18
This article was downloaded by: [University of Windsor] On: 18 November 2014, At: 00:44 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Reading Research and Instruction Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ulri19 Preservice teachers' shifting beliefs about struggling literacy learners Susan L. Nierstheimer a , Carol J. Hopkins b , Deborah R. Dillon b & Maribeth Cassidy Schmitt b a Illinois State University b Purdue University Published online: 05 Feb 2010. To cite this article: Susan L. Nierstheimer , Carol J. Hopkins , Deborah R. Dillon & Maribeth Cassidy Schmitt (2000) Preservice teachers' shifting beliefs about struggling literacy learners, Reading Research and Instruction, 40:1, 1-16, DOI: 10.1080/19388070009558331 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19388070009558331 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever

Preservice teachers' shifting beliefs about struggling literacy learners

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Preservice teachers' shifting beliefs about struggling literacy learners

This article was downloaded by: [University of Windsor]On: 18 November 2014, At: 00:44Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

Reading Research andInstructionPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ulri19

Preservice teachers' shiftingbeliefs about strugglingliteracy learnersSusan L. Nierstheimer a , Carol J. Hopkins b ,Deborah R. Dillon b & Maribeth Cassidy Schmitt ba Illinois State Universityb Purdue UniversityPublished online: 05 Feb 2010.

To cite this article: Susan L. Nierstheimer , Carol J. Hopkins , Deborah R. Dillon& Maribeth Cassidy Schmitt (2000) Preservice teachers' shifting beliefs aboutstruggling literacy learners, Reading Research and Instruction, 40:1, 1-16, DOI:10.1080/19388070009558331

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19388070009558331

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views ofthe authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor andFrancis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever

Page 2: Preservice teachers' shifting beliefs about struggling literacy learners

or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of 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 W

inds

or]

at 0

0:44

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 3: Preservice teachers' shifting beliefs about struggling literacy learners

Reading Research and InstructionFall 2000,40 (1)1-16

Preservice Teachers' Shifting Beliefs aboutStruggling Literacy Learners

Susan L. NierstheimerIllinois State University

Carol J. HopkinsDeborah R. Dillon

Maribeth Cassidy SchmittPurdue University

ABSTRACT

This study examined preservice elementary education teachers' knowledge and beliefs

about children who are struggling with learning to read and what these future

teachers believed they should do to help these children. Three semesters of teacher

candidates were enrolled in a redesigned corrective reading methods course with a

tutoring practicum where features of the Reading Recovery professional development

model were infused. Using the theoretical lens of constructivism, preservice teachers'

knowledge and beliefs were documented to determine if there were changes and

shifts over time. Interpretations of multiple data from the 67 preservice teachers

using within- and cross-case analyses revealed a major finding. After teacher candidates

participated in the course, they shifted in their beliefs toward assuming responsibility

for helping children with reading problems rather than assigning responsibility to

someone else as they had when the course began. One of the primary factors

involved in their shifts in beliefs appeared to be the use of features of the Reading

Recovery professional development model in the tutoring component which influenced

students' abilities to select appropriate instructional practices and focus on the

needs of individual children.

As literacy teacher educators, we are committed to exploring innovative and effectiveways to examine and challenge preservice teachers' knowledge and beliefs about childrenwho are struggling with learning to read. Teacher educator-researchers have conductedstudies to understand preservice teachers' knowledge and beliefs about teaching, theirabilities as teachers, and their future teaching lives. Some of these researchers havenoted that there is often incongruence between what preservice teachers expect andwhat they actually experience (Bird, Anderson, Sullivan, & Swidler, 1993; Cole &Knowles, 1993; Maxson & Mahlios, 1994; Maxson & Sindelar, 1998; Weinstein, 1990).This incongruence is even greater when preservice teachers are faced with struggling

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 0

0:44

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 4: Preservice teachers' shifting beliefs about struggling literacy learners

2 Reading Research and Instruction Fall 2000, 40(1)

learners (Gomez, 1994). We believe that part of the disillusionment and frustrationsometimes felt by prospective teachers is embedded in the deeply rooted beliefs theyhold about children and literacy; preservice teachers often use their own experiences asstudents to inform their beliefs and practices (Brookhart & Freeman, 1992; Kagan, 1992).Closely tied to the notion of unrealistic expectations is the challenge of helping preserviceteachers accept the responsibility of teaching everybody's children (Allington, 1994;Allington & Walmsley, 1995). Often these beliefs result in prospective teachers'declaring that the lowest-achieving children are not their responsibility and can only behelped by special teachers (Gomez, 1994; Kagan, 1992; Nierstheimer, Hopkins, &Schmitt, 1996; O'Brien & Stewart, 1990). Gomez (1994) advocates "address[ing] thecomplexity and the urgency of the challenges that lie before us in educating all of ourchildren" (p. 332). We believe that our research uncovers new possibilities for helpingundergraduate students see children with special literacy learning needs with new eyesthrough experiences with features of the Reading Recovery professional developmentmodel. Further, we assert that this model helped teacher candidates look at children asindividuals with diverse learning needs and at teachers as those responsible for children'slearning (Hopkins, Schmitt, Nierstheimer, Dixey, & Younts, 1995).

