View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Examining the Relationship between Teacher Reading Education, Perceptions of Student Behavior, and In-Class Independent Reading Environments: Insights from the 2016 PIRLS Dataset

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Examining the Relationship between Teacher Reading Education, Perceptions of Student Behavior, and In-Class Independent Reading Environments: Insights from the 2016 PIRLS Dataset
Language: English
Authors: Lacy D. Brice (ORCID 0000-0002-7524-5307), Woonyoung Song, Lilian Tetteh
Source: Learning Environments Research. 2025 28(1):27-44.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 18
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Elementary Education
Grade 4
Intermediate Grades
Descriptors: Achievement Tests, Foreign Countries, Reading Achievement, Grade 4, International Assessment, Reading Tests, Elementary School Teachers, Reading Instruction, Reading Teachers, Teacher Education, Faculty Development, Student Behavior, Independent Reading, Teacher Attitudes
Assessment and Survey Identifiers: Progress in International Reading Literacy Study
DOI: 10.1007/s10984-024-09519-8
ISSN: 1387-1579
1573-1855
Abstract: Today's students must acquire the necessary reading skills and strategies for active engagement in a fast-paced, information-laden, globally connected society. One opportunity imperative for gaining these skills and strategies is participation in independent reading. As facilitators of the learning environment, teachers play a critical role in providing high-quality independent reading environments. Therefore, this study evaluated whether selected items from the PIRLS United States teacher dataset effectively measured the constructs "teacher reading education," "teacher perceptions of students," and "independent reading environments" and further examined the relationship among these constructs. All items were significant, except for the item measuring professional development. The empirical findings revealed that while teacher reading education was not directly related to the independent reading environment or perceptions of student behavior, teachers' perceptions of student behavior were significantly related to the independent reading environment, suggesting that they may play a crucial role in fostering effective independent reading opportunities for students.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1486050
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGO9Se7zAyqDPM72dqbN0-HAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDD65SswnannpFXx6ygIBEICBm8rajExqfOEMh9oxsyyiakR20NaSnIiDmHl23Aykk8hibGmjD5qPvq-Qk7lznDiwYisDkv44MsMBp5jAvYTv8DCLI-XHsIp8nkbjvVmEzB-HtFeY1gU2HAtTVIX4y8Ldhp6WLJYbaDQAAgZM17TGjkm1Pd8rAfnIQ5-FK8XeNukdn2G84petQa_jN3WL55_4xBjGTLndVWgxy0Q7
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0184489875;oje01apr.25;2025Apr17.01:58;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0184489875-1">Examining the relationship between teacher reading education, perceptions of student behavior, and in-class independent reading environments: insights from the 2016 PIRLS dataset </title> <p>Today's students must acquire the necessary reading skills and strategies for active engagement in a fast-paced, information-laden, globally connected society. One opportunity imperative for gaining these skills and strategies is participation in independent reading. As facilitators of the learning environment, teachers play a critical role in providing high-quality independent reading environments. Therefore, this study evaluated whether selected items from the PIRLS United States teacher dataset effectively measured the constructs teacher reading education, teacher perceptions of students, and independent reading environments and further examined the relationship among these constructs. All items were significant, except for the item measuring professional development. The empirical findings revealed that while teacher reading education was not directly related to the independent reading environment or perceptions of student behavior, teachers' perceptions of student behavior were significantly related to the independent reading environment, suggesting that they may play a crucial role in fostering effective independent reading opportunities for students.</p> <p>Keywords: Independent reading environment; Teacher education; Teacher perceptions; Education Curriculum and Pedagogy Specialist Studies In Education</p> <p>Copyright comment 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.</p> <hd id="AN0184489875-2">Introduction</hd> <p>One goal of reading instruction is to develop readers who can, on their own (i.e., independently), sustain attention and concentration easily and comfortably at a reading rate that results in good comprehension (Makebo et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref1">50</reflink>]; Taylor & Samuels, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref2">71</reflink>]). To meet this reading instruction goal, students need access to an environment that promotes independent reading—a skill necessary for learning, academic achievement, and career readiness.</p> <p>As classroom environment facilitators, teachers often decide how much time is allocated for specific activities (Fisher et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref3">27</reflink>]; Russo et al., [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref4">68</reflink>]). Unfortunately, there is limited research exploring how teacher-related factors relate to how often students participate in independent reading activities during the school day. Although many variables work in tandem when teachers make instructional decisions (Creemers & Kyriades, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref5">19</reflink>]; Maggioni et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref6">49</reflink>]; Rubie-Davis et al., [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref7">67</reflink>]), their reading education experiences and perceptions of students may be associated with the independent reading environment (IRE) created in their classrooms.</p> <p>This study used the publicly accessible <emph>2016</emph><emph> Progress in International Reading Literacy Study</emph> (PIRLS, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref8">61</reflink>]; Mullis et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref9">55</reflink>]) United States teacher dataset (<emph>N</emph> = 203) to explore how teacher factors are associated with in-class IREs. The PIRLS assessment is an international assessment administered every five years and provides information on the reading achievement of 4th-grade students and teacher practices. Since teacher factors are the focus of this study, student-level data from the PIRLS 2016 dataset were not included. The 2016 PIRLS provides the most recent U.S. teacher dataset, as the 2021 PIRLS did not collect teacher data because of COVID-19.</p> <p>The study's first aim was to determine if the hypothesized measurement model using 12 observed variables from the United States teacher dataset adequately measures the latent variables: <emph>teacher reading education</emph>, <emph>teacher perceptions of student behavior</emph>, and <emph>independent reading environment (IRE)</emph>. The results of the hypothesized model test will inform future researchers seeking to replicate this work using a different teacher dataset from the PIRLS data. The second and most important aim of this study was to use the confirmed measurement model to test a structural equation model that examines whether teacher reading education predicts the IRE and whether teacher perceptions of student behavior mediate that relationship.</p> <p>Although educational landscapes have changed since the COVID-19 pandemic, the results from this study highlight the potential barriers teachers face when offering beneficial learning opportunities, such as independent reading. These results can guide teacher education and professional development programs to support teachers in establishing a learning environment that promotes independent reading.</p> <p>The following sections provide a background on the three latent variables used in this study: <emph>independent reading environment</emph>, <emph>teacher reading education</emph>, <emph>and perceptions of students</emph>. Terms used for the variables that comprise these latent constructs (e.g., remedial reading) align with those used in the <emph>PIRLS 2016 Teacher Questionnaire.</emph></p> <hd id="AN0184489875-3">The independent reading environment</hd> <p>This study draws on the conceptualizations of independent reading published by the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref10">57</reflink>]) and the International Literacy Association (ILA, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref11">40</reflink>]). According to these organizations, independent reading should be a "routine, protected instructional practice" that includes "time for students to read" their "choice of text" (NCTE, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref12">57</reflink>]) "on one's own" (ILA, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref13">40</reflink>]). Ideally, the IRE enables students to enjoy reading books that align with their interests while practicing reading skills and strategies introduced in prior reading instruction experiences. Using the definitions provided by NCTE and ILA, we present the IRE as a latent construct that includes three observable variables. These variables measure the frequency in which teachers provide students with the opportunity to (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref14">1</reflink>) work independently (i.e., on their own) during reading instruction, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref15">2</reflink>) read silently, and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref16">3</reflink>) select text of choice.</p> <p>In an IRE, students engage in various activities that support reading development and overall proficiency. For example, while they are reading, they may work independently on goals such as improving reading fluency, accurate decoding, or extracting details from a text to expand topic knowledge. Working independently on reading goals accelerates positive reading outcomes (Cheung et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref17">16</reflink>]) and supports students' motivation for reading (Cabral & Márquez, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref18">7</reflink>]). In this study, we define working independently as any reading activity, even if unobservable, that focuses on a reading goal and conducted on one's own. This activity may be either assigned by the teacher or self-directed, and it excludes whole-class, small-group, or peer-to-peer reading opportunities.