This article was downloaded by: [Le Moyne College]On: 09 October 2014, At: 13:51Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

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

Teachers' Knowledge Development andChange: Untangling Beliefs and PracticesShirley Theriot a & Kathleen C. Tice aa University of Texas at Arlington , Arlington, Texas, USAPublished online: 17 Dec 2008.

To cite this article: Shirley Theriot & Kathleen C. Tice (2008) Teachers' Knowledge Developmentand Change: Untangling Beliefs and Practices, Literacy Research and Instruction, 48:1, 65-75, DOI:10.1080/19388070802226287

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19388070802226287

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

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

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

Literacy Research and Instruction, 48: 65–75, 2009Copyright © Association of Literacy Educators and ResearchersISSN: 1938-8071 print / 1938-8063 onlineDOI: 10.1080/19388070802226287

65

ULRI1938-80711938-8063Literacy Research and Instruction, Vol. 48, No. 1, October 2009: pp. 1–23Literacy Research and Instruction

Teachers’ Knowledge Development and Change: Untangling Beliefs and Practices

Teachers’ Knowledge DevelopmentS. Theriot and K. C. Tice

SHIRLEY THERIOT AND KATHLEEN C. TICE

University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, Texas

Through a case-study approach, the authors focus on understanding the complexity of teachers’knowledge development, particularly as it pertains to teachers’ beliefs about literacy developmentand their teaching practices in literacy. Participants of the study are middle-school teachers whoshared their beliefs and practices through (1) a semi-structured interview, (2) responses to aninstrument designed to reveal teachers’ beliefs about literacy, and (3) classroom observations. Thecase study of a teacher is presented to illustrate factors that can play a role as teachers strive toincorporate instruction compatible with their beliefs, thereby having implications for the profes-sional development of teachers.

Keywords teacher education, adolescent literacy

Researchers now recognize that teacher education is not merely a matter of training.Rather, teacher education is a complex process of learning. This distinction has comeabout as researchers have proceeded to focus on the thinking of teachers as opposed tosolely what constitutes effective teaching behaviors that could be transmitted throughteacher education. Researchers have emphasized that the thinking of teachers must be con-sidered because teachers bring prior conceptions to their learning about teaching, andthese prior conceptions play a role in what they learn and how they teach. Lortie (1975)pointed out that long before they learn about teaching through formal courses of study,teachers already have learned about teaching through their experiences within familiesand schools, or have acquired notions of teaching through their “apprenticeship of obser-vation.” In fact, these experiences can have more influence than what they learn throughteacher education courses. Other researchers also indicate that the prior perceptions ofteachers can not be ignored as we consider teachers’ knowledge development and class-room practices (e.g., Hollingsworth, 1989; Richardson, Anders, Tidwell, & Lloyd, 1991).What previous research tells us is that teachers’ beliefs are an inextricable part of theirdecision making, or practices (Pajares, 1992). Other researchers also underscore theimportance of understanding connections between teachers’ thinking and actions if wewant to understand effective teaching (e.g., Clark & Peterson, 1986).

A major way researchers have examined the relationship between beliefs and prac-tices is to consider consistency between teachers’ beliefs and practices. Research con-ducted by Harste and Burke (1977) suggests that teachers make decisions about readinginstruction based on their beliefs about how reading and learning occur. Other researchershave suggested that teachers’ instructional decisions also can be affected by expectationsof school officials and guidelines, leading teachers to use instructional practices which

Address correspondence to Kathleen C. Tice, Assistant Professor, Literacy Studies, University of Texas atArlington, College of Education, Department of Curriculum & Instruction, P.O. Box 19227, Arlington, TX76019. E-mail: ktice@uta.edu

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Le

Moy

ne C

olle

ge]

at 1

3:51

09

Oct

ober

201

4

66 S. Theriot and K. C. Tice

differ from what they believe is best to do (Davis, Konopak, & Readance, 1993; Wilson,Konopak, & Readance, 1991). Kinzer (1988) similarly suggested that inservice teachers’beliefs could be influenced by prevalent teaching practices that are skill-based.