In addition, we collaborated on the careful design of standards-based teacher preparationexperiences that are aligned with Interstate New Teacher Assessment and SupportConsortium (INTASC) principles and the International Reading Association (IRA)/National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) Standards for the English LanguageArts (1996). We believe that the standards movement in teacher education has as itsprimary goal building systems for preparing and certifying outstanding teachers whoare equipped to teach all children (e.g., Bradley, 1999; Darling-Hammond & Falk,1997; Duarte & Quatroche, 1999; Good 1997; IRA/NCTE, 1996; Lewis, 1997). Onefundamental purpose for setting standards noted in the IRA/NCTE report is to "promoteexcellence and equity for all" (p. 9) regarding each child's right to literacy. As teachereducators, it is our intention to embrace that perspective and to challenge our studentsto accept responsibility for all learners.

We concur with Watson (1994) when she stated, "We are our beliefs. They directeverything that happens in or out of our classrooms" (p. 606). In addition, we argue, ashave others (e.g., Bandura, 1986; Ernest, 1989; Goodman, 1988; Munby, 1982;Richardson, 1996), that beliefs strongly affect behavior and that there is a strong relationshipbetween teachers' educational beliefs and their planning, instructional decisions, andclassroom practices. Indeed, preservice teachers' beliefs about struggling literacy learnersmay signal their future teaching decisions and practices as they work with such children.

The first phase of this study was reported in a preliminary paper that examinedpreservice teachers' prior knowledge and beliefs about children who were havingdifficulty learning to read as well as what those future teachers believed they shoulddo to help these children (Nierstheimer, Hopkins, & Schmitt, 1996). Our researchuncovered a significant number of beliefs that we labeled "assigning responsibility."This theme emanated from students' responses to two questions asked on a pre-coursequestionnaire. Those questions were: (a) Why do some children experience difficultylearning to read? (or Who is responsible for children's reading problems?) and (b)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 0

0:44

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 5: Preservice teachers' shifting beliefs about struggling literacy learners

Présentée Teachers ' Shifting Beliefs 3

What can be done to help children who are straggling with learning to read? (or Whois responsible for teaching children with reading problems?)

The authors found that as elementary education preservice teachers entered acorrective reading course, the preservice teachers believed that elementary children'sreading problems are caused by sources outside of school. They also believed that itis not their responsibility as future classroom teachers to help these children; rather,the responsibility belongs to someone else. Often the preservice teachers' responsesindicated that reading problems were inherent to the child. The students also pointed tothe child's parents or home situation as not supportive of the child's literacy development,whether from lack of early literacy experiences or lack of resources to provide literacymaterials in the home. In the responses of the future classroom teachers, acceptingresponsibility for struggling literacy learners, rather than assigning it to someoneelse, did not appear as a belief embraced by these groups of students. The classroomteacher was rarely mentioned as a source of help or someone who, at least, sharedresponsibility for teaching those children experiencing difficulty learning to read.Special programs, special teachers, a special someone who could provide motivatinglearning environments, and parents were viewed as sources that could solve thedilemma of how to help a straggling child learn to read. We noted that preserviceteachers seldom considered the possibility of learning about and then using effectiveinstructional practices to teach strategies to children to help them gain independencein dealing with reading tasks (Nierstheimer, Hopkins, & Schmitt, 1996).

Once prior course knowledge and beliefs were identified and understood, ourpurpose for the second phase of the study reported here was to document preserviceteachers' knowledge and beliefs during and after participation in a course designed tochallenge preconceptions by infusing features of the Reading Recovery professionaldevelopment model into course content. The data collected during and after thecourse were analyzed to determine if there were changes and shifts in perceptionover time and to explore the nature of these changes.

Our data collection was guided by the following research question: What kindsof changes occur in preservice teachers' knowledge and beliefs about children whoare struggling literacy learners as they participate in a course where specific experiencesand features of the Reading Recovery professional development model are infused tochallenge those teachers' beliefs?

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Constructivist principles and assumptions provided the theoretical underpinningsto our research and allowed us to examine preservice teachers' understandings thatare actively created and are socially and experientially based (Guba & Lincoln,1994). We support the notion that human beings do not find or discover knowledgeso much as to construct or make it. Concepts, models, and schemes are invented tomake sense of experience and, further, are continually tested and modified in thelight of new experience (Schwandt, 1994). As such, we believe that preservice teachers'knowledge and beliefs were constructed as a result of, and in order to make sense of,their experiences.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 0

0:44

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 6: Preservice teachers' shifting beliefs about struggling literacy learners

4 Reading Research and Instruction Fall 2000, 40(1)

Additionally, we acknowledge, as Schwandt (1994) puts forth, that in our attemptsto capture what preservice teachers know and think, we were constructing newknowledge from our perspectives. Hence, the findings or outcomes of an inquiry arethemselves "a literal creation or construction of the inquiry process" (Schwandt,1994, p. 128).

METHODS

This qualitative study was conducted at a large Midwestern university. Over aperiod of 3 semesters, 67 students enrolled in an undergraduate reading methodscourse, "Corrective Reading for the Classroom Teacher," participated in this study.The 60 female and 7 male participants were junior- or senior-year elementary educationmajors. Students who participated in this study had already completed a prerequisite,developmental, integrated reading/language arts methods course that focused ontheory and practice related to literacy teaching in the elementary school, but they had noprevious experience teaching reading. At the time of the study, the literacy courses werenot part of a block model. Several sections of the course were taught each semester. Thethree sections of the course we studied were taught on-campus during the duration ofour research, using the university reading clinic. The students in the other sectionswent to local elementary schools for their practica experiences.