</p> <p>Independent reading environments also provide time for students to read silently. Increased silent reading time can improve fluency (Allington, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref19">2</reflink>]), stamina (Kuhn & Schwanenflugel, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref20">47</reflink>]), vocabulary, and motivation for reading (Lee, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref21">9</reflink>]). Unfortunately, students often have limited silent reading time during the school day. For example, Brenner et al. ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref22">13</reflink>]) found that, on average, 3rd and 4th-grade students spend less than 20 min each day doing any reading at all. There is some evidence that factors such as curricular and testing demands (Merga, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref23">53</reflink>]), lack of resources, and the prioritization of other reading modalities (Allington & McGill-Franzen, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref24">3</reflink>]), restrict silent reading time (Brice & Tetteh, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref25">6</reflink>]). However, teacher variables such as reading education experiences or perceptions of students may also relate to the silent reading time provided to students through the IRE.</p> <p>Another cornerstone of an effective IRE, and one posited by NCTE and ILA, is allowing students to choose books that match their interests. This autonomy enhances reading enjoyment (Kasten & Wilfong, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref26">44</reflink>]) and positively correlates with reading motivation (Ivey & Broaddus, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref27">41</reflink>]; Troyer, [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref28">75</reflink>]) and engagement (Williams, [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref29">82</reflink>]), which are known predictors of reading comprehension (Wigfield et al., [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref30">81</reflink>]) and overall student performance (Guthrie et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref31">36</reflink>]; Mucherah & Yoder, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref32">54</reflink>]). When students get to choose what they read, it helps them recognize their competencies for selecting texts (Walker, [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref33">78</reflink>]) and see in-school literacy experiences as relevant (Alvermann, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref34">4</reflink>]).</p> <p>The core components of an IRE (i.e., students working independently, reading silently, and choosing texts) are positively related to student reading outcomes. However, providing this environment can be challenging for teachers (Brice & Tetteh, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref35">6</reflink>]). Teachers' unique experiences and perceptions may also influence their likelihood of promoting independent reading as a frequent classroom practice. In the following section, we turn attention to two less explored factors when examining teachers' provision of independent reading––teachers' reading education experiences and their perceptions of student behavior.</p> <hd id="AN0184489875-4">Teacher reading education</hd> <p>Teachers' education experiences impact practice (Darling-Hammond, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref36">22</reflink>]; Martin & Dismuke, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref37">51</reflink>]), which affects learning environments and student outcomes. These experiences include those gained from formal teacher education programs and in-service professional development opportunities. Ideally, teacher education courses and professional development focusing on reading should result in effective instruction. Although there is evidence that both types of learning experiences relate to improved reading achievement (Didion et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref38">23</reflink>]; van Kuijk et al., [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref39">77</reflink>]), the amount of attention teacher education programs give to topics such as reading pedagogy, reading theory, and intervention practices (i.e., remedial reading instruction) could relate to whether teachers provide an IRE.</p> <p>To illustrate, the level of pedagogical knowledge gained in reading pedagogy courses can impact the quality (Jhona & Acuna, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref40">42</reflink>]; König et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref41">46</reflink>]), type (Li & Wilhelm, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref42">10</reflink>]), and frequency (Carreker et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref43">15</reflink>]) of instructional opportunities (Cunningham et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref44">21</reflink>])–including independent reading (Cremin et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref45">20</reflink>]). Like reading pedagogy, reading education programs often include some exposure to reading theory (Risko et al., [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref46">65</reflink>]). While there are often gaps between teachers' theoretical perspectives and practice (Karimi & Dehghani, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref47">43</reflink>]; Ritchey et al., [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref48">66</reflink>]), theoretical orientation is known to influence teachers' approaches and goals for instruction (Martinez et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref49">52</reflink>]; Wray et al., [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref50">83</reflink>]) and their interpretation of reading policy (Poulson et al., [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref51">62</reflink>]).</p> <p>Teachers' education experiences may also include coursework focusing on remedial reading instruction. In these courses, teachers learn more about the needs of students with reading challenges and how to meet those needs through evidence-based reading interventions. As students advance through grade levels, texts become more complex (Biancarosa, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref52">12</reflink>]), prompting teachers to offer additional support for reading comprehension (Gibbs, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref53">34</reflink>]). Teachers with more extensive training in remedial reading may be hesitant to provide independent reading opportunities (Trudel, [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref54">76</reflink>]), particularly as some researchers question the efficacy of independent reading for students with reading challenges (Hairrell et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref55">37</reflink>]).</p> <p>As preservice teachers transition to in-service roles, their reading education shifts from formal courses to professional development. These professional development opportunities, which include workshops, seminars, and professional learning communities, often emphasize implementing designed curricula rather than expanding theoretical and pedagogical knowledge (Gabriel, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref56">31</reflink>]). If the designed curriculum does not accommodate independent reading, teachers may be less likely to incorporate it into the school day. These professional development experiences, combined with reading education courses, provide a range of ideas for teachers to consider when establishing learning environments that support students' reading development. These experiences may also inform their ideas about which student behaviors are necessary for reading success. In this way, teachers' reading education could not only relate to the reading environment they establish but also to the way they perceive student behavior when considering this reading opportunity.</p> <hd id="AN0184489875-5">Teacher perceptions of students</hd> <p>One often overlooked factor in research on teachers' reading instruction practices, particularly in fostering a beneficial IRE, is teachers' perceptions of students. This oversight is concerning, as these perceptions correlate with student success (Gregory & Haung, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref57">35</reflink>]) and impact instructional decisions (Toste et al., [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref58">74</reflink>]). Teachers consistently express concern about student behavior (Albright et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref59">1</reflink>]; Freiberg et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref60">30</reflink>]; Nelson et al., [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref61">58</reflink>]), primarily because addressing negative behavior often reduces instructional time and learning opportunities (Nelson & Roberts, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref62">59</reflink>]). Commonly reported behaviors include being distracted and difficulties in sustaining attention (Harrison et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref63">38</reflink>]; Sullivan et al., [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref64">70</reflink>]), which teachers associate with lower student performance (Evans et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref65">26</reflink>]).</p> <p>Understandably, implementing an IRE can be challenging when teachers observe a lack of interest or engagement among students. For example, Collins et al. ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref66">17</reflink>]) reported that teachers frequently observe disruptive and disengaged behaviors, such as distracting peers, using mobile phones, or pretending to read during independent reading time. Pretending to read, or "fake reading", is a common concern among teachers (Brice & Tetteh, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref67">6</reflink>]) and noted as a coping skill for students who struggle with reading independently (Bauer & Previts, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref68">11</reflink>]). As texts become more complex, students who find reading difficult may lose interest and display disruptive behavior (Fredericks et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref69">29</reflink>]), hampering both their learning and that of their peers (Fossum, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref70">28</reflink>]).