Research also suggests that what teachers know and believe seemingly can changeover time, depending on the experiences they encounter. In a review of the literature, Hall(2005) discussed studies that focused on learning experiences of teachers and how theseexperiences matter. In one of the studies, Stieglitz (1983) found that teachers held morepositive beliefs about teaching reading in their content area upon completing a graduatecourse in content-area reading. Wedman and Robinson (1988) also found that teachersheld more positive views of teaching reading in a content area through inservice programswhere teachers were shown instructional strategies, were able to implement them in theirclassrooms, and then discussed their teaching at inservice meetings. Hall pointed out thatan important difference in these studies is that the teachers that were part of the research ofWedman and Robinson also implemented ideas whereas the teachers of Stieglitz’sresearch did not necessarily incorporate what they had learned. These findings suggestthat teachers can benefit from ongoing collaboration and support as they actually imple-ment novel teaching practices. Even if teachers have a positive view toward a particularpractice, they may not necessarily feel able to incorporate the practice.

Although our field recognizes the role of teachers’ beliefs, much remains unclear inregard to the relationship between teachers’ beliefs and how they teach. In considering thestate of the art in teacher education, Cochran-Smith and Fries (2005, p. 100) pointed to theneed for researchers to “examine and untangle” relationships between teachers’ beliefsand their teaching practices. Through the research we share here, we strive to understandmore about the relationships between literacy teachers’ stated beliefs and their actualteaching practices.

Method of the Study

The participants in this study are six middle-school teachers who teach in a school districtin a southern region of the United States. The district has 12 middle schools that serve stu-dents of diverse socioeconomic, racial, and cultural backgrounds. The six teachers vary inthe number of years they had taught, ranging from 3 years to 23 years. They also vary inregard to the demographics of their teaching situations. The participants of this studyattended workshops that the language arts coordinator of the district had planned, wherebyoutside consultants or teacher leaders presented information for the teachers. The work-shops focused on ways to provide authentic literacy experiences as an alternative to tradi-tional practices that focused on isolated skill development. Before the workshops tookplace, the language arts coordinator selected a group of teachers to become teacher lead-ers. The teacher leaders learned about authentic literacy practices through reading books,attending national meetings, and discussing ideas with the district coordinator over aperiod of two years. After three months of the two-year period, the group of teacher lead-ers began sharing what they had learned with other teachers, including the teachers whoare participants of this study.

We used a collective case study approach (Stake, 2000) whereby we developed casestudies of six teachers. Stake (2000, p. 437) stated that the researcher may or may notknow in advance whether individual cases studied manifest similar characteristics: “Theymay be similar or dissimilar, redundancy and variety each important. They are chosenbecause it is believed that understanding them will lead to better understanding, perhapsbetter theorizing, about a still larger collection of cases.” We studied a collection of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Le

Moy

ne C

olle

ge]

at 1

3:51

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Teachers’ Knowledge Development 67

individual cases in order to better understand the phenomena, teachers’ beliefs and prac-tices. In developing the case studies, we obtained one source of data through examiningthe responses of teachers during an individual, semi-structured interview in which teach-ers shared information about their teaching career and their teaching. We also gathereddata by considering the teachers’ responses to an instrument measuring teachers’ beliefsabout how a person reads and how reading is developed (Leu & Kinzer, 1995). Field notesfrom a two-hour observation of each teacher providing literacy instruction also served asdata. We used these multiple sources of data to gain more in-depth understanding and toavoid misinterpretation. In studying each case we read and reread to gain understanding ofthe teacher’ beliefs about reading and reading instruction, how they decided what to do asteachers, and the relationships among their beliefs and practices. In looking across cases,we looked for themes and patterns that emerged from the data. We did not begin withpreconceived categories, and we did not anticipate likenesses, differences, or otherfeatures among the collection of cases. Nevertheless, we brought to our data analysis ourbackground of experiences: classroom teaching experiences, university teaching of under-graduates and graduate students in literacy education, consulting in school districts, andworking with teachers in other projects that focused upon teachers’ knowledge develop-ment. Stake (2000, p. 448) pointed out that “the purpose of the case is to represent thecase, not the world,” but he also noted that case studies can inform theory and helpuncover complexities. We looked across cases to better understand, yet we also strived topreserve the integrity of the individual cases and not lose insights about individual cases incomparing.

