University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Uneven development of perspectives and practice: Preservice teachers' literacy learning in an era of high-stakes accountability

(USC Thesis Other)

Uneven development of perspectives and practice: Preservice teachers' literacy learning in an era of high-stakes accountability

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

UNEVEN DEVELOPMENT OF PERSPECTIVES AND PRACTICE:

PRESERVICE TEACHERS’ LITERACY LEARNING IN AN
ERA OF HIGH-STAKES ACCOUNTABILITY

by

Kathryn Scott Struthers

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(EDUCATION)

May 2015

Copyright 2015 Kathryn Scott Struthers

ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am indebted to many people for supporting me along this graduate school journey, and
particularly the writing of this dissertation. Of course, I would not have a dissertation at all were
it not for the wonderful participants in this study who generously shared their thoughts and
opinions with me and graciously accepted me into their classrooms. I am so grateful they were
willing to spend time with me and allow me to learn from them. I also want to thank my former
students at P.S./M.S. 3 in New York City, who initially inspired me to pursue a Ph.D.
I am exceedingly grateful for the steadfast support of my advisor and dissertation
committee chair, Jamy Stillman. Jamy repeatedly went “above and beyond” her call of duty as an
advisor, spending an incredible amount of time and energy guiding me through the graduate
school maze and, especially, the dissertation writing process. She has led by example, showing
care, displaying generosity, providing encouragement, setting high standards, scaffolding my
learning, and demonstrating integrity every step of the way. Thank you for being a wonderful
mentor; I could not have done this without you. I am also grateful to my dissertation committee
members, Patricia Burch and Elaine Kaplan. Your support of my work, interest in my
dissertation, and insightful feedback has meant so much to me. Lauren Anderson also deserves a
special thank-you, for her insights, humor, thought-provoking questions, sharp editing eye, and
words of encouragement. I would be remiss not to mention my advisors from Bank Street
College of Education as well – Adrianne Kamsler and Peggy McNamara – for their support and
guidance shaped my professional “trajectory” in education from the beginning. I am so fortunate
to have these scholars and teacher educators as mentors, and I hope to one day live up to the
examples they have set for me.

iii
I would also like to thank my graduate school colleagues and friends, particularly the
women of the Sunday Night Dinner crew: Caitlin Farrell, Ayesha Hashim, Alice Huguet, Holly
Kosciewicz, Tracey Weinstein, and Stephani Wrabel – you all made this process much more
bearable, and even enjoyable. I want to especially thank Caitlin and Alice for letting me
dominate our writing group meetings over the last few months and for providing me with critical
feedback in the kindest of ways. Thanks are also due to my fellow teacher education graduate
student peers, John Beltramo and Joyce Gomez, for always providing help and a listening ear. I
am also grateful for my “teacher friends,” who continue to inspire me to work in education and
who have supported me over the years, in particular Jessica Brucia, Eileen Cruz, Bridget Garrity,
Rebecca Pontieri, Jennifer Pullara, and Grace Snodgrass.
I am especially grateful for the support of my wonderful and loving husband and partner,
Faraaz Ahmed. Thank you for always believing in me and pushing me to keep going throughout
this process. While writing my dissertation, there were many days when you were the only
person with whom I interacted, and there is no one else I’d rather be with. Thank you for keeping
me grounded. I love you.
Lastly, I am most grateful to my parents, Glenda and Richard Struthers. My parents have
provided me with unconditional love and unwavering support throughout my entire life and my
many endeavors. In this most recent graduate school undertaking, their support has come in the
form of orchestrating two cross-country moves, editing my qualifying exam, and restocking my
empty refrigerator, to name just a few examples. I would not have been able to do any of this
without you. I dedicate this dissertation to you.

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgments ii

List of Tables vii

List of Figures viii

Abstract ix

Chapter One: Statement of the Problem 1
Literacy and High-stakes Accountability Policy 7
High-stakes Accountability Policy 9
The Impact of High-stakes Accountability Policy on Literacy Teaching 17
and Learning
The Role of Teacher Quality 19
Study Summary and Contribution 22