</p> <p>While teachers value instructional time and aim to select activities that support student learning, they must also consider the costs when making decisions about the learning environment. To feel comfortable providing an IRE, teachers must trust that students genuinely engage in reading (Garan & DeVoogd, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref71">32</reflink>]) and exhibit behaviors conducive to successful independent reading. As previously stated, teacher's reading education background potentially shape their expectations regarding behaviors necessary for engaged reading, such as interest and sustained attention. When student behavior does not meet these expectations, teachers may develop more stable, negative perceptions of students, leading to lowered learning expectations (Henricsson & Rydell, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref72">8</reflink>]). As a result, teachers might prioritize reading activities with higher levels of support to deter negative behavior (Evanovich & Scott, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref73">25</reflink>]), or avoid providing independent reading altogether, even if their education advocates for it. Additionally, if teachers suspect that independent reading poses challenges for students, they may hesitate to offer the opportunity, particularly since time spent redirecting negative behavior increases when students are assigned challenging tasks (Fisher et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref74">27</reflink>]).</p> <p>Understanding how teachers' reading education backgrounds and their perceptions of student behavior relate to the IRE is a critical area of research. Insights from this study can inform strategies that promote independent reading while helping teachers address the behavioral and engagement challenges observed in classrooms.</p> <hd id="AN0184489875-6">Research questions</hd> <p>To date, little is known about how teachers' reading education and their perceptions of students relate to the IRE. This study examines the relationship of those constructs by addressing the following research questions:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 1. To what extent does the hypothesized measurement model accurately measure the constructs: <emph>teacher reading education, perceptions of students</emph>, and the <emph>independent reading environment</emph>?</item> <p></p> <item> Does teachers' reading education predict the independent reading environment?</item> <p></p> <item> Do teachers' perceptions of student behavior predict the independent reading environment?</item> <p></p> <item> Do teachers' perceptions of student behavior mediate the relationship between teacher reading education and the in-class independent reading environment?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0184489875-7">Methods</hd> <p>Through structural equation modeling, this study uses the PIRLS teacher data to explore the direct and indirect effects between teacher reading education, teacher perceptions of student behavior, and the in-class IRE.</p> <hd id="AN0184489875-8">Sample</hd> <p>The sample from this study included 203 4th-grade teachers across 158 schools in the United States who provided data for the 2016 PIRLS assessment. The majority of the sample included female participants, which is representative of the U.S. elementary teacher population. Table 1 provides demographic information for this sample.</p> <p>Table 1 Sample Demographics</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Demographic variable</p></th><th align="left"><p>Sample percentages (%)</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>Gender</italic></p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Female</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>83.7</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Male</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>16.3</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>Age</italic></p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Less than 25</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5.4</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Between 25 and 29</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>10.8</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Between 30 and 39</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>27.1</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Between 40 and 59</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>26.6</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Between 50 and 59</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>22.7</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>over 60</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>7.4</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>Years of experience</italic></p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>less than 5 years</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>23.5</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>between 6 and 10 years</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>19.7</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>over 10 years</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>56.9</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>Level of education</italic></p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Bachelor's or equivalent</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>43.3</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Master's or equivalent</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>55.7</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0184489875-9">Measures</hd> <p>A review of the 2016 PIRLS Teacher Questionnaire resulted in a collection of items representing the latent variables specific to this study: <emph>teacher reading education, perceptions of student behavior</emph>, and <emph>independent reading environment</emph> (see Table 2).</p> <p>Table 2 Items from PIRLS</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Items</p></th><th align="left"><p>Coding</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>Teacher Reading Education</italic></p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>As part of your formal education and/or training, to what extent did you study the following...</p><p>1. pedagogy/teaching reading</p><p>2. remedial reading</p><p>3. reading theory</p></td><td align="left"><p>1- not at all, 2- overview or introduction to topic, 3-it was an area of emphasis</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>In the past two years, how many hours in total have you spent in formal professional development that dealt directly with reading or teaching reading?</p></td><td align="left"><p>1- none, 2-less than 6 h, 3- 6–15 h, 4- 16–35 h, 5- more than 35 h</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>Teacher Perceptions of Student Behavior</italic></p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Thinking about your current school, indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements</p><p>4. The students behave in an orderly manner</p><p>5. The students are respectful to teachers</p><p>6. The students respect school property</p></td><td align="left"><p>1-agree a lot, 2- agree a little, 3- disagree a little, 4- disagree a lot</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>In your view, to what extent do the following limit how you teach in class?</p><p>7. disruptive students</p><p>8. uninterested students</p></td><td align="left"><p>1- not at all, 2- some, 3- a lot</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>Independent Reading Environment</italic></p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>When you have reading instruction and/or do reading activities, how often do you organize students in the following ways?...</p><p>9. students work independently on an assigned plan or goal</p></td><td align="left"><p>1-always or almost always, 2-often, 3-sometimes, 4-never</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>When you have reading instruction and/or do reading activities with the students, how often do you do the following?...</p><p>10. ask students to read silently on their own</p><p>How often do you do the following in teaching reading to this class?</p><p>11. give students time to read books of their own choosing</p></td><td align="left"><p>1-Every day or almost every day, 2-Once or twice a week, 3-Once or twice a month, 4-Never or almost never</p><p>1-every or almost every lesson, 2-about half the lessons, 3-some lessons, 4-never</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The <emph>teacher reading education</emph> latent variable included items measuring the extent to which participants studied pedagogical reading practices, remedial reading practices, and reading theory. All three items had response options ranging from 1 to 3 (1 = not at all, 2 = overview or introduction to topic, 3 = it was an area of emphasis). An additional item in the <emph>teacher reading education</emph> latent variable measured how many hours the participants spent in formal professional development dealing with reading or teaching reading. Response options ranged from 1 to 5 and included categories of hours (1 = none, 2 = less than 6 h, 3 = 6–15 h, 4 = 16–35 h, and 5 = more than 35 h).</p> <p>We included five items for the latent construct, <emph>teacher perceptions of student behavior</emph>. Three items asked participants to report their level of agreement on statements about students behaving in an orderly manner, respecting teachers, and respecting school property. Response options ranged from 1 to 4 (1 = agree a lot, 2 = agree a little, 3 = disagree a little, 4 = disagree a lot). Two additional items measuring teacher perceptions of student behavior asked participants to report at what level disruptive and uninterested students limit their instruction. Response options ranged from 1 to 3 (1 = not at all, 2 = some, 3 = a lot).</p> <p>The <emph>independent reading environment</emph> construct included three items representing the key components of an IRE as defined by NCTE and ILA. These items asked participants how often they offered time for students to work independently on an assigned plan or goal, read silently, or select books of choice to read independently. Response options for the independent work item ranged from 1 to 4 (1 = always or almost always, 2 = often, 3 = sometimes, 4 = never). Response options for reading silently and selecting books of choice also ranged from 1 to 4, with 1 representing every day or every lesson and 4 representing never.</p> <hd id="AN0184489875-10">Data analysis</hd> <p>All the analyses were conducted using Mplus 8.6 (Muthén & Muthén, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref75">56</reflink>]). For research question 1, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to fit the hypothesized measurement model using a robust weighted least squares estimator with a diagonal weight matrix and robust standard error based on the polychoric correlation matrix (i.e., WLSMV estimator option) to address 3-point and 4-point Likert scale items. The χ<sups>2</sups> exact test, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), comparative fit index (CFI), and Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) were reported as goodness-of-fit indices. Traditional cut-point values for the model fit indices have typically been studied based on the maximum likelihood (ML) estimator family. Whereas using the WLSMV estimator, RMSEA, CFI, and TLI tend to be inflated compared to the ML estimator (Xia & Yang, [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref76">84</reflink>]), SRMR is a robust fit index on both estimators (Shi & Maydeu-Olivares, [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref77">69</reflink>]). We accepted the model if SRMR <ephtml> <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mo>≤</mo></math> </ephtml> 0.08 (Hu & Bentler, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref78">39</reflink>]), and the others were used as subsidiary fit indices. An item with non-significant factor loading at α = 0.05 was excluded and refitted. Additional correlation between item variances was considered based on modification indices (MI) to address the model misfit under the theoretical adjustment. We additionally tested two models with cross-loading of Item 9 to the teachers' perceptions of students factor and Item 4 to the IRE factor because the two items had a small but significant polychoric correlation with other items in a different factor. Construct reliability was measured using Cronbach's α on the polychoric correlation matrix and composite reliability<emph> ω</emph> calculated on the latent response scale from the final CFA model.