What we share here is the case study of Eric, who teaches language arts to sixth-gradestudents. The case study of Eric serves as a way to understand more about the relation-ships between literacy teachers’ stated beliefs and their actual teaching practices, not tosupport one set of beliefs about literacy education as opposed to another. We share thecase study of Eric to illustrate major themes that emerged in relation to teachers’ beliefsand practices. A major theme that emerged is that the relationship between a teacher’sbeliefs and practices is more complex than whether stated beliefs and purported or actualpractices are consistent or inconsistent. Teachers discussed what they believed importantto do as literacy teachers and why. They articulated what they did, what they perceived astheir role, and why. Statements they selected in regard to beliefs and practices did corre-spond to what they said. However, learning experiences of a teacher’s classroom could beincompatible with each other, given the teacher’s goals. Also, learning experiences couldbe compatible with one of the teacher’s goals even though the activity was incompatiblewith another goal of the teacher. A second related theme that emerged is that teachers rec-oncile beliefs and practices based upon what is familiar to them. Teachers were aware oftheir beliefs, but the learning experiences they selected were ones they were familiar withas they considered their beliefs about literary instruction. Also, teachers implementedthese learning experiences in ways familiar to them, which may not be ideal, givenrecommendations of our field. What became apparent is that teachers were selecting fromlearning experiences they knew of to choose, and they were implementing these learningexperiences as they knew to do. For each teacher of this study, a way to address theincompatibility issue is available in our field. Ultimately it would be up to a teacher todecide if a particular way is the way the teacher feels is best. However, the teachers werenot aware of options. This does not mean to say that no one ever shared the information.What it means is that the teachers were unable to transfer that information if the informa-tion was shared. Through a close look at Eric, we strive to show how these themes can bemanifested.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Le

Moy

ne C

olle

ge]

at 1

3:51

09

Oct

ober

201

4

68 S. Theriot and K. C. Tice

Eric: “Scraping Around Trying to Figure Out”

Eric teaches in an inner-city school where the majority of the students are considered bythe school district to be “at risk” for success. During a two-hour block of time, Eric spendsone hour teaching reading and one hour teaching writing to students in sixth grade. Aftergraduating from high school, Eric attended college, and initially he was not sure of thecareer path he wanted to pursue. In elaborating upon how he had arrived to where he wasin his career, Eric describes his entry into teaching and what happened later:

I had seen teachers, and I felt that was a job I wanted to do. I majored ineducation and taught for two to three years, but I was real young, and otheropportunities came along. I was frustrated with classroom management andwhatever. And I wanted to do some other things. I just came back to teachingthree years ago. I went through a crisis, and I wanted to get back into some-thing I wanted to do. I didn’t like what I was doing, so I quit and started teach-ing school. I came back and taught. I got a job in the resource room, teachingelementary school. And because of my minor in English education, I was ableto get a job teaching language arts, and that is where I am now.

Some teachers in the district have obtained a master’s degree at a local university. Eric hasnot pursued a master’s degree, and he mentions, “I probably won’t. I don’t see the incentiveto get a higher degree. Not money wise.”

Eric’s Professional Development

Through the language arts coordinator for the school district, Eric became aware of alter-natives to traditional ways of teaching reading and writing. Over the course of a schoolyear, teachers were presented information about authentic literacy practices through aseries of workshops. The authentic literacy practices shared were ones whereby studentsin classrooms read and write in ways that are akin to the way people experience literacyoutside of school. The teachers were offered information about selecting good literature toread aloud and for students to read. They also were offered information about incorporat-ing writing on a daily basis. The presenters at the workshops emphasized the developmentof skills within actual reading and writing as opposed to isolated skill development. Asstated previously, either an outside consultant or a teacher leader presented at the work-shops. The language arts coordinator had selected a group of teachers to learn aboutauthentic literacy practices through reading books, attending national meetings, and dis-cussing ideas with the district coordinator. After a period of three months, this group ofteacher leaders began sharing what they had learned with other teachers. Eric volunteeredto attend six workshops, and he found the information he was learning helpful: “As soonas I saw a different approach, I really thought that it was a much better way to go.” Eric,however, goes on to say that he has “changed” in that he has “come back to using the basalevery now and then.” Yet he does not use the basal “primarily” because “drilling the kidson skills” does not “work well because you can watch their eyes glaze over once you starttalking about it, and they don’t pay attention.” In talking about what determines what heteaches, Eric explains:

That is difficult for me because I have been out of school for a long time, andI am scraping around trying to figure out what to teach and how to teach, espe-cially authentic literacy. So I try to get ideas from other teachers.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Le

Moy

ne C

olle

ge]

at 1

3:51

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Teachers’ Knowledge Development 69

Eric’s Approach to Teaching Writing

In teaching writing, Eric states that students write for 10 minutes each day in journals, startingupon entering the class. Students can use a topic Eric selects or they can self-select a topic:

There is a journal topic on the board. They are free to use any other topic theywant to if they don’t like the journal topic, but generally they use it. I offeredthem an open topic before, but most of them don’t like that. They like some-thing to write about. They don’t want to have to think of something. So thegeneral topic is put on the board.

Similarly, Eric explains that he assigns topics for other writing experiences, and he alsodescribes how he approaches the teaching of writing:

I assign the writing of different themes, with a story start-up, or just a title and havethem write something about it in two or three pages. A lot of them could write thatmuch, but they weren’t doing very well in going back and trying to correct theirstuff. I didn’t have time to read it all and correct that much. So what I do is havethem write about half a page, so we can go back and edit it and correct it that way.

Eric was not sure about how to help his students master Standard English. Eric said thathis students speak “black slang” a great deal. Yet Eric feels students also “need to knowStandard English because they are judged by how they speak and write” in getting a job.

Eric’s Approach to Teaching Reading

In describing what takes place during the second part of the language arts class, Eric states thathe reads aloud to his class for 10 to 15 minutes each day, and then students read silently, self-selecting what they read. Eric prefers that the students read quality literature for young adults,but has found that some students will not read anything but “comic books or things like that.”Because Eric wants them to read, he says that students can read “a catalogue, comic book, ormagazine.” Eric’s requirement is that they “read something.” Eric states that students “bestlearn to read by reading.” In discussing his approach to assessment, Eric shares what he does:

All I ask is that they read during silent reading, and I give them points everyday—ten if they read and zero if they slept. If they talked, then less points.I don’t have them turn in written work on what they have read. I feel like I canjust observe whether or not they are actually reading. I don’t think it encourageskids to read if they have to report on everything. I like to read, and if I had toreport on everything I read, I would read less, I’m sure. So I evaluate them infor-mally, by observation. And the value is based on participation. If they work andturn something in, they are going to get graded [credit] for it. And a lot of it is,did they put the effort into it, not did they get everything right . . .

Observations of Eric’s Teaching

The observation of Eric’s teaching took place during November. Sixteen students were inEric’s first class of the day, and they sat in desks arranged in clusters of four. Eric told thestudents that today they would be writing journal entry number ten. As students began

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Le

Moy

ne C

olle

ge]

at 1

3:51

09

Oct

ober

201

4

70 S. Theriot and K. C. Tice

writing in their journals, a student spoke out of turn. Eric walked to the intercom andcalled the office. A few minutes later, a woman who is responsible for helping studentswith “behavior disorders” entered the classroom. Then the woman and Eric walked out-side of the classroom into the hall. Momentarily, Eric asked the student who had spokenout to come into the hall to speak with them. Then students in the classroom began talkingand walking around the classroom.

Eric, the woman, and the student came back into the classroom, and Eric distributedan adjective quiz. The students began talking as Eric walked to the front of the classroom.Eric blew a whistle softly and said, “Stop, look, and listen.” Eric then gave directions forthe quiz, and he added, “Oh, by the way, your spelling words are on the board.”

As students began taking the quiz, much talking among students took place. Eric toldthe students that there were approximately 25 adjectives. Students remarked that theycounted 20 words. Eric counted and then responded, “Oh, yes, only twenty.”

A female and male student began to argue: “Mr. Stewart, Fred says I threw his sisterin the coulee.”

Eric responded, “O.K. Let’s get our work done.” Eric blew the whistle again and thencontinued:

O.K. Today we’re going to write something—a page. I don’t want more than apage. Our topic is “An Uninvited Guest” or any other ideas that you may have.It can be about an animal. It doesn’t have to be about a person. O.K. You’vegot about half an hour. In a half hour, I want a story on my desk.