The CourseThe course that we studied is a required methods course for elementary education

majors and is designed to provide preservice teachers with classroom discussion andpractica experiences that focus on teaching children who are encountering difficultylearning to read. Students learn assessment procedures and instructional strategiesthat are then applied in the tutoring practicum. The blueprint of the course alignswith Schon's (1988) call for preservice teacher education programs that "includefield experiences that present uncertain, unique, and conflicting situations whereprospective teachers can think and act like teachers" (p. 27).

Each semester of the study, the whole class met together once a week for a 2-hoursession to discuss literacy learning as it related to their readings, mini-lectures, andtheir tutoring experiences in the reading clinic. Students also viewed teaching videosthat exemplified excellent literacy teaching practices and consideration of otherliteracy-related issues.

TutoringEach undergraduate student tutored one child who had been referred to the

university's reading clinic during weekly, 75-minute lessons for a period of 12 weeks.These undergraduate tutors received feedback from an assigned supervisor who wrotecomments that reflected the supervisor's evaluation of the lessons observed. In addition,students who taught behind an observation glass received written feedback frompeers after their tutoring lessons as well as encouraging, instructive feedback fromthe course professor.

To supplement the tutoring sessions, readings that focused upon identifyingchildren's strengths, needs, attitudes, and interests through various types of assessments

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 0

0:44

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 7: Preservice teachers' shifting beliefs about struggling literacy learners

P reservice Teachers' Shifting Beliefs 5

were chosen. The readings that were selected were directly tied to students' experienceswhen working with children in order for the tutors to make connections betweenwhat they read and what they did.

The progression of topics enabled the undergraduate students to learn about avariety of informal and formal assessment options for identifying a child's strengthsand needs and for developing instructional goals based on assessment findings.Emphasis was placed in the design and teaching of the course upon helping childrenbecome strategic readers, moving children toward more independence in reading andwriting, and enabling children to see themselves as readers and writers.

Course assignmentsIn addition to the tutoring practicum that included the development of weekly

lesson plans as well as weekly letters to parents informing them of their child'sprogress, the preservice teachers were presented with several other course assignments.These assignments included an assessment summary that documented the findings oftheir particular child's reading interests and abilities as well as implications forinstruction. Long-range tutoring plans, based on goals for instruction outlined in theassessment summaries, were written. At the end of the semester, students completedpupil profiles that were grounded in the knowledge they gained from tutoring experienceswith the children; these reports were shared with the children's schools. Finally, thepreservice teachers constructed portfolios comprised of weekly entries related toeach tutoring session. These portfolios chronicled the students' tutoring experiencesin the course and contained final entries detailing their learning throughout the tutoringexperiences and their growth as developing teachers.

Incorporating features of the Reading Recovery professional development modelThe class sections of the undergraduate course that were studied for three

consecutive semesters were taught on campus, using the Reading Recovery teacherleader training site facilities and allowing access to the Reading Recovery program.Features of the Reading Recovery professional development model were incorporatedinto the experiences of the students in the tutoring practicum, including observationsof literacy teaching and simultaneous discussions behind a one-way mirror.

Reading Recovery training involves teachers analyzing and articulating theirown teaching decisions through their experiences with children and colleagues asthey talk about teaching (Clay, 1987). Pinnell, Fried, and Estice (1990) note that thisreflective discussion often takes place behind the glass, where Reading Recoveryteachers-in-training have authentic opportunities to understand procedures, observeimmediate effects of a teacher's decisions while teaching a child, analyze what mightbe happening, provide evidence to back up assumptions, and relate what they areobserving and learning to their own teaching. Preservice teachers do not have theteaching experience or professional preparation to participate in Reading Recoverytraining. Further, while Reading Recovery itself is an early intervention for first-grade struggling readers, the theoretical underpinnings of Reading Recovery andsome of its approaches to literacy teaching can be adapted for other elementaryschool age learners. This is important since our preservice teachers tutored, and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 0

0:44

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 8: Preservice teachers' shifting beliefs about struggling literacy learners

6 Reading Research and Instruction Fall 2000, 40 (1)

needed to be prepared to teach, K-5* grade children. In addition, we believed thatcertain features of the training model such as a focus on talking while observing literacyteaching could provide opportunities for supplementing and augmenting preserviceteachers' learning (Hopkins, Schmitt, Nierstheimer, Dixey, & Younts, 1995).

The preservice teachers who participated in this study interacted with the ReadingRecovery model in the following ways. They were initiated into the model by becomingthe observers of observers; they watched Reading Recovery teacher leaders-in-trainingobserving a peer teacher instructing a child; they listened to the teachers' simultaneousdiscussion. The undergraduates then returned to their university classroom wherethey engaged in discussion and debriefing sessions with the course professor whohelped them make sense of what they had seen and heard in the Reading Recoverysession and who served in Vygotskyan terms as the more knowledgeable other(Vygotsky, 1978). The students also watched video tapes of Reading Recovery lessonswith simultaneous discussion, noting how teacher leaders-in-training were guided bytheir discussion leader toward independence in understanding and in changing theirown perspectives and practice.