</p> <p>For research questions 2, 3, and 4, structural equation modeling (SEM) using the same estimator was fitted to evaluate the regression coefficients of the paths from <emph>Teacher Reading Education</emph> to <emph>Independent Reading Environment</emph> (RQ2) and from <emph>Teacher Perceptions of Student Behavior</emph> to <emph>Independent Reading Environment</emph> (RQ3), and the mediation effect of <emph>Teacher Perceptions of Student Behavior</emph> (RQ4) based on the final measurement model. The mediation analysis for RQ4 requires three necessary conditions (Baron & Kenny, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref79">5</reflink>]; Little et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref80">48</reflink>]). The first condition requires a significant relationship from the exogenous influence (<emph>Teacher Reading Education</emph>) to the mediator (<emph>Teacher Perceptions of Student</emph>). Since the first condition was not met in the current study, we reported the regression coefficient for this path instead of conducting the mediation analysis.</p> <hd id="AN0184489875-11">Results</hd> <p>Tables 3 and 4 display descriptive statistics and polychoric correlations of the observed variables used in the final measurement model, respectively.</p> <p>Table 3 Descriptive statistics for observed variables</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p><italic>M</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>SD</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p>Range</p></th><th align="left"><p>α</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>ω</italic></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" colspan="2"><p><italic>Teacher reading education</italic></p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left"><p>0.90</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.80</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Reading Pedagogy</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.69</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.56</p></td><td align="left"><p>1 to 3</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Remedial Reading</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.24</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.63</p></td><td align="left"><p>1 to 3</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Reading Theory</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.27</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.62</p></td><td align="left"><p>1 to 3</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="2"><p><italic>Perceptions of STUDENT BEHAVIOR</italic></p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left"><p>0.85</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.87</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Behave Orderly Manner</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.91</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.95</p></td><td align="left"><p>1 to 4</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Respectful to Teachers</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.77</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.85</p></td><td align="left"><p>1 to 4</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Respect School Property</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.84</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.91</p></td><td align="left"><p>1 to 4</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Disruptive Behavior</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.91</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.64</p></td><td align="left"><p>1 to 3</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Uninterested</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.89</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.59</p></td><td align="left"><p>1 to 3</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="2"><p><italic>Independent reading environment</italic></p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left"><p>0.59</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.47</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Work Independently</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.28</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.76</p></td><td align="left"><p>1 to 4</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Reading Silently</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.17</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.44</p></td><td align="left"><p>1 to 4</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Read Books of Choice</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.46</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.74</p></td><td align="left"><p>1 to 4</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>α is Cronbach's α calculated on the polychoric correlation matrix. <emph>ω</emph> is composite reliability calculated on the latent response scale from the final CFA model</p> <p>Table 4 Polychoric correlation of observed variables</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>1</p></th><th align="left"><p>2</p></th><th align="left"><p>3</p></th><th align="left"><p>4</p></th><th align="left"><p>5</p></th><th align="left"><p>6</p></th><th align="left"><p>7</p></th><th align="left"><p>8</p></th><th align="left"><p>9</p></th><th align="left"><p>10</p></th><th align="left"><p>11</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" colspan="12"><p><italic>Teacher reading education</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>1. Reading Pedagogy</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>–</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>2. Remedial Reading</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.67**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>–</p></td><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>3. Reading Theory</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.84**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.71**</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="12"><p><italic>Perceptions of student behavior</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>4. Behave in Orderly Manner</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.02</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p> − 0.03</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 0.15</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>–</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>5. Respectful to Teachers</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p> − 0.05</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.01</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 0.13</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.90**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>–</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>6. Respect School Property</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.02</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p> − 0.04</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 0.17</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.88**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.92**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>–</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>7. Disruptive</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.02</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p> − 0.01</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 0.06</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.63**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.53**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.53**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>–</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>8. Uninterested</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p> − 0.10</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p> − 0.13</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 0.10</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.41**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.48**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.44**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.80**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>–</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="12"><p><italic>Independent reading environment</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>9. Work Independently</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.06</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.01</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 0.10</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.19*</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.10</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.17*</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.18*</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.09</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>–</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>10. Read Silently</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p> − 0.10</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p> − 0.17</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 0.05</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p> − 0.02</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.00</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.02</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p> − 0.02</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p> − 0.06</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.33**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>–</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>11. Read Books of Choice</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.20</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.14</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.15</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.19*</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.06</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.18</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.16</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.08</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.24**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.42**</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>*<emph>p</emph> <.05; **<emph>p</emph> <.01</p> <p>The