Eric distributed loose-leaf paper. Students talked with one another within their cluster.One student asked, “Mr. Stewart, how do you spell, chihuahua?”

Eric responded, “Make it poodle. We’ll look it up tomorrow. Just write what youthink.” Within 10 minutes from when Eric passed out the paper, all of the students werewriting. Eric then announced, “Five more minutes.”

One student remarked, “That’s all we gotta do? That’s all we gotta do?”Eric picked up the papers and placed them on his desk. The bell rang, indicating that

Eric would now begin focusing on reading. Eric blew his whistle, sat on his desk, and thensaid, “O.K. Guys, listen up.”

Eric then began reading the book Ramona’s World, written by Beverly Cleary. As heread aloud, he stopped to focus on words from the book, asking students what theythought was the meaning of a word. As he read aloud, he often asked students to not talkor to not walk around the classroom.

After reading aloud to the students for 20 minutes, Eric asked the students to readsilently. Some of the students went to the library to play computer games, and some wentto the library to search for a book. One student began reading at his desk immediately, andone rested on the floor to read. One student went to the door, and began throwing candy upand down. Gradually, everyone began to read, and everyone read for approximately15 minutes. At the end of the period, Eric assigned points in his grade book. After studentsleft the class, Eric pulled out an article about life in the public schools, and indicated thathe was very concerned about his students and the burdens they bring to school.

Learning from Eric

Through the case study of Eric, we see other issues that can surround correspondencesbetween teachers’ beliefs and practices. Eric’s words, “scraping around trying to figure

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Le

Moy

ne C

olle

ge]

at 1

3:51

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Teachers’ Knowledge Development 71

out” can be a metaphor for what some teachers experience as they try to incorporateinstruction that is compatible with their beliefs yet novel to them. Through a series ofinservice meetings, Eric encountered an approach to teaching literacy that he wanted toincorporate, an approach that differed from traditional practices. Eric embraced the idea ofproviding instruction that makes it possible for students to experience authentic literacyevents through hearing books read aloud, reading books on their own, and writing. Ericconsiders holistic, authentic literacy experiences more effective to learning experiencesdominated by isolated skills instruction. Eric is able to articulate his views, and he is ableto discuss some instructional practices that are consistent with his views. Eric shows someunderstanding of important dimensions of the philosophy that undergirds providingauthentic literacy instruction and how to translate his views into practice. Yet we can seethat Eric’s understanding of the philosophy is limited as he discusses his instructionaldecisions when he encounters obstacles, or when the students’ responses do not immedi-ately fit within Eric’s plans. When he encounters obstacles, Eric makes instructionaldecisions that are not compatible with his stated beliefs about how to approach literacyinstruction. Instruction can entail encountering the unknown, or obstacles. A deep under-standing of the philosophy and theory that undergird an approach, however, can make itpossible to arrive at instructional decisions that are consistent with an approach as ateacher deals with an unknown. Also valuable is knowing what others have done in pro-viding effective teaching. Although each teaching situation is different, knowing aboutprocedures to use and the types of actions a teacher could take can help a teacher trans-form beliefs into practice. Eric has learned about an approach to literacy instruction that heembraces through attending a series of workshops. Whether Eric heard about instructionalpractices that would have helped him when he encounters obstacles is not known. Yetwhether or not the information has been presented to him, the fact remains that at the pointof instruction, Eric is not aware of these instructional practices as options. Eric states thathe tries to get ideas from other teachers, but these learning experiences are not plannedand systematic, whereby teachers meet to share their teaching and collaborate in solvingproblems. As Eric attempts to transform his beliefs into practice, he essentially is on hisown. Through looking again at what Eric has said and done, we can see how he has been“scraping around trying to figure out.”