Taking what they had learned from observing Reading Recovery interactions, thepreservice teachers moved toward engaging in similar practices of observing, discussingand analyzing their own literacy teaching and learning within the context of the tutoringcomponent of their course. Once a week for five consecutive weeks, the preserviceteachers were given the opportunity to observe a peer tutoring his/her child in theReading Recovery training facility. The students who taught in front of their col-leagues in the observation setting volunteered to do so early in the semester via asign-up system. Their peers who observed lessons talked about, analyzed, andreflected upon the teaching and learning that was occurring in front of them, just asReading Recovery teacher leaders-in-training do. During these observation sessions,the course professor served as discussion leader, scaffolding the students (Wood,Bruner, & Ross, 1976) to new understandings by asking questions that focused thestudents on what was happening in the lesson, what the child seemed to understandabout print, what the child did when he/she experienced difficulty, where the tutorshould go next, and other literacy teaching and learning issues.

For example, as students interacted with features of the Reading Recoveryprofessional development model and engaged in peer observations and simultaneousdiscussions, they had multiple opportunities to observe children's strategy usagewhile reading. Many of the children they observed relied solely on the sound-it-outstrategy. During in-class demonstrations, the preservice teachers learned about teachingother, more effective reading strategies to children. When they noticed that theirpeers' tutees, as well as those children that they tutored, did not have control of otherreading strategies besides sound-it-out, the students made the connection that a reasonfor children's reading problems could be that those children had not been taughtadequate reading strategies.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 0

0:44

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 9: Preservice teachers' shifting beliefs about struggling literacy learners

Preservice Teachers ' Shifting Beliefs 7

DATA COLLECTION, ANALYSIS, AND ROLES OF THE RESEARCHERS

DataMultiple forms of data were collected and analyzed for this research, providing a

cogent picture of students' beliefs about children experiencing difficulty learning toread. The primary data sources included pre-course questionnaires, during-the-coursevideotapes and students' written responses, multiple interviews with key informants,perspectives from the course professor, post-course questionnaires, and post-courseaudiotaped small-group discussions. Secondary data sources included observationsand fieldnotes of the observations and discussions and student artifacts such as lessonplans and portfolios.

Data analysisWithin- and cross-case analyses (Patton, 1990) were used to analyze each type

data. First, we analyzed each student's contribution (or each small-group's contribution)as a single case, looking for themes or patterns within, and underscoring portions thatfocused upon our guiding research question. Then, we conducted cross-case analyses(Patton, 1990) of all students' responses within each type of data. In the cross-caseanalyses, we searched for patterns to validate findings that emerged from the within-case analyses. Finally, we generated overall findings by synthesizing the within-caseand cross-case analyses and set forth assertions supported by categories and illustratedby excerpted data clips (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). The study design was strengthenedthrough data triangulation and researcher triangulation (Denzin, 1978). Data triangulationwas achieved through the use of the multiple data sources outlined in the sectionabove. Researcher triangulation occurred as the research team met over the course ofthe study on a regular basis to discuss our findings and share our varied perspectivesduring data analyses sessions (Patton, 1990).

Roles of the researchersThe authors shared various roles in this study, and each of us took on more than

one role. One of the authors was the course professor, teaching the 3-semesters ofcourses and helping her students experience features of the Reading Recoveryprofessional development model by leading discussions behind the glass and guidingstudents in the observation of children's literacy development over time. She alsoparticipated in the data analyses and perspective sharing sessions. A second researcherwas a participant-observer who was present during many of the preservice peerobservation meetings, on occasion taking part in the discussions and writing fieldnotes about the interactions. She also collected and analyzed multiple data such asvideotapes of students' lessons, and focus interviews; she triangulated her findingsthrough meetings with the course professor and project meetings with other membersof the research team. A third member of the research team helped design and guidethe research, data analyses, and writing. The final member of our team, who servesas the director of Reading Recovery for the university and the state, brought herunique perspectives as a Reading Recovery trainer of teacher leaders, in helping theteam understand the professional development model used in Reading Recovery andenvisioning how features of that model might be used with undergraduate, prospectiveteachers.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 0

0:44

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 10: Preservice teachers' shifting beliefs about struggling literacy learners

8 Reading Research and Instruction Fall 2000, 40(1)

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The primary theme that emerged from the data analyses of the post-course phaseof the study was that elementary education preservice teachers who participated in aredesigned corrective reading course that included a tutoring practicum component,shifted in their beliefs toward accepting responsibility for helping children with readingproblems. We entitled this shift "toward accepting responsibility." One of the primaryfactors involved in their shifts in beliefs appeared to be the use of the Reading Recoveryprofessional development model embedded in and coupled with the tutoring componentthat influenced students' abilities to select appropriate instructional practices and focuson the needs of individual children. We believe we can make this assertion becauseof the statements made by the preservice teachers themselves in their post-behind-the-glass-reflections. In these reflections, the prospective teachers reported that theyhad discovered new ways to look at literacy teaching and learning as they learnedhow to observe and what to look for when watching children and instruction. Additionally,they noted that they were able to apply these new understandings in their own tutoringcontexts.