Chapter Two: Review of Relevant Literature and Theoretical Framework 27
Challenges of Preparing Literacy Teachers 28
Learning to Teach in Culturally Responsive Ways 32
The Role of Preservice Teachers’ Field-based Learning 35
The “Triad” and Challenges to Facilitating PSTs’ Field-based Learning 36
Policy and PSTs’ Field-based Learning 40
Teacher Educator Mediation and PSTs’ Field-based Learning 42
Summary 44
Relationships of Knowledge and Practice Framework 46
Knowledge-for-Practice 46
Knowledge-in-Practice 47
Knowledge-of-Practice 47
Affordances and Limitations of the Relationships of Knowledge and 48
Practice Framework
Cultural Historical Activity Theory 50
Components of an Activity System 51
Appropriation 52
Mediation 53
Re-mediation 55
Affordances of CHAT 55
Limitations of CHAT 57
CHAT and Teacher Learning 58
Summary and Conclusion 59

v

Chapter Three: Research Methodology and Methods 61
A Qualitative Approach 61
Feminist Methodology 62
Instrumental Nested Case Study 65
Sample Selection 67
Data Sources 72
Data Analysis 81
Trustworthiness 84
Ethics and Reciprocity 85
Summary 86

Chapter Four: Introduction of Learners and Contexts 88
University of the West Coast’s Teacher Education Program 88
TEP-aligned Literacy Pedagogy 89
University-based Teacher Educators and TEP Literacy Coursework 92
Case Study Participants and Student Teaching Contexts 97
Molly Palazzo 97
Megan Grady 103
Emily Scott 109
Conclusion 113

Chapter Five: The Development of Preservice Teachers’ Perspectives on Literacy and 115
Literacy Instructional Practice
Revisiting CHAT and Appropriation 116
“Degrees of Appropriation” 117
Development of Preservice Teachers’ Perspectives on Literacy Teaching and 121
Learning
Broadened Conceptions of Literacy, to Varying Degrees 122
From Generating Students’ Interest in Curriculum to Leveraging 126
Students’ Strengths as Curriculum
“Mixing it Up”: Varying Pedagogy and “Supplementing” Mandated 131
Curriculum
Summary 137
Development of Preservice Teachers’ Literacy Instructional Practice within 137
Student Teaching Placements
Majority of PSTs’ Lessons Reflect Lack of Appropriation of TEP-aligned 138
Literacy Pedagogy
Lessons with Elements of TEP-aligned Literacy Pedagogy Still Fell Short 149
of TEP Ideal
Conclusion 158

vi

Chapter Six: Factors that Mediated the Development of Preservice Teachers’ Perspectives 160
on Literacy and Literacy Instructional Practice
Summary of Previous Findings 161
Dimensions of the Current Policy Climate Exacerbate the TEP-Field Disconnect 162
Treasures and edTPA Requirements Shape Instructional Practice 164
Teacher Lay-offs Made it More Difficult to Find CTs with TEP-aligned 168
Literacy Perspectives and Practices
School Tracking Practices Constrain Opportunities to Teach Literacy in 172
TEP-aligned Ways
Field Experiences Sometimes “Trump” the TEP in the Development of PSTs’ 176
Perspectives on Literacy Instructional Practice
What PSTs Do (and Do Not Do) Shapes Perspectives on Instruction 177
PSTs’ Critique of Literacy Instruction Varied 181
Teacher Educator Mediation is Limited and (Sometimes Purposefully) Minor 185
Nonexistent, Procedural, or Superficial Feedback 186
Potential Underlying Factors Behind Limited and Superficial Teacher 190
Educator Mediation
A Potentially Beneficial Instance of Explicit Teacher Educator Modeling 193
Conclusion 196

Chapter Seven: Discussion and Implications 198
Summary of Major Findings 199
Connecting Findings to Research and Theory 204
Informing Research on PSTs’ Field-Based Learning 204
CHAT, Degrees of Appropriation, and Relationships of Knowledge and 211
Practice: Affordances of Utilizing Complementary Frameworks
Implications for Programs and Practice 214
Implications for Teacher Education Programs 215
Implications for Teacher Educator Practice 218
Recommendations for Future Research 221

Bibliography 225

Appendices 253
Appendix A: PST Interview Protocol #1: Background 253
Appendix B: PST Interview Protocol #2: TEP Coursework and First Student 255
Teaching Placement
Appendix C: PST Interview Protocol #3: TEP Coursework and Second Student 259
Teaching Placement
Appendix D: Literacy Methods Course Instructor Interview Protocol 263
Appendix E: Faculty Advisor and Critical Media Literacy Course Instructor 265
Interview Protocol
Appendix F: Cooperating Teacher Interview Protocol 268
Appendix G: List of Codes 271

vii
LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1: Summary of Participants’ Demographic Information 71