initial CFA model, which included 12 items, showed significant factor loadings for 11 items (all <emph>p</emph> < 0.001). However, the item related to <emph>reading professional development</emph> did not significantly contribute to the <emph>teacher reading education</emph> factor ( <ephtml> <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mi mathvariant="normal">λ</mi></math> </ephtml> = 0.05, <emph>p</emph> = 0.544); consequently, we excluded this item from further analyses. The item correlation between <emph>Disruptive Behavior</emph> and <emph>Uninterested</emph> items was additionally inserted based on MI (mi = 58.43). Aside from considering the MI, our decision is logically justified because we anticipate that teachers who perceive students as being disruptive would also perceive them as being uninterested in participating in learning activities. The final CFA model had acceptable model fits, χ<sups>2</sups> = 42.68, <emph>df</emph> = 40, <emph>p</emph> = 0.357, SRMR = 0.052, RMSEA = 0.018, 90% <emph>CI</emph> = [0.000, 0.053], CFI = 0.999, TLI = 0.999. All the factor loadings were significant (all <emph>p</emph> < 0.001). Figure 1 displays the factor structure with the standardized factor loadings and factor correlations. All the additional cross-loadings were not significant (λ = 0.10, <emph>p</emph> = 0.216 for Item 9, λ = 0.07, <emph>p</emph> = 0.220 for Item 4), which implies that the final CFA model without cross-loadings adequately measured the three distinct factors. Construct reliability is reported in Table 3. The reliability of the independent reading environment construct was relatively low (<emph>α</emph> = 0.59, <emph>ω</emph> = 0.47). However, we accepted the model as all three items were highly significant (all <emph>p</emph> < 0.001) and had <emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> values ranging from fair to very good grades (Comrey & Lee, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref81">18</reflink>]).</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1 Final Measurement Model. Notes All factor loadings were significant at the p <.001 level. *p <.05</p> <p>The SEM model was evaluated using the final measurement model. The structural model and standardized model parameters are displayed in Fig. 2. For research question 2, teachers' reading education did not significantly predict independent reading environment, <emph>β</emph> = 0.05, <emph>SE</emph> = 0.12, <emph>p</emph> = 0.675. Regarding research question 3, <emph>teacher perceptions of student behavior</emph> was significantly related to independent reading environment, <emph>β</emph> = 0.22, <emph>SE</emph> = 0.11, <emph>p</emph> = 0.046. The path from teacher reading education to teachers' perception of student behavior was not significant (<emph>β</emph> = − 0.09, <emph>SE</emph> = 0.08, <emph>p</emph> = 0.268), which is an essential condition for conducting the mediation analysis. For research question 4, the indirect effect of teacher reading education on the independent reading environment through the mediator was not found in the current study. A total of 5% of the variance in the independent reading environment factor was explained.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 2 Structural Model. Note To maintain simplicity, the items and their factor loadings are omitted from Fig. 2. For factor loadings, see Fig. 1. Numbers in parenthesis are standard errors of coefficients. *p <.05</p> <hd id="AN0184489875-12">Discussion</hd> <p>The first aim of this study was to examine whether the selected items from the PIRLS U.S. teacher dataset could adequately measure the latent constructs, <emph>teacher reading education</emph>, <emph>teacher perceptions of student behavior</emph>, and <emph>independent reading environment</emph>. All items loaded positively and significantly on their respective constructs except for the item measuring hours spent on professional development. Although this item did not contribute to <emph>teacher reading education</emph>, the result highlights the ongoing debate of whether professional development has little influence on teacher instruction and student achievement (Garet et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref82">33</reflink>]) or is effective in changing teachers' instruction (Pratt & Martin, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref83">63</reflink>]) or perceptions (Whatley & Smith, [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref84">80</reflink>]). The discrepant findings regarding how professional development contributes to teachers' overall reading knowledge and how that knowledge transfers to practice should remain a focus of literacy research.</p> <p>Removing the non-significant variable, <emph>reading professional development</emph>, from the measurement model resulted in an acceptable model fit; however, future research should include a larger sample size and more items better representing the construct of <emph>teacher reading education</emph>. To illustrate, teachers access multiple sources when making instructional decisions, including their skills and strategies (Creemers & Kyriades, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref85">19</reflink>]), beliefs (Rubie-Davis et al., [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref86">67</reflink>]), and social context (Maggioni et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref87">49</reflink>]). Creating measures that recognize the interplay of cognitive and sociocultural factors influencing teachers' knowledge, rather than just time spent in formalized reading education, may be more beneficial. More comprehensive measures that capture not only time spent learning about reading education but also teachers' perceptions, theoretical orientation, past experiences, and contextual environments could provide more precise insights and result in improved reading education experiences. Improved measures may also help researchers understand how, if at all, reading education experiences relate to their perceptions of student behavior during reading experiences.</p> <p>Additionally, Item 9 which measured how often students work on an assigned plan or goal during reading instruction or reading activities had a low factor loading (<emph>λ</emph><subs>9</subs> = 0.46), indicating it may not fully capture the concept of independent reading as defined by ILA and NCTE. To illustrate, it is possible this item could be interpreted as working independently on something related to reading (e.g., completing decoding activities or writing a response to reading) rather than reading a self-selected text on one's own. Conversely, the items measuring how often students read silently and select their own books aligns more directly with ILA and NCTE's definition of independent reading and had higher loadings on this construct. The low construct reliability result for this construct draws attention to the need for eliminating any ambiguity when it comes to what is meant by the term <emph>independent reading</emph> (Brice & Tetteh, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref88">6</reflink>]) and developing more precise measures for understanding the establishment of independent reading environments.</p> <p>The second aim of this study was to explore the relationship among all three constructs (i.e., <emph>teacher reading education, teacher perceptions of student behavior,</emph> and <emph>independent reading environment</emph>). Specifically, we examined whether teachers' reading education predicted the in-class IRE and if their perceptions of students mediated this relationship. Teachers' reading education had a non-significant effect on teachers' perceptions of students and the IRE; however, once teacher reading education was removed from the model, there was a significant positive relationship between teachers' perceptions of students and the IRE.</p> <p>We found the non-significant relationship between teachers' reading education and the IRE surprising due to the large body of research supporting the benefits of the components found within an IRE (Cheung et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref89">16</reflink>]; Ivey & Broaddus, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref90">41</reflink>]; Kasten & Wilfong, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref91">44</reflink>]; Lee, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref92">9</reflink>]; Reutzel et al., [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref93">64</reflink>]; Troyer, [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref94">75</reflink>]; Walker, [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref95">78</reflink>]; Williams, [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref96">82</reflink>]; Yildirim et al., [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref97">85</reflink>]). We would expect teachers' educational experiences to highlight these benefits enough to make establishing an IRE a priority. However, research also shows that teachers face many challenges when providing students with independent reading opportunities (Brice & Tetteh, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref98">6</reflink>]; Collins et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref99">17</reflink>]), which may lead them to avoid the practice altogether regardless of what was learned in their reading education. Like Trudel's ([<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref100">76</reflink>]) findings, it is also possible that a teacher with a reading education background heavily focused on remedial reading would be more likely to provide explicit, direct instruction or other reading opportunities that include teacher support instead of those requiring students to read on their own. Although this study did not differentiate between the types of reading pedagogy and reading theory emphasized in teachers' educational experiences, the results suggest that teachers' reading education experiences may not be adequate in ensuring students have the opportunities to participate in the activities encompassing this type of reading environment (i.e., working independently, reading silently, and choosing texts).</p> <p>The non-significant relationship between teachers' reading education and their perceptions of student behavior is less surprising. While a substantial amount of research examines how preservice and in-service teachers perceive students as readers, there is less that examines how their reading education backgrounds influence these perceptions. The lack of research is concerning since knowledge and experiences form lenses through which individuals perceive and interpret the world around them (Campbell et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref101">14</reflink>]). When it comes to independent reading, teachers form ideas about the behaviors necessary for engaged, sustained reading. These ideas develop from teacher education programs, professional development, and teaching experience. Moreover, the more they interact with students, the more adept they may become at identifying classroom behaviors that may lead to a disinterest in reading or potential disruptive behavior. Although this study did not show evidence of a relationship between teachers' reading education and perceptions of students, further investigation is warranted.