By the end of the course, the teacher candidates moved toward accepting responsibilityfor helping children with reading problems by suggesting specific literacy instructionalpractices that regular classroom teachers could employ. The categories supportingthis assertion answer the questions: (a) Why do some children experience difficultylearning to read? and (b) What can be done to help children who are having difficultylearning to read? The categories are entitled: toward accepting responsibility forchildren's reading problems and toward accepting responsibility for instruction.

Toward accepting responsibility far reading problemsWhile students remained firm in some of their previously held, pre-course beliefs

about why some children experience difficulty learning to read, they embraced additionalbeliefs after participation in the course. Below is a discussion of the students' post-course, stated beliefs about why some children struggle with learning to read, includingthe child's parents, ineffective instruction, inadequate reading strategies, and thechild him- or herself.

The child's parents/homeAfter experiences in the course, students were asked to comment on children

who were having trouble learning to read. Many preservice teachers continued tomaintain that children experienced difficulty learning to read because of factorsrelated to the child's home. Approximately 50% of the respondents on the post-coursequestionnaire, as well as half of the post-course small discussion groups mentionedinadequate home situations or lack of literacy support by parents as causes for achild's reading problems. The following quotations from the data support this notion.Alice noted: 'Tor the most part, I think that reading difficulty stems from the home.In my short experience, I have learned that the earlier and the more a child is read toat home, the better off they'll be when they enter school." Nancy agreed: "Some childrendo not have family environments that can meet [the teacher's] expectations. I alsothink that other children have not been raised to see the importance of reading."

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 0

0:44

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 11: Preservice teachers' shifting beliefs about struggling literacy learners

Preservice Teachers'Shifting Beliefs 9

Two of the post-course, small discussion groups talked about home factors thatinfluenced a child's lack of progress in reading. One audiotaped student answered: "Ithink that some of these kids have difficulty learning to read because their parents arebusy working and have other things on their minds and they haven't been read to aschildren in the home."

Ineffective instructionAfter their experiences in the course, one of the shifts that appeared in preservice

teachers' stated beliefs about why some children experience difficulty learning toread was that 49% of the respondents declared that classroom teachers may not haveprovided effective reading instruction for such children. Following are some of thestudents' comments concerning teacher responsibility and instruction.

Kaye felt that instruction was sometimes inadequate and gave suggestions forappropriate activities and experiences for struggling literacy learners: "I think thatthe instruction that they [some children] are receiving is not adequate." Other stu-dents agreed that instruction played a role as is evidenced by these statements. Pamwrote: 'The way they were taught to read was not the way they learned it best." "Ithink some children just...may not learn from the way they were taught," was howMary phrased it.

The preservice students spoke of the need for instruction for struggling literacylearners that was enthusiastic and motivating, based on the individual characteristicsand interests of the child, and was comprised of a variety of approaches. Some of theundergraduates proclaimed that it was unfortunate that some teachers may let childrenwith low literacy skills simply exist in their classrooms, where the children's learningneeds are not being addressed.

Inadequate reading strategiesAfter the course 47% of the undergraduates commented about inadequate reading

strategies as reasons why some children experience difficulty learning to read. Tesssummed up many of the students' comments about inadequate reading strategies:"Some children find difficulty in learning to read, because they rely too heavily onone type of strategy or they do not use them [strategies] at all."

The final property that emerged from the data under the category of responsibilityfor reading problems was similar to beliefs held by students prior to the course: readingproblems mean that something is wrong with the child. However, after participatingin the course and the accompanying experiences, students were less likely to statethat the child had learning, physiological, or psychological problems that causeddifficulties in reading (36% of the students, compared to 58% of the students whenthe course began). Also, in the post-course data, when students stated "the child has aphysical problem," they were much more likely to list many other possible reasonsfor a child's reading problems, rather than the preponderance and central focus of"physical problems" in students' pre-course remarks.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 0

0:44

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 12: Preservice teachers' shifting beliefs about struggling literacy learners

10 Reading Research and Instruction Fall 2000, 40(1)

Toward Accepting Responsibility for InstructionThe most dramatic changes in preservice teachers' beliefs after participation in

the course sections we studied were demonstrated in what the students alleged couldbe done to help children experiencing difficulty learning to read. It was in this categorythat the teacher candidates revealed a definite move toward accepting responsibilityfor straggling literacy learners' instruction. As noted in an earlier preliminary study(Nierstheimer, Hopkins, & Schmitt, 1996), the students assigned responsibility forinstruction to someone else, such as tutors, reading specialists, or parents. At the endof the semester, in contrast to findings in our earlier study, 59% (40 out of 67) of theprospective teachers stated that teachers could employ specific literacy instructionalpractices to address children's reading problems. The practices students identifiedthat a teacher could draw upon included the following: providing engaging opportunitiesfor children to practice reading; building on children's strengths by positively supportingstruggling literacy learners; and teaching children multiple, effective reading strategies.

This category is purposely labeled "toward accepting responsibility for instruction"rather than "accepting responsibility for instruction." When students identified theabove teaching practices, they did not frame their responses in the "I will..." futuretense. Instead, their responses began "a teacher could..." However, we assert thatstudents moved toward accepting responsibility for instruction as future classroomteachers when they directed attention to the classroom teacher. The property of "theteacher" is put forward below through description of each of the literacy instructionalpractices the students identified.