Table 3.2: Summary of Data Sources and Time Collected 73

Table 4.1: Guiding Concepts and Instructional Characteristics of TEP-aligned Literacy 91
Pedagogy

Table 4.2: Summary of Demographic Information of PSTs’ Student Teaching Placements 101

viii
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1: CHAT Activity System 52

Figure 5.1: CHAT Activity System 117

Figure 5.2: Five Degrees of Appropriation 118
Figure 5.3: Demonstrated Degrees of Appropriation of PSTs’ Perspectives on Literacy and 121
Literacy Instructional Practice

Figure 6.1: Spectrum of Approaches to Literacy Instruction and Range of Disconnect 163
Between TEPs and K-12 Classrooms

ix
ABSTRACT
Literacy has long served as a gate-keeping mechanism for higher education and life
opportunities for students from historically marginalized groups, and recent high-stakes
accountability policies have intensified these tendencies. Unfortunately, these policies have been
shown to negatively affect teachers’ literacy instruction, particularly in high-needs, urban
schools that tend to serve students from historically marginalized groups. The pedagogical
practices resulting from these policies – which tend to emphasize rote memorization of discrete
skills at the expense of higher-order thinking tasks that center on meaning-making – are
particularly problematic for these students, as research has demonstrated that culturally and
linguistically diverse students, especially, learn optimally from literacy instruction that
emphasizes meaning, communication, and comprehension.
In light of this, there is also reason to be concerned about preservice teachers (PSTs)
preparing to work in high-needs schools since high-stakes accountability demands may diminish
their access to learning experiences that allow them to see and practice literacy instructional
approaches that research has shown to be necessary and beneficial for students from historically
marginalized groups, specifically. Given the persistent policy press to make teacher education
more clinical, PSTs preparing to teach in high-needs schools stand to spend increasingly more
time in K-12 classrooms affected by high-stakes accountability policies, rendering it critical to
understand how field experiences influence PSTs’ literacy learning in these contexts. Yet, little is
currently known about the process of learning to teach literacy to students from historically
marginalized groups and how various contextual factors – such as the policy conditions in K-12
classrooms, TEP coursework, teacher educators, and so forth – interact to shape PSTs’ literacy
learning in high-needs, urban schools.

x
To explore this topic, I conducted a qualitative nested case study of three PSTs enrolled
in an urban-focused, social justice-oriented teacher education program (TEP). The study took a
holistic, ecological approach to investigating PSTs’ learning around literacy over time and across
learning contexts. Specifically, I explored the development of PSTs’ perspectives on literacy
teaching and learning alongside the development of PSTs’ literacy instructional practice. I
investigated PSTs’ learning across TEP literacy coursework and their student teaching
placements in high-needs, urban schools, paying particular attention to the factors that mediated
their development within and across these different contexts. I utilized Cultural Historical
Activity Theory – a strand of sociocultural learning theory that emphasizes the importance of
context and culture in learning – to guide the exploration and analysis of PSTs’ literacy learning.
Data collection over the course of one academic year included multiple interviews with PSTs,
interviews with university- and K-12 classroom-based teacher educators, observations of TEP
literacy courses, observations of PSTs’ literacy teaching during student teaching, and analysis of
documents related to PSTs’ learning around literacy (e.g., TEP course syllabi, PSTs’ student
teaching lesson plans, etc.).
Findings indicate that throughout the program, PSTs’ perspectives on literacy tended to
evidence a movement toward coherence with the TEP’s sociocultural and culturally responsive
approach to literacy teaching and learning. However, PSTs’ literacy lessons more often
suggested that PSTs had not taken up the pedagogical practices promoted by the TEP. Factors
that seemed to mediate PSTs’ development included features of the broader context as well as
aspects that varied by individuals. For instance, the conditions of the current policy climate
seemed to exacerbate the disconnect between what the TEP was espousing and what PSTs were
experiencing in the field, and teacher educators often did not effectively facilitate PSTs’ field-

xi
based learning within and around this disconnect. These factors contributed to PSTs’ difficulty
teaching literacy in ways that reflected TEP principles. Additionally, individual PSTs’ tendency
toward criticality as well as the relationships between PSTs and their cooperating teachers
mediated PSTs’ development in unique ways, leading to more or fewer opportunities for
particular PSTs to practice teaching literacy in TEP-aligned ways. Implications of the study
include tempering the policy emphasis on more field experiences for PSTs. Instead, TEPs might
focus on providing PSTs’ with complementary field experiences, coupled with more intentional
teacher educator mediation, in order to further PSTs’ literacy learning in individualized, context-
specific ways.