Upon attending the workshops, Eric wants students to write daily as opposed tospending time completing exercises focusing on isolated skills. Therefore, Eric strives toincorporate writing on a daily basis. At this point, his instructional decision making iscompatible with his beliefs and the philosophy he espouses. In providing authentic literacyexperiences, teachers let students select topics to write about, just as professional writerswrite what they know and care about. Eric initially asks students to self-select topics, buthe encounters an obstacle in that “most of them don’t like that. They like something towrite about.” Thus, although Eric incorporates writing and not worksheets, his assigningtopics works against his other belief in the importance of letting students write each dayand grow as writers. Learning how to draw on what they know and care about is an impor-tant dimension of students’ writing development. Other teachers have encountered theobstacle Eric has encountered. That is, other teachers have encountered students not feel-ing confident in selecting a topic to write about, and experts in the field have providedhelp through in-depth discussion and examples of what other teachers do through mini-lessons where they model topic selection, individual conferences with students, andwhole-class sharing where students can glean ideas from other students. (e.g., Atwell,1998; Calkins, 1983; Graves, 1983). Eric does not provide mini-lessons, whereby hewould model topic selection. Eric also does not have conferences with students to help

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Le

Moy

ne C

olle

ge]

at 1

3:51

09

Oct

ober

201

4

72 S. Theriot and K. C. Tice

students arrive at topics, and Eric does not incorporate whole-class sharing. As indicatedpreviously, whether Eric heard about providing modeling, having conferences, and incor-porating whole-class sharing with students is not known. Yet whether or not the informationhas been presented to him, the fact remains that at the point of instruction, Eric has not con-sidered these instructional practices as options to address an obstacle. These options couldhelp Eric incorporate instruction that is consistent with his all of beliefs, just as they havehelped other teachers. Unaware of these options, Eric resorts to a strategy he does know,assigning topics, a strategy that has been part of traditional teaching experiences, eventhough this strategy undermines the type of writing instruction he wants to incorporate.

Another obstacle Eric encounters is he finds that students do not revise or proofreadtheir writing. Again, experts in the field have provided explicit guidelines in showingteachers how to help students establish content and revise rough drafts. Similarly, guide-lines exist to show how to help students proofread final drafts for errors in punctuation,capitalization, spelling, and usage through a publishing conference (e.g., Atwell, 1998;Calkins, 1983; Graves, 1983). Yet again, Eric is not aware of these options at the point ofinstruction as a way to help students revise and proofread. Eric states that he “didn’t havetime to read it all and correct that much.” He then shares his solution to meeting this obsta-cle: “So what I do is have them write about half a page, so we can go back and edit it andcorrect it that way.” Here again, Eric’s solution in dictating a length for the writing assign-ment is not compatible with his belief in providing authentic literacy experiences althoughit is compatible with his belief in providing writing and not worksheets.

Eric’s solutions also are not consistent with the philosophy he advocates in anothersituation. When a student asked how to spell a word that Eric could not spell, he told thestudent to change the word choice. Eric could have told the students to spell a word as bestas they can during rough-draft writing—that they can look up the accurate spelling laterfor a final draft. This response would have made it possible for the student to retain own-ership of the ideas, an important facet of providing authentic writing experiences.

Eric’s artificial constraints, which are his solutions as he teaches writing, workagainst his wanting to help students grow as writers. The artificial constraints prevent stu-dents from being able to gain the benefits that they could reap from opportunities toexpress ideas they know about and care about on a daily basis. As mentioned previously,our field has arrived at knowing procedures that can be shown to students, and these pro-cedures do foster students’ growth in writing. Yet a different set of procedures has evolvedas Eric has encountered obstacles in teaching writing.

Similarly, in providing reading instruction, Eric’s instructional practices are notcompatible with all of his beliefs because of procedures that have evolved. Eric states thatstudents “best learn to read by reading.” Eric does provide time for reading, yet time thatcould be devoted to reading aloud and reading experiences is disrupted. As Eric readsaloud, he continually had to stop reading to tell students to not talk or walk around theroom. During independent reading, students eventually read, but most students did notread the majority of the time period devoted to independent reading.

Knowing how to implement effective procedures is one facet of classroom manage-ment. Throughout much of a class period, the students, not Eric, establish classroomprocedures. Eric states that he had difficulty with classroom management early on in histeaching career. After returning to teaching, Eric continues to have difficulty. Seeminglynot knowing what to do to address the problem, Eric appears to accept off-task behavior.Eric’s students do eventually begin to read and write, but much class time is devoted tobehaviors that do not support the students’ literacy development. Eric indicates that he isconcerned about the problems his students encounter and seemingly wants to help his

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Le

Moy

ne C

olle

ge]

at 1

3:51

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Teachers’ Knowledge Development 73

students succeed. Yet the likelihood of students succeeding is diminished when studentsare involved in activities that do not support growth in literacy or do so minimally.