</p> <p>Lastly, after removing teacher reading education from the model, teachers' perceptions of student behavior were strong enough to predict the IRE. Therefore, teachers who hold positive perceptions of student behavior may afford students more opportunities to read independently using texts of their choice. In contrast, teachers may unintentionally limit opportunities for students to participate in more complex activities, such as independent reading, if they perceive student behavior as negative. Consequently, students may have less chance of attaining the reading proficiency needed for future success due to a lack of practice. Examining teacher perceptions of student behavior becomes even more important as students get older, as research shows an increase in the frequency of negative behaviors during independent work (Zoromski et al., [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref102">86</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0184489875-13">Limitations and future research</hd> <p>Although this study shows the importance of further investigation into teachers' perceptions of student behavior and IREs, we acknowledge a few limitations. First, the small sample size (<emph>N</emph> = 203) makes generalizability challenging. It is also important to note that this study does not include general school demographics (e.g., suburban, rural, urban, SES, or race and ethnicity) nor does it consider shared experiences at the school level. The absence of these factors limits result interpretation. Additionally, the study does not account for the types of reading pedagogy, theory, and practices emphasized in teachers' education experiences or the influence of mandated reading curriculum, which research suggests can impact teachers' instructional actions (Pease-Alvarez & Samwar, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref103">60</reflink>]). Despite the small sample size and coarse measures, this study suggests that teachers' perceptions of student behavior may impact the IRE, warranting further investigation on a broader scale. Future studies with larger, more diverse samples, more precise measures, and additional data sources may offer additional insights into the post-COVID IRE of today's classrooms.</p> <hd id="AN0184489875-14">Conclusion</hd> <p>The results of this study are concerning, as proficient, independent reading is essential for academic achievement and career success. Teacher-related factors, particularly negative perceptions of student behavior, can limit students' opportunities to choose texts, read silently, and practice comprehending texts independently. One key marker of an effective reading environment is giving students ample time to read independently (Erbeli & Rice, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref104">24</reflink>]; Topping et al., [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref105">73</reflink>]; Wang et al., [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref106">79</reflink>]), yet there is evidence showing that providing this practice is challenging for teachers (Brice & Tetteh, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref107">6</reflink>]; Collins et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref108">17</reflink>]).</p> <p>Given the importance of independent reading for overall reading development, motivation, and engagement, ensuring students have sufficient opportunities to work independently, read silently, and choose books is imperative. Unfortunately, these opportunities may become even more limited as curriculum demands increase. Understanding the many factors affecting the in-class IRE can help teacher education programs and other educational stakeholders equip teachers with strategies that help them reflect on their perceptions and mitigate student behaviors that create barriers to becoming skilled and engaged independent readers.</p> <hd id="AN0184489875-15">Declarations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184489875-16">Conflict of interest</hd> <p>There are no potential conflicts of interest, or sources of funding for this study.</p> <hd id="AN0184489875-17">Ethical approval</hd> <p>This study used secondary data from the publicly available 2016 Progress in International Reading Literacy Study database and did not require ethical approval.</p> <hd id="AN0184489875-18">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0184489875-19"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref14" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Albright JL, Safer LA, Sims PA, Tagaris A, Galsgow D, Sekulich KM, Zaharis MC. What factors impact why novice middle school teachers in a large Midwestern urban school district leave after their initial year of teaching. International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation. 2017; 12; 1: 1-19</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref15" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Allington RL. How reading volume affects both reading fluency and reading achievement. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education. 2014; 7; 1: 13-26</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref16" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Allington RL, McGill-Franzen AHiebert EH, Reutzel DR. Why so much oral reading?. Revisiting silent reading: New directions for teachers and researchers. 2010; Literacy Research Association: 45-56. 10.1598/0833.03</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref34" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Alvermann DE. Effective literacy instruction for adolescents. Journal of Literacy Research. 2002; 34; 2: 189-208. 10.1207/s15548430jlr3402_4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref79" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Baron RM, Kenny DA. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1986; 51; 6: 1173. 10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref25" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Brice, L. D, & Tetteh, L. (2024). Examining Teachers' Conceptualizations and Motivation for Providing In-Class Independent Reading Opportunities. Reading Psychology,45(5), 459–484.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref18" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Cabral-Márquez, C. (2015). Motivating Readers: Helping Students Set and Attain Personal Reading Goals. The Reading Teacher,68(6), 464–472.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref72" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Henricsson, L, & Rydell, A. (2004). Elementary school children with behavior problems: Teacher-child relations and self-perception. A prospective study. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly,50, 111–138.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref21" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Lee, V. (2011). Becoming the reading mentors our adolescents deserve: Developing a successful sustained silent reading program. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy,55(3), 209–218. https://doi.org/10.1002/JAAL.00026.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Li, H, & Wilhelm, K. H. (2008). Exploring pedagogical reasoning: Reading strategy instruction from two teachers perspectives. The Reading Matrix,8(1), 96–110.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moreau LK. Who's really struggling?: Middle school teachers' perceptions of struggling readers. RMLE Online. 2014; 37; 10: 1-17. 10.1080/19404476.2014.11462113</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Biancarosa G. Adolescent literacy: More than remediation. Educational Leadership. 2012; 69; 6: 22-27</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brenner D, Hiebert EH, Tompkins RHiebert EH. How much and what are third graders reading?. Reading more, reading better. 2009; Guilford Press: 118-140</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Campbell PF, Nishio M, Smith TM, Clark LM, Conant DL, Rust AH, DePiper JN, Frank TJ, Griffin MJ, Choi Y. The relationship between teachers' mathematical content and pedagogical knowledge, teachers' perceptions, and student achievement. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. 2014; 45; 4: 419-459. 10.5951/jresematheduc.45.4.0419</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carreker S, Joshi RM, Boulware-Gooden R. Spelling-related teacher knowledge: The impact of professional development on identifying appropriate instructional activities. Learning Disability Quarterly. 2010; 33; 3: 148-158. 10.1177/073194871003300304</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cheung WM, Tse SK, Lam JWI, Loh KY, E. Progress in International Reading Literacy Study 2006 (PIRLS): Pedagogical correlates of fourth grade students in Hong Kong. Journal of Research in Reading. 2009; 32; 3: 293-308. 10.1111/j.1467-9817.2009.01395.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Collins VJ, Dargan IW, Walsh RL, Merga MK. Teachers' perceptions of the benefits and challenges of a whole-school reading for pleasure program. Issues in Educational Research. 2022; 32; 1: 89-104</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Comrey AL, Lee HB. A first course in factor analysis. 2013; Psychology Press. 10.4324/9781315827506</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Creemers B, Kyriakides L. Process-product research: A cornerstone in educational effectiveness research. Journal of Classroom Interaction. 2015; 51; 1: 107-119</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cremin T, Mottram M, Powell S, Collins R, Safford K. Building communities of engaged readers: Reading for pleasure. 2014; Routledge. 10.4324/9781315772585</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cunningham AE, Zibulsky J, Stanovich KE, Stanovich PJ. How teachers would spend their time teaching language arts: The mismatch between self reported and best practices. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 2009; 42; 5: 418-430. 10.1177/0022219409339063</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Darling-Hammond LD. Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives. 2000; 78; 1: 1-44. 10.14507/epaa.v8n1.2000</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Didion L, Toste JR, Filderman MJ. Teacher professional development and student reading achievement: A meta-analytic review of the effects. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness. 2020; 13; 1: 29-66. 10.1080/19345747.2019.1670884</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Erbeli F, Rice M. Examining the effects of silent independent reading on reading outcomes: A narrative synthesis review from 2000 to 2020. Reading & Writing Quarterly. 