The most frequently occurring literacy instructional practice that preserviceteachers stated should be used to help straggling literacy learners was that teachersshould provide engaging opportunities for children to practice reading. Mary notedsimply yet insightfully: "Children learn to read and write by reading and writing."

What we saw in the comments concerning undergraduate students' beliefs thatteachers should provide engaging opportunities for children to practice reading werereferences to new knowledge learned by the undergraduates. The preservice teachersnamed instructional practices such as repeated readings and using predictable texts.Additionally, the respondents suggested teaching actions for specific reasons, such asmaking literacy activities meaningful and engaging and providing guided instructionthat leads to independence.

Next, the preservice teachers reported that teachers should build on children'sstrengths by positively supporting struggling literacy learners. Pam stated: "Makesure a child has successful experiences with reading. Focus on what they can doinstead of what they can't do and go from there; celebrate any improvements andaccomplishments." Jean summarized the substance of many of the cohorts' commentsregarding supporting straggling literacy learners: "Once you know what a child'sstrengths are, build on these. Use their strengths to help them overcome their difficulties.Give them time, encouragement, and let them know you care." In these commentsthe prospective teachers were focusing on a child's affective response as well as his/her cognitive needs.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 0

0:44

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 13: Preservice teachers' shifting beliefs about struggling literacy learners

Preservice Teachers'Shifting Beliefs 11

Finally, the undergraduate candidates identified the need for teachers to teachchildren multiple, effective reading strategies. Selena believed that children who arestruggling with learning to read needed to be "[worked with] to develop strategiesthat are personalized to fit their needs." Letty, too, called for "strategies ...they [children]can use during the reading process."

To summarize these findings, elementary education preservice teachers whoparticipated in a redesigned corrective reading course that included a tutoringpracticum component, shifted in their beliefs toward assuming responsibility forhelping children with reading problems. Preservice teachers moved toward acceptanceof responsibility for children's reading problems as future classroom teachers andtoward accepting responsibility for instruction.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

In sum, preservice teachers enrolled in three consecutive semesters of a literacymethods course came into the course with expressed beliefs and knowledge aboutstruggling literacy learners and what could be done to help such children. In an earlierreport, we labeled these early beliefs "assigning responsibility for reading problems tosomeone else" and "assigning responsibility for instruction to someone else." Thepreservice teachers were then given multiple opportunities to expand their knowledgeand challenge their own beliefs through course experiences. The two features of thecourse that seemed to be most meaningful to the students, as well as have the mosteffect on their beliefs about children with reading difficulties, appeared to be the tutoringcomponent and their observations and simultaneous discussions of peer taughtliteracy lessons, as they participated in features of the Reading Recovery professionaldevelopment model.

The undergraduates noted in their post-behind-the-glass experiential reflectionsthat as a result of engagement with peer observations, they discovered new ways tolook at literacy teaching and learning as they learned how to observe and what tolook for when watching children and instruction. The students also believed that theymoved toward independence in their thinking about literacy teaching as prospectiveteachers and in their abilities to apply what they had learned (Hopkins, Schmitt,Nierstheimer, Dixey, & Younts, 1995).

After course experiences, when asked what could be done to help lowest-achievingstudents, the teacher candidates moved toward accepting responsibility for helpingchildren with reading problems by suggesting specific literacy instructional practicesthat teachers could employ.

Thus, because in the post-course data, the prospective teachers' beliefs aboutwhat could be done to help struggling literacy learners moved away from assigningthe task to someone else to instructional practices teachers could employ, we arguethat preservice teachers' beliefs and knowledge about children who are struggling asreaders showed changes and shifts over time toward acceptance of responsibility forhelping such children as future classroom teachers. Further, we maintain that thesedocumented changes are significant in the following ways.

First, in moving toward accepting the notion that classroom teachers can affectwhether or not a child learns to read, these preservice teachers are moving away from

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 0

0:44

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 14: Preservice teachers' shifting beliefs about struggling literacy learners

12 Reading Research and Instruction Fall 2000,40 (1)

Gomez's (1994) findings that prospective teachers view children's learning problemsas "beyond the purview of teachers, school, and schooling" (p. 231). Second, becausethese students will soon be classroom teachers and they identify teacher behaviorsthat promote literacy learning for low-achieving children, we conclude that theythemselves are moving toward accepting responsibility for struggling literacy learners.Finally, after course experiences, students believe there are options for classroomteachers to help the child who is struggling to learn to read. And, because they nowbelieve that teachers have options as well as responsibility, we assert that thesepreservice teachers are moving toward developing new beliefs and understandingsabout their capabilities to teach children who are struggling with learning to read.

Considering the implications of this research, a team of literacy faculty has revisedadditional Uteracy courses. In these courses we are determining students' initial andpost course belief systems and knowledge bases pertaining to literacy teaching andlearning, and challenging beliefs along the way through course experiences. Ourresearch is also linked to efforts to align our Uteracy teacher preparation programswith standards such as those from INTASC, IRA/NCTE's Standards for the EnglishLanguage Arts, and the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education(NCATE). If, for example, we consider INTASC Principle #3, "The teacher understandshow pupils differ in their approaches to learning and creates instructional opportunitiesthat are adapted to diverse learners," then we must help our undergraduates see howtheir beUefs about diverse learners affect what they do to help such children. Asteacher educators, we believe in the need to clearly articulate to our preservice teachersa shared vision of how they can help developing Uteracy learners become strategic,flexible, critical, and creative language users. We consider it our mission to addressissues of access and equity when thinking about and teaching children who are strugglingin school.