In reporting the findings of her research with preservice teachers, Hollingsworth(1989, p. 168) reported that “general managerial routines had to be in place before subjectspecific content and pedagogy became a focus of attention, and that interrelated manage-rial and academic routines were needed before teachers could focus actively on students’learning from academic tasks in classrooms,” and it was “preprogram interests in studentsas individuals and program-developed interest in subject pedagogy [that] were needed toprovide the motivation to do so.” What Hollingsworth’s findings suggest is that classroommanagement plays a critical role in teachers being able to devote time to their teaching andstudents’ learning. Additionally, Hollingsworth’s findings indicate that a focus on class-room management can be and should be an integral part of routines established as part ofproviding learning experiences. In a synthesis of research, Grossman (1992) underscoredthat teachers can grapple with issues of classroom management as they focus on teachingand learning. If teachers focus solely on classroom management, in fact, a focus on teach-ing and learning can be undermined because classroom management becomes an end, nota means to an end. Hollingsworth’s research also suggests that teachers are more likely towant to learn about incorporating effective procedures if they care about their students andtheir teaching.

We know that Eric is not alone in his struggles with classroom management. Referringagain to Hollingsworth (1989), she reported that only half of the preservice teachers of herresearch were able to achieve a balanced approach that was neither too unstructured nortoo rigid. Also, like other teachers, Eric will be more apt to succeed if he cares about stu-dents and teaching. Eric shared an article and his concerns about the burdens studentsbring to school. Even if Eric is genuinely concerned about his students, his concern is notlikely to lead to helping students if he sees students’ problems as insurmountable. Ericshowed some initiative in volunteering to attend the series of workshops although he doesnot “see the incentive” to obtain a master’s degree. What could perhaps help Eric is tohave support as he tries to implement ideas. With support as he implements ideas, Ericmight be able to gain expertise and confidence in helping his students, regardless of theirhome backgrounds. When a teacher is not successful, a teacher’s confidence can erode,which, in turn, can lead to a lack of engagement because of problems appearing to beinsurmountable.

As stated previously, our field has arrived at procedures for incorporating authenticliteracy experiences, and these procedures can help teachers meet the interests andneeds of students related to literacy development. In research involving preserviceteachers, Wolf, Carey, and Mieras (1996) discussed two themes that played a role as thepreservice teachers incorporated novel, authentic literacy experiences: (1) situatedcognition and (2) guided participation. In regard to situated cognition, people will bestacquire knowledge about teaching when they also can use that knowledge in teachingcontexts where the knowledge is to be used. Also important is guided participation,whereby people receive support as they teach through experiences such as modeling,reading professional readings, sharing teaching experiences, and discussion. The find-ings of this research are consistent with the findings of Wedman and Robinson (1988)who found that teachers were more apt to be positive about novel ideas if they not onlyattended inservice meetings but also met to discuss their teaching. As a classroomteacher, Eric was in a position where he could use knowledge he was acquiring, but hedid not receive guided participation as he applied knowledge he acquired in theworkshops.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Le

Moy

ne C

olle

ge]

at 1

3:51

09

Oct

ober

201

4

74 S. Theriot and K. C. Tice

The professional development Eric has received helped Eric be aware of an approachthat he found compatible. However, the series of workshops fell short in helping Ericimplement the approach in ways that are compatible with Eric’s stated beliefs and thephilosophical and theoretical underpinnings of the approach. The series of isolatedworkshops does not recognize the complexity of teaching because of problems teacherscan encounter when they try to implement ideas, but this approach to professional devel-opment is characteristic of what takes place in many school districts.