2022; 38; 3: 253-271. 10.1080/10573569.2021.1944830</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Evanovich LL, Scott TM. Examining the effect of explicit reading instruction on the engagement of elementary students with challenging behaviors. Exceptionality. 2022; 30; 2: 63-77. 10.1080/09362835.2020.1727340</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Evans M, Teasdale RM, Gannon-Slater N, Londe PGL, Crenshaw HL, Greene JC, Schwandt TA. How did that happen? Teachers' explanations for low test scores. Teachers College Record: THe Voice of Scholarship in Education. 2019; 121; 2: 1-40. 10.1177/016146811912100202</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fisher C, Berliner D, Filby N, Marliave R, Cahen L, Dishaw M. Teaching behaviors, academic learning time, and student achievement: An overview. Journal of Classroom Interaction. 2015; 50; 1: 6-24</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fossum S, Handegard BH, Martinussen M, Morch WT. Psychosocial interventions for disruptive and aggressive behaviour in children and adolescents: A meta-analysis. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 2008; 17: 438-451. 10.1007/s00787-008-0686-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fredricks JA, Blumenfeld PC, Paris AH. School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research. 2004; 74; 1: 59-109. 10.3102/00346543074001059</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Freiberg JH, Oviatt D, Naveira E. Classroom management meta-review continuation of research-based programs for preventing and solving discipline problems. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR). 2020; 25; 4: 319-337. 10.1080/10824669.2020.1757454</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gabriel R. Preparing literacy professionals: The case of dyslexia. Journal of Literacy Research. 2018; 50; 2: 262-270. 10.1177/1086296X18765917</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Garan EM, DeVoogd G. The benefits of sustained silent reading: Scientific research and common sense converge. The Reading Teacher. 2008; 62; 4: 336-344. 10.1598/RT.62.4.6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Garet, M. S, Cronen, S, Eaton, M, Kurki, A, Ludwig, M, Jones, W, Uekawa, K, Falk, A, Bloom, H, Doolittle, F, Zhu, P, & Sztejnberg, L. (2008). The impact of two professional development interventions on early reading instruction and achievement (NCEE 2008–4030). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gibbs D. RTI in middle and high school: Strategies and structures for literacy success. 2009; LRP Publications</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gregory A, Huang F. It takes a village: The effects of 10th grade college expectations of students, parents, and teachers four years later. American Journal of Community Psychology. 2013; 52: 41-55. 10.1007/s10464-013-9575-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guthrie JT, Klauda SL, Ho AN. Modeling the relationships among reading instruction, motivation, engagement, and achievement for adolescents. Reading Research Quarterly. 2013; 48; 1: 9-26. 10.1002/rrq.035</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hairrell A, Edmonds M, Vaugh S, Simmons DHiebert EH, Reutzel DR. Independent silent reading for struggling readers: Pitfalls and potential. Revisiting silent reading: New directions for teachers and researchers. 2010; International Reading Association: 275-289. 10.1598/0833.16</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harrison JR, Vannest K, Davis J, Reynolds C. Common problem behaviors of children and adolescents in general education classrooms in the United States. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders. 2012; 20; 1: 55-64. 10.1177/1063426611421157</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hu LT, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal. 1999; 6; 1: 1-55. 10.1080/10705519909540118</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> International Literacy Association. (2019). Creating passionate readers through independent reading (Literacy leadership brief). https://<ulink href="http://www.literacyworldwide.org/docs/default-source/where-we-stand/ila-creatingpassionate-readers-through-independent-reading.pdf">www.literacyworldwide.org/docs/default-source/where-we-stand/ila-creatingpassionate-readers-through-independent-reading.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ivey G, Broaddus K. "Just plain reading": A survey of what makes students want to read in middle school classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly. 2001; 36; 4: 350-377. 10.1598/RRQ.36.4.2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jhona, M, & Acuña, B. (2016). Implications of pedagogical beliefs and pedagogical content knowledge for the reading comprehension strategy instruction of teachers. Asian Journal of English Language Studies (AJELS) (Vol. 4).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Karimi MN, Dehghani A. EFL teachers' beliefs/practices correspondence in reading instruction: Does language teacher education make a difference?. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning. 2016; 11; 1: 35-48. 10.1080/22040552.2016.1187648</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kasten WC, Wilfong LG. Encouraging independent reading. The International Journal of Learning: Annual Review. 2007; 12; 10: 1-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kennedy MM. How does professional development improve teaching?. Review of Educational Research. 2016; 86; 4: 945-980. 10.3102/0034654315626800</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> König J, Blömeke S, Jentsch A, Schlesinger L, Née Nehls CF, Musekamp F, Kaiser G. The links between pedagogical competence, instructional quality, and mathematics achievement in the lower secondary classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics. 2021; 107; 1: 189-212. 10.1007/s10649-020-10021-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kuhn M, Schwanenflugel PHiebert EH. Time, engagement, and support: lessons from a 4-year fluency intervention. Reading more, reading better. 2009; Guilford: 141-161</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Little TD, Card NA, Bovaird JA, Preacher KJ, Crandall CS. Structural equation modeling of mediation and moderation with contextual factors. Modeling Contextual Effects in Longitudinal Studies. 2007; 1: 207-230</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maggioni L, Fox E, Alexander PAFives H, Gregorie Gill M. Beliefs about reading, text, and learning from text. International handbook of research on teachers' beliefs. 2015; Routledge: 353-369</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Makebo TH, Bachore MM, Ayele ZA. Investigating the correlation between students' reading fluency and comprehension. Journal of Language Teaching and Research. 2022; 13; 2: 229-242. 10.17507/jltr.1302.02</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martin SD, Dismuke S. Investigating differences in teacher practices through a complexity theory lens: The influence of teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education. 2018; 69; 1: 22-39. 10.1177/0022487117702573</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martinez M, Harmon J, Gonzales J, Wilburn M. Teachers' decision-making about teaching novels in middle school. Reading Psychology. 2021; 42; 8: 873-898. 10.1080/02702711.2021.1968087</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Merga MK. Should silent reading feature in a secondary school English programme? West Australian students' perspectives on silent reading. English in Education. 2013; 47; 3: 229-244. 10.1111/eie.12026</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mucherah W, Yoder A. Motivation for reading and middle school students' reading skills and reading motivation. Reading Psychology. 2008; 29: 214-235. 10.1080/02702710801982159</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mullis, I. V. S, Martin, M. O, Kennedy, A. M, & Flaherty, C. L. (2003). PIRLS 2001 Encyclopedia: A reference guide to reading education in the countries participating in IEA's Progress of International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS). Chestnut Hill, MA: International Study Center, Lynch School of Education, Boston College.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Muthén LK, Muthén BO. Mplus User's Guide. 20178; Muthén & Muthén</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Council of Teachers of English (2019, November 7). Statement on Independent Reading. https://ncte.org/statement/independent-reading/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nelson MA, Caldarella P, Hansen BD, Graham MA, Williams L, Wills HP. Improving student behavior in art classrooms: An exploratory study of CW-FIT Tier 1. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions. 2018; 20; 4: 227-238. 10.1177/1098300718762744</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nelson JR, Roberts ML. Ongoing reciprocal teacher-student interactions involving disruptive behaviors in general education classrooms. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders. 2000; 8; 1: 27-37. 10.1177/106342660000800104</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pease-Alvarez L, Samway KD. Negotiating a top-down reading program mandate: The experiences of one school. Language Arts. 2008; 86; 1: 32-41. 10.58680/la20086698</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> PIRLS 2016 Assessment Frameworks. (2015). International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). Publisher: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Lynch School of Education, Boston College.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Poulson L, Avramidis E, Fox R, Medwell J, Wray D. The theoretical beliefs of effective teachers of literacy in primary schools: An exploratory study of orientations to reading and writing. Research Papers in Education. 2001; 16; 3: 271-292. 10.1080/02671520126827</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pratt SM, Martin AM. Exploring effective professional development strategies for in-service teachers on guiding beginning readers to become more metacognitive in their oral reading. Reading Horizons. 2017; 56; 3: 31-51</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reutzel DR, Fawson PC, Smith JA. Reconsidering silent sustained reading: An exploratory study of scaffolded silent reading (ScSR). The Journal of Educational Research. 2008; 102: 37-50. 10.3200/JOER.102.1.37-50</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Risko VJ, Roller CM, Cummins C, Bean RM, Block CC, Anders PL, Flood J. A critical analysis of research on reading teacher education. Reading Research Quarterly. 2008; 43; 3: 252-288. 10.1598/RRQ.43.3.3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ritchey KD, Coker DL, Jackson AF. The relationship between early elementary teachers' instructional practices and theoretical orientations and students' growth in writing. Reading and Writing. 