1
CHAPTER ONE
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
“Here are your tests for today,” the testing coordinator and literacy coach announced as
she plunked a large stack of exams on the filing cabinet inside the door to my fourth-grade
classroom. On top of the exams was a memo I had become accustomed to seeing on a daily
basis; it directed teachers to administer a previous year’s state standardized English Language
Arts (ELA) exam, “under testing conditions.” As interpreted by administrators at my school,
“under testing conditions” meant that students’ desks had to be moved into rows, the exam had
to be timed, students had to work silently and independently, and teachers had to refrain from
offering students any assistance. Administrators walked through the hallways during these
practice exams to ensure that these conditions were implemented in all classrooms. Notably,
although administrators mandated and monitored administering the exam “under testing
conditions,” they did so without regard for modification; as a result, English learners and
students receiving special education services took these practice exams without the necessary
modifications (e.g., extended time, separate location) in place.
My administrators required that I consecutively administer a three-day practice exam
every day during my literacy block for six straight weeks. My literacy coach instructed me to
review the exam with the whole class “right away” after the students completed it. I was also
expected to utilize two different “test preparation” workbooks with the students, which we
needed to finish before the actual state exam, which, at the time, was administered in early
January. When I commented that there was no time left in the school day to teach anything
besides ELA, and ELA test preparation specifically, my literacy coach replied, “Yep. Right now
you should only be teaching ELA. After the ELA test, it should be all math prep.” There was no

2
mention of teaching literacy or mathematics outside of test preparation, let alone teaching other
subjects, such as science or social studies.
I knew these teaching practices – daily exams, repeated drilling of multiple-choice
strategies, formulaic essay writing, whole-class instruction based on the test as opposed to
students’ needs and interests, focusing most of my attention on students closest to reaching the
“proficiency” bar, and so forth – were harmful for my students. Unfortunately, as a 22-year-old
new teacher in my first job out of college, I did not feel comfortable defying my school leaders,
so I continued administering the practice exams and completing the test preparation workbooks.
Additionally, since I was alternatively certified (meaning I did not matriculate through a
traditional teacher preparation program) and did not have an education background, I did not yet
know enough about teaching and learning to clearly articulate an alternative view of effective
literacy instruction. What I did know, however, was that I was not teaching my students well; I
felt disappointed and frustrated, but also powerless and unqualified to make meaningful changes
in my classroom.
Although the above anecdote reflects my own experience teaching in a low-performing
school in New York City, ample research indicates that the conditions I described resonate with
those experienced by many teachers and students in this era of high-stakes accountability (e.g.,
Anagnostopoulos, 2003; Barksdale-Ladd & Thomas, 2000; Booher-Jennings, 2005; Crocco &
Costigan, 2007; McCarthy, 2008; Valli & Buese, 2007; Valli & Chambliss, 2007; Wong,
Anagnostopoulos, Rutledge, & Edwards, 2003). High-stakes accountability, as established most
notably by the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), the 2001 reauthorization of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), refers to the contemporary educational policy
emphasis on using students’ standardized test scores to reward and sanction schools. Since the

3
consequences for students performing poorly are severe – including sanctions that range from
transferring individual students away from lower-performing schools to restructuring schools
completely – the tests are considered “high stakes.” The underlying theory behind high-stakes
accountability policy is that student achievement will increase when districts, schools, and
teachers are held accountable for students’ performance on assessments that are aligned with
rigorous academic standards (Smith & O’Day, 1991).
While some evidence suggests that student achievement has increased moderately since
the implementation of NCLB (e.g., Braun, 2004; Chiang, 2009; Dee & Jacob, 2011; Figlio &
Rouse, 2006; Hanushek & Raymond, 2005), gaps in achievement between groups (e.g., racial,
socioeconomic) have not decreased significantly (Barton & Coley, 2009; Hanushek & Raymond,
2005; Ladd & Lauen, 2010; Lee & Wong, 2004), and, in some cases, have increased (Reardon,
2011). Additionally, the adverse effects of accountability policies, such as the excessive and
mandated test preparation that I – like many other teachers – experienced, tend to be most
pronounced in low-performing schools where the threat of sanctions is imminent (e.g., Diamond
& Spillane 2004; Gutiérrez, 2006). That many low-performing schools overwhelmingly serve
students from historically marginalized groups and/or low-income backgrounds raises additional
concerns; indeed, research increasingly suggests that these kinds of educational conditions have
particularly detrimental effects on students from historically marginalized groups (e.g., Gándara
& Hopkins, 2010; Gutiérrez, Morales, & Martinez, 2009; McNeil & Valenzuela, 2001). For
example, such conditions may further limit students’ access to high-status knowledge and
meaningful learning opportunities (e.g., Anagnostopoulos, 2003; Gándara et al., 2010; Pacheco,
2010; Valli & Chambliss, 2007) – an outcome that violates the very aims of standards-based

