This article was downloaded by: [University of Tasmania]On: 12 November 2014, At: 20:53Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

Reading WorldPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ulri18

A comparison ofpreservice andexperienced teachers’perceptions ofcompetence in teachingreadingLaVisa Cam Wilson aa Associate Professor of Early ChildhoodEducation , Auburn UniversityPublished online: 05 Feb 2010.

To cite this article: LaVisa Cam Wilson (1978) A comparison of preserviceand experienced teachers’ perceptions of competence in teaching reading,Reading World, 18:2, 194-197, DOI: 10.1080/19388077809557472

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19388077809557472

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy ofall the information (the “Content”) contained in the publicationson our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and ourlicensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to theaccuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content.Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinionsand views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed byTaylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be reliedupon and should be independently verified with primary sources ofinformation. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses,

actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the useof the Content.

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

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

asm

ania

] at

20:

53 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

194 READING WORLD

A COMPARISON OF PRESERVICEAND EXPERIENCED TEACHERS'

PERCEPTIONS OF COMPETENCEIN TEACHING READING

by LaVisa Cam Wilson

ABSTRACT

How competent a teacher perceives himself to be as ateacher of reading can affect his behavior. This study checkedpreservice and experienced teachers' perceptions of theircompetence in teaching reading. Significant differences werefound between the two groups. Preservice teachers ratedthemselves higher than experienced teachers on all items ofthe checklist.. Preservice teachers' perceptions of havingabove average to high levels of competence may reflect theirsuccess in reading methods class but not their limited in-volvement with children. Experienced teachers' perceptionsof having average to slightly above average levels of compe-tence may reflect their more realistic awareness of the skillsneeded to teach reading and their need for further knowledgeand skills.

Many factors affect teachers' effectiveness in teaching reading.One area not often discussed but which can affect their behavior is howcompetent they feel or perceive themselves to be in teaching reading.It is assumed that how competent the teacher responsible for readinginstruction sees himself to be is affected by and will affect the quality ofhis reading instruction. This is a concern for those involved in preserv-ice teacher education as well as for those working with experiencedteachers in college courses and inservice education.

The importance of the teacher in the child's learning to read hasbeen reported. Some of the focus has been on characteristics of teachers

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

asm

ania

] at

20:

53 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

DECEMBER, 1978 195

(Artley, 1975; Aspey & Buhler, 1975), teacher knowledge (Boehnlein &Gans, 1975), and teachers' habits and attitudes toward reading(Mikulecky & Ribovich, 1977). Britton (1975) compared studentteachers whose reading methods course had included a practicuminvolving children with student teachers with no practicum. Therewere significant differences in their perceived competency to teachreading.

THE STUDY

The hypothesis tested was that preservice teachers and experi-enced teachers perceive themselves at the same level of competence inteaching reading.

Eighty-nine persons were involved in the study. Fifty-six wereundergraduate teacher education students enrolled in the basicelementary reading methods course which included labora-tory experiences in an elementary school. Thirty-three were ex-perienced teachers enrolled in their first graduate reading course; theirrange of experience was from one to 28 years.

A checklist of teacher competencies was used. Each of the 79 itemswas drawn from one or more of nine major reading areas. (1) Knowledgeof reading terminology required that they "can define and give anexample either orally or in writing" selected terms, e.g., glided vowel,sight vocabulary, skimming. (2) Skills included application items suchas "can use vowel rules" and "can administer a reading readiness test."(3) Reading tests and diagnosis involved testing, e.g., "can analyzereading test manual to determine kind of test," and diagnosis, e.g., "candiagnose child's competencies in phonetic analysis." (4) Select readingcurriculum materials required knowledge, e.g., "can identify structuralanalysis curriculum materials," and skills, e.g., "can select appropriatecurriculum materials to enable child to learn. . . " (5) Appropriatemethods of teaching included identification, e.g., "can identifymethods of teaching appropriate for phonetic analysis," and use, e.g.,"can select and demonstrate skill in teaching child a comprehensionconcept or skill."

Items from each of the above areas were also categorized as relatedto (6) reading readiness, (7) phonetic analysis, (8) structural analysis,and (9) comprehension.