2015; 28; 9: 1333-1354. 10.1007/s11145-015-9573-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rubie-Davies CM, Flint A, McDonald LG. Teacher beliefs, teacher characteristics, and school contextual factors: What are the relationships?. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 2012; 82; 2: 270-288. 10.1111/j.2044-8279.2011.02025.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Russo J, Bobis J, Sullivan P, Downton A, Livy S, McCormick M, Hughes S. Exploring the relationship between teacher enjoyment of mathematics, their attitudes towards student struggle and instructional time amongst early years primary teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2020; 88. 10.1016/j.tate.2019.102983102983</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shi D, Maydeu-Olivares A. The effect of estimation methods on SEM fit indices. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 2020; 80; 30: 421-445. 10.1177/0013164419885164</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sullivan AM, Johnson B, Owens L, Conway R. Punish them or engage them? Teachers' views of unproductive student behaviours in the classroom. Australian Journal of Teacher Education. 2014. 10.14221/ajte.2014v39n6.6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taylor, S. E, & Samuels, S. J. (2011). Exploring silent reading fluency: Its nature and development. Springfield, Ill.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> TNTP (2015). The mirage: Confronting the hard truth about our quest for teacher development. Retrieved from https://tntp.org/assets/documents/TNTP-Mirage_2015.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Topping KJ, Samuels J, Paul T. Does practice make perfect? Independent reading quantity, quality and student achievement. Learning and Instruction. 2007; 17; 3: 253-264. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.02.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Toste JR, McLean L, Peng P, Didion L, Filderman MJ, Sparapani N, Connor CM. Do teacher perceptions of students' academic and behavioral skills influence time spent in small-group reading instruction?. The Elementary School Journal. 2023; 124; 2: 245-269. 10.1086/727475</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Troyer M. A mixed-methods study of adolescents' motivation to read. Teachers College Record. 2017; 119; 5: 1-48. 10.1177/016146811711900502</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Trudel H. Making data-driven decisions: Silent reading. The Reading Teacher. 2007; 61; 4: 308-315. 10.1598/RT.61.4.3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van Kuijk MF, Deunk MI, Bosker RJ, Ritzema ES. Goals, data use, and instruction: The effect of a teacher professional development program on reading achievement. School Effectiveness and School Improvement. 2016; 27; 2: 135-156. 10.1080/09243453.2015.1026268</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Walker BJ. The cultivation of student self-efficacy in reading and writing. Reading & Writing Quarterly. 2003; 19; 2: 173-187. 10.1080/10573560308217</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang H, Guan H, Yi H, Seevak E, Manheim R, Boswell M, Kotb S. Independent reading in rural China's elementary schools: A mixed-methods analysis. International Journal of Educational Development. 2020; 78. 10.1016/j.ijedudev.2020.102241102241</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Whatley AE, Smith NL. Writing in the content areas: Changing teacher perceptions with professional development. Reading Psychology. 2023; 44; 6: 710-730. 10.1080/02702711.2023.2187906</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wigfield A, Guthrie JT, Perencevich KC, Taboada A, Klauda SL, McRae A, Barbosa P. Role of reading engagement in mediating effects of reading comprehension instruction on reading outcomes. Psychology in the Schools. 2008; 45; 5: 432-445. 10.1002/pits.20307</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Williams N, Nelson K, Rasmussen C, Alexander M, Ricks A. Decreasing the off-task behavior of reluctant adolescent readers during sustained silent reading through book interest and ability matching. Journal of the International Association of Special Education. 2017; 17; 1: 40-50</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wray D, Medwell J, Fox R, Poulson L. The teaching practices of effective teachers of literacy. Educational Review. 2000; 52; 1: 75-84. 10.1080/00131910097432</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Xia Y, Yang Y. RMSEA, CFI, TLI in structural equation modeling with ordered categorical data: The story they tell depends on the estimation methods. Behavior Research Methods. 2019; 51; 1: 409-428. 10.3758/s13428-018-1055-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yildirim, K, Yildiz, M, & Ateş, S. (2011). Is vocabulary a strong variable predicting reading comprehension and does the prediction degree of vocabulary vary according to text types. Educational Sciences,11(3), 1541–1547.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zoromski A, Evans SW, Owens JS, Holdaway A, Royo Romero AS. Middle school teachers' perceptions and use of classroom management strategies and associations with student behavior. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders. 2021. 10.1177/1063426620957624</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Lacy D. Brice; Woonyoung Song and Lilian Tetteh</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib86" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl75" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref106"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1486050
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Examining the Relationship between Teacher Reading Education, Perceptions of Student Behavior, and In-Class Independent Reading Environments: Insights from the 2016 PIRLS Dataset
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Lacy+D%2E+Brice%22">Lacy D. Brice</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7524-5307">0000-0002-7524-5307</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Woonyoung+Song%22">Woonyoung Song</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Lilian+Tetteh%22">Lilian Tetteh</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Learning+Environments+Research%22"><i>Learning Environments Research</i></searchLink>. 2025 28(1):27-44.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 18
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Grade+4%22">Grade 4</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Intermediate+Grades%22">Intermediate Grades</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Achievement+Tests%22">Achievement Tests</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Achievement%22">Reading Achievement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+4%22">Grade 4</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22International+Assessment%22">International Assessment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Tests%22">Reading Tests</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+School+Teachers%22">Elementary School Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Instruction%22">Reading Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Teachers%22">Reading Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Education%22">Teacher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Faculty+Development%22">Faculty Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Behavior%22">Student Behavior</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Independent+Reading%22">Independent Reading</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Attitudes%22">Teacher Attitudes</searchLink>
– Name: SubjectThesaurus
  Label: Assessment and Survey Identifiers
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SU" term="%22Progress+in+International+Reading+Literacy+Study%22">Progress in International Reading Literacy Study</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s10984-024-09519-8
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1387-1579<br />1573-1855
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Today's students must acquire the necessary reading skills and strategies for active engagement in a fast-paced, information-laden, globally connected society. One opportunity imperative for gaining these skills and strategies is participation in independent reading. As facilitators of the learning environment, teachers play a critical role in providing high-quality independent reading environments. Therefore, this study evaluated whether selected items from the PIRLS United States teacher dataset effectively measured the constructs "teacher reading education," "teacher perceptions of students," and "independent reading environments" and further examined the relationship among these constructs. All items were significant, except for the item measuring professional development. The empirical findings revealed that while teacher reading education was not directly related to the independent reading environment or perceptions of student behavior, teachers' perceptions of student behavior were significantly related to the independent reading environment, suggesting that they may play a crucial role in fostering effective independent reading opportunities for students.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1486050
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1486050
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s10984-024-09519-8
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 18
        StartPage: 27
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Achievement Tests
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Achievement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grade 4
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: International Assessment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Tests
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary School Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Instruction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Faculty Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Behavior
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Independent Reading
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Progress in International Reading Literacy Study
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Examining the Relationship between Teacher Reading Education, Perceptions of Student Behavior, and In-Class Independent Reading Environments: Insights from the 2016 PIRLS Dataset
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Lacy D. Brice
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Woonyoung Song
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Lilian Tetteh
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 04
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1387-1579
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1573-1855
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 28
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Learning Environments Research
              Type: main
ResultId 1