Finally, with regard to standards alignment, NCATE's Program Standards forElementary Teacher Preparation highUghts "dispositions" that elementary teachercandidates should possess. These dispositions include concepts that we are compeUedto help our undergraduates embrace: a beüef that all students can learn and an acceptanceof families as partners in the education of their children. This may involve chaUengingstudents' previously held beUefs concerning struggUng learners and their parents.

We believe that this research points to effective ways for helping to develop futureUteracy teachers who assume responsibiUty for all learners. Following constructivistprinciples, the talking about teaching and learning with peers (and with a guide)seemed to be the catalyst for the construction of new meanings and new understandingsfor the prospective teachers who participated in this study. And, while the ReadingRecovery training site setting provided an ideal environment for those discussions,we beUeve that such talking could occur during videotaped segments of one-to-oneteaching, so that students might analyze uteracy teaching and learning in ways similarto those used in Reading Recovery training. The kinds of discussions we studiedinfluenced students' abilities to focus on the needs of individual children; it is possible,we beUeve, that similar experiences might be constructed for preservice teachersthrough technology, without viewing "live" teaching.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 0

0:44

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 15: Preservice teachers' shifting beliefs about struggling literacy learners

Preservice Teachers ' Shifting Beliefs 13

LIMITATIONS AND CALL FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

As with all research, there are limitations to our study. Following are some questionsthat arose as potential limitations and a discussion of those limitations, as well asideas for further research.

What are the possible influences of other courses on our students' changes in beliefs?The challenge of affecting change in beliefs is daunting and difficult — so is thechallenge of studying change in beliefs. Even if it were possible to design a trueexperimental study about beliefs, we believe that it would be impossible to accountfor the effects of other courses on our students' changes in beliefs over time. How-ever, in the other courses the students were taking the semesters of our study, theywere not engaged in working with one literacy learner over time and they were notarmed with specific literacy teaching strategies (from other courses) for helping thatchild. It is possible to imagine that other courses, however, were discussing teachers'responsibilities to address the learning needs of all children, and that also may havehad an effect on our students' movements toward accepting responsibility. Futureresearch on preservice teachers' shifting beliefs about struggling literacy learnersmight be advised to consider the effects of all courses' experiences on developingteachers' growth over time.

Another question that arose as a limitation was: What if our students' expressed,post-course beliefs were only what they thought we wanted to hear? We do not havea satisfactory answer for that question. We believe that any time that self-report isinvolved in research, there is a danger that the responses are tainted by the respondents'desire to tell you what you would like to hear. Two ways we rationalize that fear isthat: (1) When the course began, students certainly did not tell us what we wanted tohear; and (2) All of the data was collected by someone other than the course instructor.We believe that since this individual was not the course professor (and not related tograde-giving) that perhaps that alleviated some of the concerns our students mayhave had about giving "right" answers.

A final concern came forth about this research: What are the chances that students'beliefs may have changed with other models of instructional delivery (e.g., those thatdidn't include features of the Reading Recovery professional development model)?We accept that one way we could have responded to this question would have beento study similar sections of courses, that did not include features of the ReadingRecovery professional development model, and to compare our findings to thosesections. We believe that this research design idea is one that could yield more powerfulfindings and acknowledge that this is a path that we would like to take in the future.

In addition, a research possibility that connects to our research is one that hasbeen advocated by others (e.g., Clift, Meng, & Eggerding, 1994; Hollingsworth,1990; Russell, 1994): studying our own changes in beliefs over time as teachereducators. We consider this research concept to be one full of opportunities to examineourselves, our teaching, and our beliefs over time and how they affect student learning.We concur with Richardson (1996) that such studies would be particularly helpful inthe improvement of teacher education practice and would help us as we accept thecommitment and responsibility of preparing all prospective teachers.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 0

0:44

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 16: Preservice teachers' shifting beliefs about struggling literacy learners

14 Reading Research and Instruction Fall 2000, 40(1)

We are convinced that literacy courses with carefully guided tutoring experiences,such as the one described, are essential to the preparation of effective literacy teachersin the new century - teachers prepared for all children, not just those who are strugglingwith learning to read. As teacher educators, we have found that as we provide opportunitiesfor prospective teachers to challenge their own beliefs, and practice the theory thatthey have not yet connected to experience, our students are empowered, take responsibilityfor their own learning, and step up to accept responsibility for the learning of thechildren in their care.

REFERENCES

Allington, R. L. (1994). What's special about special programs for children who findlearning to read difficult? Journal of Reading Behavior, 26, 95-115.

Allington, R. L., & Walmsley, S. A. (1995). Redefining and reforming instructional supportprograms for struggling students. In R. L. Allington, & S. A. Walmsley (Eds.), No quick fix: Rethinkingliteracy programs in America's schools (pp. 19-44). New York: Teachers College Press andInternational Reading Association.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bird, T., Anderson, L. M., Sullivan, B. A., & Swidler, S. A. (1993). Pedagogical balancingacts: Attempts to influence prospective teachers' beliefs. Teaching and Teacher Education, 9,253-267.