The case study of Eric has implications for understanding teacher education. Our fieldrecognizes that we cannot ignore teachers’ beliefs as we strive to help teachers foster stu-dents’ learning. What we can learn from Eric is that even when a teacher believes in anapproach, we cannot be assured that the teacher is able to incorporate an approach.Additionally, even when a teacher is able to articulate what to do and why, a teacher maynot be able to incorporate an approach successfully because of not knowing how to solveproblems in ways that are compatible with the theoretical and philosophical underpinningsof an approach. In helping us untangle the relationships between beliefs and practices,Eric’s case study and other research tells us that knowing how to incorporate instructionalprocedures is critical and that teachers can need support and guidance as they do so. Eric’scase study also points to the need to help teachers have a deeper understanding of the the-oretical and philosophical underpinnings of an approach so that they are better able to dealwith unanticipated situations. Certainly, other factors play a role, such as teachers’ percep-tions of students and interest in subject pedagogy, as stated previously. Also, for example,self-efficacy can play a role. Nevertheless, simply presenting ideas for teachers toembrace does not recognize what learning about teaching entails. Even when teachers doembrace and can discuss ideas different from what they have encountered through their“apprenticeship of observation,” they can encounter obstacles as they implement ideas.Without being able to apply ideas with students and without guided participation, teachersmay have to resort to drawing on what is part of their knowing, even when these notionsare not compatible with their beliefs.

References

Atwell, N. (1998). In the middle: New Understanding about writing, reading, and learning.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Calkins, L. M. (1983). Lessons from a child. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Clark, C. M., & Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teachers’ thought processes. In M. Wittrock (Ed.),

Handbook on research on teaching (pp. 255–296). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.Cochran-Smith, M., & Fries, K. (2005). Researching teacher education in changing times: Politics

and paradigms. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. M. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: Thereport of the AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp. 69–109). Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Davis, M. M., Konopak, B. C., & Readance, J. E. (1993). An investigation of two chapter 1 teach-ers’ beliefs about reading and instructional practices. Reading Research and Instruction, 33(2),105–118.

Graves, D. H. (1983). Writing: Teachers and children at work. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Grossman, P. L. (1992). Why models matter: An alternate view on professional growth in teaching.

Review of Educational Research, 62, 171–179.Hall, L. (2005). Teachers and content area reading: Attitudes, beliefs, and change. Teaching and

Teacher Education, 21(4), 403–414.Harste, J., & Burke, C. (1977). A new hypothesis for reading teacher research: Both the teaching and

learning of reading are theoretically based. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Reading: Theory and practice.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Le

Moy

ne C

olle

ge]

at 1

3:51

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Teachers’ Knowledge Development 75

Twenty-sixth yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 32–40). Clemson, SC: NationalReading conference.

Hollingsworth, S. (1989). Prior beliefs and cognitive change in learning to teach. American Educa-tional Research Journal, 26, 160–189.

Kinzer, C. K. (1988). Instructional frameworks and instructional choices: Comparisons betweenpreservice and inservice teachers. Journal of Reading Behavior, 20, 357–377.

Leu, D. J., & Kinzer, C. K. (1995). Effective reading instruction in the elementary grades. Columbus,OH: Merrill.

Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct.

Review of Educational Research, 6, 307–332.Richardson, V., Anders, P., Tidwell, D., & Lloyd, C. (1991). The relationship between teachers’

beliefs and practices in reading comprehension instruction. American Educational ResearchJournal, 2, 559–586.

Stake, R. E. (2000). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitativeresearch (2nd ed., pp. 435–454). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Stieglitz, E. (1983). Effects of a content area reading course on teacher attitudes and practices:A four-year study. Journal of Reading, 26, 690–696.

Wedman, J., & Robinson, R. (1988). Effects of extended in-service on secondary teachers’ use ofcontent reading instructional strategies. Journal of Research and Development in Education,21(3), 65–70.

Wilson, E., Konopak, B., & Readance, J. E. (1991). Examining content area reading beliefs,decisions and instruction: A case of an English teacher. In C. Kinzer & D. Leu (Eds.), Literacyresearch, theory, and practice: Views from many perspectives. Forty-first yearbook of theNational Reading Conference (pp. 475–482). Chicago, IL: National Reading Conference.

Wolf, S. A., Carey, A. A., & Mieras, E. I. (1996). “What is this literachurch stuff anyway?”: Preser-vice teachers’ growth in understanding children’s literary response. Reading Research Quarterly,31, 130–157.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Le

Moy

ne C

olle

ge]

at 1

3:51

09

Oct

ober

201

4