4
reform (Smith & O’Day, 1991) and the rhetoric of ‘equal opportunity’ and ‘leaving no child
behind.’
As an educator committed to equity and social justice, I join many scholars (e.g., Gándara
& Hopkins, 2010; Gutiérrez, 2006; McNeil & Valenzuela, 2001; Orfield & Wald, 2000;
Pacheco, 2010) in finding the current educational policy climate and its repercussions in
classrooms – particularly classrooms in low-performing schools – highly problematic and
potentially harmful to students from historically marginalized groups, especially. The climate is
also problematic for teachers in low-performing schools, as they are often mandated to
implement literacy instruction that goes against their professional principles and often does not
meet their students’ learning needs (e.g., Gutiérrez, 2006; MacGillivray, Ardell, Curwen, &
Palma, 2004; Pacheco, 2010; Pease-Alvarez & Samway, 2008). Preservice teachers (PSTs) who
are preparing to work in “high-needs”
1
schools face particularly challenging conditions, as they
often find themselves contending with accountability pressures while still learning how to teach
(e.g., Achinstein & Ogawa, 2006; Achinstein, Ogawa, & Speiglman, 2004; Anderson &
Stillman, 2010, 2011; Grossman & Thompson, 2004; Picower, 2011; Selwyn, 2007).
PSTs’ learning, as it relates to literacy specifically, is of particular and acute concern for
two main reasons: first, teaching literacy is inherently complex, and thus teaching literacy is
challenging (e.g., Duffy & Hoffman, 1999; Hoffman & Pearson, 2000); and second, from an
instructional perspective, high-stakes accountability policies have affected literacy as much or
more than any other content area (e.g., Luna & Turner, 2001; Pacheco, 2010; Strickland et al.,
2001; Valli & Chambliss, 2007). Precisely because teaching literacy is so complex, it is crucial

1
I use the term “high-needs” to describe schools that are under-resourced; for example, they may
have a high proportion of inexperienced teachers, lack adequate supplies, and/or have subpar
facilities. While these schools tend to be in low-income communities and primarily serve
students of color, it is not their location or student population that makes them “high-needs.”

5
for PSTs to have field-based experiences in classrooms where teachers are implementing literacy
pedagogy that is known to be effective for students from historically marginalized groups.
However, the current policy climate is rendering it more and more unlikely for novices to see
effective, research-based literacy practices implemented with students from historically
marginalized groups in high-needs schools (e.g., Anderson & Stillman, 2010, 2011; Castro,
2010; Cherian, 2007; Ferguson & Brink, 2004). These conditions raise questions about how
PSTs preparing to work with students from historically marginalized groups learn to teach
literacy – and what learning experiences are most optimal for them – in the current policy
climate.
The following reports on a dissertation study of preservice elementary teachers’ learning
about literacy teaching in this era of high-stakes accountability. Specifically, the study explored
how PSTs preparing to teach students from historically marginalized groups – and in urban,
high-needs schools, specifically – learn to teach literacy over time and across contexts, all of
which are framed by the current policy climate. The study focused on the participants’
development of literacy pedagogy specifically; this focus honors literacy’s role as a critical
gatekeeper for educational access and opportunity for students from historically marginalized
groups (e.g., Freire & Macedo, 1987; Heath, 1991) and reflects the heightened attention
contemporary educational policy (e.g., NCLB) pays to literacy vis-à-vis other content areas.
With this study, I aimed to understand how contexts, or contextual factors – including local,
state, and national education policy, TEP coursework, student teaching structures and practices,
school and community conditions, teacher educator mediation, and so forth – shaped the
development of PSTs’ literacy practice.