Directions stated, "Circle the number which reflects the level ofcompetency which you feel you have attained." A scale from 1 (high) to5 (low) was used.

The undergraduate students were given the instrument at thecompletion of the reading methods course. The experienced teachers

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

asm

ania

] at

20:

53 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

196 READING WORLD

marked the checklist at the first session of their first graduate readingcourse.

A t-test for independent samples was used to test differences be-tween group means on each item and on categories of items.

RESULTS

There were significant differences (p<.01) between the twogroups' perceptions of their competence in teaching reading. Preserv-ice teachers rated themselves at a higher level of competence than didexperienced teachers on all items on the checklist.

Preservice teachers felt most competent with items in thecategories of knowledge of reading terms, structural analysis, and read-ing comprehension (X= 1.6 with the scale I=highto5=low) (see Table1). Experienced teachers felt most competent with reading com-prehension (X=2.4). Preservice teachers felt least competent withreading tests and diagnosis and selecting reading curriculum materials(X= 1.9). Experienced teachers felt least competent with reading testsand diagnosis and identifying and using appropriate methods of teach-ing (X=2.8).

TABLE 1Group Means on Perceived Levels of Competence*

Variable Category

Knowledge of Reading TermsSkillsReading Tests & DiagnosisSelect Curriculum MaterialsAppropriate Methods of TeachingReading ReadinessPhonetic AnalysisStructural AnalysisComprehension

PreserviceTeachers

~X1.61.81.91.91.81.81.81.61.6

ExperiencedTeachers

X2.52.72.82.72.82.72.72.52.4

*l=high to 5=low

DISCUSSION

That there were significant differences between the two groups'perceptions of their competencies in teaching reading might be ex-pected. The direction of the differences, however, was a surprise. It

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

asm

ania

] at

20:

53 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

DECEMBER, 1978 197

was thought that preservice teachers might feel more insecure and lessknowledgeable about teaching reading than experienced teachers. Theresults with the teachers in this study showed the opposite. The ques-tion which then must be asked is why do experienced teachers ratethemselves as having average to above average competence whilepreservice teachers rate themselves at an above average to high compe-tency level?

The preservice teachers have had limited involvement with chil-dren and thus are relying on their success in learning the knowledgeand skills required in the reading methods course and in their tightlyplanned and controlled experiences with children. Their feelings ofcompetence have not yet been affected by extended situations withchildren when they may discover very readily what they do not know orcan not do. Thus their feelings of competence may seem inflated.

Experienced teachers' direct involvement with children in teach-ing reading probably has helped them become more realistically awareof what they do know and what they don't know about teaching reading.The experienced teachers were teaching reading using the knowledgeand skills gained in their undergraduate reading methods course andtheir full responsibilities with children. With these experiences theyfelt only average or slightly above average competence. Experiencedteachers may need additional knowledge and assistance in furtherdeveloping skills for teaching reading. There is also the possibility thattheir continuing encounter with some of the uncertainties and deci-sions in teaching reading may lower or deflate experienced teachers'feelings of competence. It would seem that assistance and supportshould be provided for experienced teachers to help them to continueto develop their competence and their feelings of competence in teach-ing reading.

Teachers'perceptions of their success or failure affect what they dowith children. In this day of humanizing teaching, we need to concernourselves with not only what teachers know and do but also with howthey perceive their competence.

REFERENCES

Artley, A. S. Good teachers of reading-who are they? The Reading Teacher, 29,26-31.

Aspey, D. N. & Buhler, J. H. The effect of teachers' inferred self concept uponstudent achievement. The Journal of Educational Research, 68, 386-389.

Boehnlein, M. M. & Gans, T. G. Competency in teaching reading of field basedand on-campus university students. Journal of Reading, 19, 112-116.

Britton, G. E. Assessing preservice reading methods courses. Reading Im-provement, 12, 71-74.

Mikulecky, L. J. & Ribovich, J. K. Reading competence and attitudes ofteachers in preparation. Journal of Reading, 20, 573-80.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

asm

ania

] at

20:

53 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014