and find out information. They seem to get more out of the lessonsand it helps with their social situations because they have to work together” (November 29,2007).

The final theme was student independence. Teachers frequently expressed that whenusing projects, students were more independent and took more initiative in their work.For instance, a kindergarten teacher described a specific example from her class: “Whensorting toys by letter, students noticed that they did not have toys available for every letter.They chose to solve this problem by taking toys from the kitchen and other centers to addto the toy basket” (November 15, 2007). Similarly, a fourth-grade teacher expressed,

They have really been doing a lot more on their own lately. It seems like any-time they have a “silly” question like “I broke my pencil,” they problem solve.It probably sounds silly, but just having them figure out little things like thisseems to be helping and they are coming to me less for these small types ofsituations. (November 29, 2007)

Therefore, the teachers in this school saw many benefits to using project-based literacyinstruction, including enhanced student engagement, student learning, student collabora-tion, and student independence.

Obstacles teachers faced. Four themes emerged from the data concerning obstaclesteachers faced when implementing project-based literacy instruction: time, resources,classroom management, and teacher restraint. The first theme was time. Teachers over-whelmingly mentioned that projects were time consuming—in regard to both planning andimplementing projects. For instance, a fourth-grade teacher spoke about the time neededto plan a project:

Obstacles with implementing project-based learning seem to be finding thetime to plan these units. I feel like I do not have enough time to make it aseffective as I would like to. I’m also having trouble with having time to findall the possible materials and sometimes I feel like the students are not gettingthe best instruction because I cannot get everything together in time for theirprojects. (November 8, 2007)

A first-grade teacher articulated her frustration with limited time teaching, “As we aregetting further into the school year and assessments and report cards are coming due, theneed for remediation of basic skills will begin to weigh on us and time will become evenmore of an issue” (October 18, 2007). Another first-grade teacher expressed,

I want to give my students a lot of time to really get into the projects and Ido not have a lot of flex room in my schedule. Students sometimes come inor leave during the project and I know that they do not completely understandwhat is happening. (October 11, 2007)

A third-grade teacher explained, “Time is an issue. There are so many subjects to teach,sometimes there is not enough time for full involvement” (September 27, 2007).

The second theme was resources. Teachers spoke of the need for increased human andphysical resources when implementing projects. For instance, a kindergarten teacher stated,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 17:

03 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Teaching Against the Grain 11

“This lesson may have gone smoother had there been an assistant or other adult supportto allow for more small group and less whole class” (November 29, 2007). A first-gradeteacher noted an obstacle she faced: “Being able to supply materials for the projects I wouldlike to do” (October 11, 2007). Another first-grade teacher simply expressed, “Lack ofmaterials [is an obstacle]” (December 13, 2007). A third-grade teacher explained, “Havingall the supplies they want/need [is an obstacle]. They have great ideas and you can’t alwayspredict what they will want to use, so it’s hard to give them creative freedom and not havethe supplies they want” (September 27, 2007).

The third theme regarding obstacles to implementing project-based literacy instructionwas classroom management. Teachers often mentioned that it was difficult to give studentsfreedom yet also manage their behavior. For example, a kindergarten teacher stated, “[Anobstacle is] keeping students on task for new explorations” (October 25, 2007). A second-grade teacher expressed, “The only issue that has arisen up to this point would be keepingmanagement in such an uncontrolled environment” (December 13, 2007). Another teacherexplained, “I’ve noticed that there is a lot of noise and the kids sometimes cannot controlso much freedom” (October 11, 2007). Likewise, a fourth-grade teacher also mentionedmanagement problems when students are given freedom: “The talking . . . can sometimesget out of hand. It is like they take it too far. It is like they cannot control themselves whenthey have so much freedom” (November 29, 2007).

The final theme was teacher restraint. Teachers mentioned the difficulty in givingup teacher control and letting the students take control of their learning. For instance, akindergarten teacher described herself and her assistant as obstacles: “We would want torush in to help them; so it took some willpower to restrain ourselves and let them figure itout!” (November 29, 2007). A first-grade teacher explained,

I am so used to modeling every step of a project that it is hard for me to drawthe line of where my modeling stops. I try not to throw them in there blind,but do not want to limit their thinking just by what I have shown. (October 18,2007)

Similarly, a second-grade teacher noted, “Right now, I am just trying to give them time, toremember to model everything I want them to include in their reports, and then to back offand let them have a try” (November 8, 2007). A fourth-grade teacher expressed a similarconcern: “I’m so used to doing all the work that it is really hard for me to let go” (November8, 2007).

Therefore, there were several common obstacles in implementing project-based liter-acy instruction, specifically teachers noted time, resources, classroom management, andteacher restraint.

Summary of findings. This study examined how teachers in one Title I school imple-mented project-based literacy instruction and how they felt about it. We found that teachersimplemented a variety of projects to cover curricular content. These projects frequentlyincluded interdisciplinary instruction, collaboration, student choice, and active participa-tion. Teachers described many benefits of using project-based literacy instruction, such asincreased student engagement, student learning, student collaboration, and student inde-pendence. Teachers also faced obstacles in using this type of instruction, including time,resources, classroom management, and teacher restraint.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 17:

03 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

12 S. A. Parsons et al.

Discussion

This teacher research project describes how teachers implemented what they learned froma longitudinal professional development effort as well as how they felt about it. Despiteteaching in a high-poverty school with tremendous pressure to raise standardized testscores, the teachers in this school were generally willing and able to “teach against thegrain.” With support and guidance from the administration and colleagues, the teachers inthis school created a variety of creative literacy projects that likely had a positive impacton students.

Although this study did not specifically examine student achievement, the projectsteachers implemented suggested that the instruction was beneficial for students’ learn-ing. The themes we found in the projects teachers created (interdisciplinary instruction,collaboration, student choice, and active participation) all have strong support in theresearch literature. Interdisciplinary assignments give students a coherent understandingof curricular content (Guthrie & Wigfield, 2000). Scientifically based reading research hasdemonstrated that collaboration enhances students’ comprehension (National Institute ofChild Health and Human Development, 2000). Student choice has repeatedly been found toenhance engagement (Guthrie & Humenick, 2004). Active participation in learning under-girds constructivism, which is the dominant understanding of how people learn (Bransford,Brown, & Cocking, 1999).

Moreover, the teachers were pleased with the professional development. For example,one teacher mentioned, “I am really excited about using more self-regulated learning tech-niques with my students to help them grow in their learning” (April 21, 2007). Anotherteacher expressed, “This is something I would like to continue in my classroom” (April23, 2007). Also teachers explained that using project-based literacy instruction enhancedstudent engagement, learning, collaboration, and independence. This effort did not comewithout challenges, though. As researchers have previously described, using project-basedinstruction poses difficulties for teachers (Barron & Darling-Hammond, 2008). This studyadds to this literature by identifying specific challenges teachers in this school faced. Time,resources, classroom management, and teacher restraint were obstacles teachers describedin using project-based literacy instruction.

It is worth noting that the teachers in this school varied in their implementation andinterpretations. While we were pleased with the results we found from this study, as theyindicated that most teachers did make significant changes to their instruction based uponthis professional development, we do not want to portray our journey as a picture-perfectprocess. As is often the case in professional development, there was resistance from someteachers (Fullan, 2001). Also, the level of implementation varied across teachers, withsome fully embracing this movement by restructuring their entire day and others taking“baby steps” by only making isolated changes to their instruction. Nonetheless, our sys-tematic analysis of the data demonstrated that overall the teachers in this school alteredtheir instruction in identifiable ways and felt positive about it.

Conclusion

The response to the current high-stakes testing environment often encourages restrictedand programmatic literacy instruction. This sort of teaching often neglects what is knownabout effective instruction. This teacher research project suggests that when teachers aregiven the freedom and guidance to use high-level literacy instruction, such as project-based instruction, they design instruction that is in line with research on effective literacy

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 17:

03 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Teaching Against the Grain 13

instruction and they see positive outcomes in students. We urge school leaders and teachersto focus on what is best for students’ literacy learning even if it requires teaching againstthe grain.

References

Barron, B., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). How can we teach for meaningful learning? In L.Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Powerful learning: What we know about teaching for understanding(pp. 11–70). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, R., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991).Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. EducationalPsychologist, 26, 369–398.

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind,experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Cochran-Smith, M., & Donnell, K. (2006). Practitioner inquiry: Blurring the boundaries of researchand practice. In J. L. Green, G. Camilli, & P. B. Elmore (Eds.), Handbook of complementarymethods in education research (3rd ed., pp. 503–518). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1990). Research on teaching and teacher research: The issuesthat divide. Educational Researcher, 19, 2–11.

Cummins, J. (2007). Pedagogies for the poor? Realigning reading instruction for low-incomestudents with scientifically based reading research. Educational Researcher, 36, 564–572.

Darling-Hammond, L. (Ed.). (2008). Powerful learning: What we know about teaching for under-standing. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Doyle, W. (1983). Academic work. Review of Educational Research, 53(2), 159–199.Duffy, G. G. (1991). What counts in teacher education? Dilemmas in educating empowered teachers.

In J. Lutell & S. McCormick (Eds.), Learner factors/teacher factors: Issues in literacy researchand instruction, 40th yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 1–18). Chicago: NRC.

Frayer, D., Frederick, W. C., & Klausmeier, H. J. (1969). A schema for testing the level of cognitivemastery. Madison: Wisconsin Center for Educational Research.

Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.). New York: Teachers CollegePress.

Gambrell, L. B., Malloy, J. A., & Mazzoni, S. A. (2007). Evidence-based best practices for compre-hensive literacy instruction. In L. B. Gambrell, L. M. Morrow, & M. Pressley (Eds.), Best practicesin literacy instruction (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.

Glaser, B. J., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitativeresearch. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.

Guthrie, J. T., & Humenick, N. M. (2004). Motivating students to read: Evidence for classroompractices that increase reading motivation and achievement. In P. McCardle & V. Chhabra (Eds.),The voice of evidence in reading research (pp. 329–354). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and motivation in reading. In M. L. Kamil, P. B.Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (vol. III, pp. 403–422).Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hawley, W., & Valli, L. (1999). The essentials of effective professional development. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy andpractice (pp. 127–150). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Miller, S. D., & Meece, J. L. (1999). Third-graders’ motivational preferences for reading and writingtasks. Elementary School Journal, 100(1), 19–35.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National ReadingPanel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research liter-ature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769).Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 17:

03 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

14 S. A. Parsons et al.

Nichols, S. L., & Berliner, D. C. (2008). Testing the joy out of learning. Educational Leadership,65(6), 14–18.

Parsons, S. A. (2008). Providing all students ACCESS to self-regulated literacy learning. TheReading Teacher, 61, 628–635.

Pearson, P. D. (2007). An endangered species act for literacy education. Journal of Literacy Research,39, 145–162.

Perry, N. E., Turner, J. C., & Meyer, D. K. (2006). Classrooms as contexts for motivating learn-ing. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed.)(pp. 327–348). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Roeser, R. W., Peck, S. C., & Nasir, N. S. (2006). Self and identity processes in school motivation,learning, and achievement. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educationalpsychology (2nd ed., pp. 391–424). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Sailors, M. (2009). Improving comprehension instruction through quality professional development.In S. E. Israel & G. G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (pp. 645–657). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Stead, T. (2006). Reality checks: Teaching reading comprehension with non-fiction writing, K–5.Portland, ME: Stenhouse.

Taylor, B. M., Pearson, P. D., Peterson, D. S., & Rodriguez, M. C. (2005). The CIERA schoolchange framework: An evidence-based approach to professional development and school readingimprovement. Reading Research Quarterly, 40, 40–69.

Turner, J. C. (1995). The influence of classroom contexts on young children’s motivation for literacy.Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 410–441.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 17:

03 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014