6
Understanding context is of crucial importance for two main reasons. First, according to
sociocultual learning theory, learning is invariably situated in context; since contextual factors
always mediate individuals’ learning, it is not possible to understand learning and development
without understanding the sociocultural context of that learning (e.g., Cole, 1996; Cole &
Engeström, 1993; Rogoff, 2003). Second, while the current educational context of high-stakes
accountability is influencing students and teachers in high-needs schools, relatively little is
known about how the contemporary policy climate is affecting PSTs’ learning (e.g., Anderson &
Stillman, 2013b; Clift & Brady, 2005; Hollins, 2011; Zeichner, 2011). Advancing understanding
of how context mediates PST learning can provide useful information to TEPs that aim to
prepare teachers to work with students from historically marginalized groups in this current era
of accountability.
Specifically, the study sought answers to the following research questions about PSTs
enrolled in a social justice-oriented TEP that aims to prepare teachers to work with students from
historically marginalized groups in high-needs, urban schools:
1) How do PSTs’ perspectives on literacy teaching and learning develop over time and
across contexts (i.e., during methods courses, during student teaching)?
2) How does PSTs’ literacy instructional practice develop over time and across contexts
(i.e., during methods courses, during student teaching)?
3) What factors mediate the development of PSTs’ perspectives on literacy teaching and
learning and PSTs’ literacy instructional practice and in what ways (e.g., course
assignments, TEP context, teacher educator mediation, field placements, policy
climate, etc.)?

7
The dissertation consists of seven chapters. In Chapter One, I discuss the contemporary
education landscape in more detail. I focus on the high-stakes accountability policy climate
surrounding literacy, as well as the current emphases on teacher quality and teacher education. I
argue that PSTs’ development of literacy pedagogy for students from historically marginalized
groups is an area of particular interest and concern in the struggle for educational equity and
opportunity for all students. In Chapter Two, I situate the study in the research literature on
literacy teacher preparation – and field-based learning opportunities in particular – and identify
gaps in the knowledge base that this study aims to fill. I delineate Cultural Historical Activity
Theory as a primary guiding theoretical framework that offers unique affordances for studies like
this one, which seek to address context and culture in nuanced ways. In Chapter Three, I outline
the methodological approaches that guided the empirical study, specifically, I utilized a
qualitative instrumental nested case study design to capture with complexity preservice literacy
teachers’ learning over time and across contexts. In Chapter Four, I describe the study’s
participants and their learning contexts – the TEP, their student teaching placements – in detail. I
present the study’s findings in Chapters Five and Six, focusing on the development of the PSTs
literacy perspectives and literacy instructional practice in Chapter Five and the factors that
mediated the PSTs’ development in Chapter Six. Lastly, in Chapter Seven, I discuss the study’s
findings in relation to existing literature and theory and address the study’s implications for
policy and practice. I conclude with recommendations for future research.
Literacy and High-stakes Accountability Policy
Literacy has always been critical for educational access and long-term opportunities for
students from historically marginalized groups and low-income backgrounds (e.g., Freire &
Macedo, 1987; Heath, 1991). Over the past few decades, educational policy – most notably

8
NCLB – has intensified the emphasis on literacy achievement by requiring an unprecedented
level of accountability from schools that fail to meet learning targets on annual standardized
English Language Arts exams. These unprecedented accountability-related demands have been
shown to impact teachers’ literacy instruction negatively, particularly in schools that are labeled
“low-performing” and thus experience significant pressure to raise students’ test scores (e.g., W.
Au, 2007; Pacheco, 2010; Stillman, 2009, 2011; Valli & Buese, 2007; Valli & Chambliss, 2007).
As noted above, schools labeled low-performing tend to serve large concentrations of students
from historically marginalized groups, rendering such students’ exposure to compromised and/or
substandard literacy pedagogical practices more likely than students from “mainstream”
backgrounds attending schools in middle-class areas (e.g., Diamond & Spillane 2004; Gutiérrez,
2006; McNeil & Valenzuela, 2001; Orfield & Wald, 2000).
These pedagogical practices – which tend to emphasize rote memorization of discrete
skills at the expense of higher-order thinking tasks that center on meaning-making – are
particularly problematic for students from historically marginalized groups, because research has
demonstrated that English learners (ELs) and other culturally and linguistically diverse students
learn optimally from literacy instruction that emphasizes meaning, communication, and
comprehension (e.g., K.H. Au, 1998, 2001, 2003; Cummins, 2005; Freire & Macedo, 1987;
Gutiérrez, Morales, & Martinez, 2009). Students’ literacy learning, language acquisition, and
access to high-status knowledge have therefore been negatively affected by pedagogical
practices encouraged by the high-stakes accountability climate (e.g., Gándara et al., 2010;
Gutiérrez, Asato, Santos, & Gotanda, 2002; Pacheco, 2010; