The Missouri Reading Initiative

1

• The Missouri Reading Initiative
• Spring 2008

Annual Participant Survey Results
2
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.

3
Participant Survey

• The following slides focus on two questions

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)
4
Change by MRI Year 2002-2004How has the
MISSOURI READING INITIATIVE changed or
reinforced your teaching?On a Scale of 1 (Not
at All) to 5 (A Great Deal)
This table shows the annual average response to
the Change question between 2002-2004 when MRI
was a K-3 program only.
5
Change by MRI Year 2002-2004How has the
MISSOURI READING INITIATIVE changed or
reinforced your teaching?On a Scale of 1 (Not
at All) to 5 (A Great Deal)

• In 2004-2005 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.

6
Rate by MRI Year 2002-2004 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 2002-2004 when MRI
was a K-3 program only.
7
RATE by MRI Year 2005-2008 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)
In 2004-2005 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 2008-2009.
8
Secondary Program

• In 2006 MRI developed a professional development
  program for grades 7-12. An essential feature of
  this program was the differentiation of
  strategies based on whether a classroom teachers
  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.

9
Secondary Program

• The following table compares responses to both
  the Change and Rate questions for 2007 and
  2008.
• 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 2007.
• As the program matures, and MRI identifies the
  training approaches that best serve the
  participants needs, this trend should continue to
  improve

10
Participant SurveyTrainer Ratings

• 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
• 1Poor to 5Excellent
• .

11
Trainer Summaries 2008 Survey

• The data presented in this table shows that, in
  general, respondents give trainers very favorable
  scores in all categories