Bradley, A. (1999). Educating the educators. Education Week, 19 (2), 38-39.Brookhart, S., & Freeman, D. (1992). Characteristics of entering teacher candidates.

Review of Educational Research. 62,37-60.Clay, M. M. (1987). Implementing Reading Recovery: Systemic adaptations to an

educational innovation. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 22, 35-38.Clift, R., Meng, L., & Edderding, S. (1994). Mixed messages in learning to teach English.

Teaching and teacher education. 19 (3), 265-279.Cole, A. L., & Knowles, J. G. (1993). Shattered Images: Understanding expectations and

realities of field experiences. Teaching and Teacher Education, 9, 457-471.Darling-Hammond, L., & Falk, B. (1997). Using standards and assessment to support student

learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 190-199.Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods.

New York: McGraw-Hill.Duarte, V., & Quatroche, D. (1999). Negotiating change: Achieving compliance with new

teacher education standards. Educational Horizons, 78 (11), 25-29.Ernest, P. (1989). The knowledge, beliefs and attitudes of the mathematics teacher: A

model. Journal of Education for Teaching, 15, 13-34.Gomez, M. L. (1994). Teacher education reform and prospective teachers' perspectives

on teaching "other people's" children. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10, 319-334.Good, T. L. (Ed.). (1997). The relationship between research and educational policy.

Educational Researcher, 25, 4-32.Goodman, J. (1988). Constructing a practical philosophy of teaching: A study of

preservice teachers' professional perspectives. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4, 121-147.Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N.

K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105-117). ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 0

0:44

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 17: Preservice teachers' shifting beliefs about struggling literacy learners

Preservice Teachers ' Shifting Beliefs: 15

Hollingsworth, S. (1990, April). Studying attentional and theoretical shifts across contextsas evidence of learning to teach: Teacher-educator as researcher. Paper presented at the annualconference of the American Educational Research Association, Boston.

Hopkins, C. J., Schmitt, M. C., Nierstheimer, S. L., Dixey, B. P., & Younts, T. (1995).Infusing features of the Reading Recovery professional development model into theexperiences of preservice teachers. In K. A. Hinchman, D. L. Leu, & C. K. Kinzer (Eds.),Perspectives on literacy research and methods (pp. 349-357). Chicago: National ReadingConference.

Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium. (1991). Model Standardsfor Beginning Teacher Licensing and Development: A Resource for State Dialogue. WashingtonDC: Council of Chief State School Officers.

Kagan, D. M. (1992). Professional growth among preservice and beginning teachers.Review of Educational Research. 62, 129-169.

Lewis, A. C. (1997). Staying up the standards movement. Phi Delta Kappan, 78, 487-488.Maxson, M., & Mahlios, M. (1994). Images of teaching: Entry level preservice teachers

describe their beliefs about teaching and children. Professional Educator. 7 (1), 1-18.Maxson, M., & Sindelar, R. (1998). Images revisited: Examining preservice teachers'

ideas about teaching. Teacher Education Quarterly, 25 (2), 5-26.Munby, H. (1982). The place of teachers' beliefs in research on teacher thinking and

decision making, and an alternative methodology. Instructional Science, 11, 201-225.National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (1998). Program Standards for

Elementary Teacher Preparation. Available on-line: www.ncate.orgNierstheimer, S. L., Hopkins, C. J., & Schmitt, M. C. (1996). "But I just want to teach

regular kids!" Understanding preservice teachers' beliefs about children experiencing difficultylearning to read. Literacy, Teaching and Learning, 2(1), 15-24.

O'Brien, D. G., & Stewart, R. A. (1990). Preservice teachers' perspectives on why everyteacher is not a teacher of reading: A qualitative analysis. Journal of Reading Behavior, 22 (2),101-129.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: SagePublications.

Pinnell, G. S., Fried, M. D., & Estice, R. M. (1990). Reading Recovery: Learning how tomake a difference. The Reading Teacher, 43, 282-295.

Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. Sikula(Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teacher Education, 2nd Edition. New York: Simon & SchusterMacmillan.

Russell, T. (1994, April). Teaching to better understand how a teacher learns to teach: Canthe authority of personal experience be taught? Paper presented at the annual convention ofthe American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.

Schon, D. A. (1988). Coaching reflective teaching. In P. P. Grimmett & G. L. Erickson(Eds.), Reflection in teacher education, (pp. 19-30). New York: Teachers College Press.

Schwandt, T. A. (1994). Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry. In N.K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research, (pp. 118-137). ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Standards for the English Language Arts: A project of the International Reading Associationand National Council of Teachers of English. (1996). Newark, DE: International ReadingAssociation and Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 0

0:44

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 18: Preservice teachers' shifting beliefs about struggling literacy learners

16 Reading Research and Instruction Fall 2000, 40(1)

Watson, D. J. (1994). Whole language: Why bother? The Reading Teacher, 47, 600-607.Weinstein, C. S. (1990). Prospective elementary teachers' beliefs about teaching: Implications

for teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 6, 279-290.Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal

of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Applied Disciplines, 17, 89-100.

Received: September 10, 1999First Revision Received: November 21, 1999

Second Revision Received: March 2, 2000Accepted: April 6, 2000

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 0

0:44

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14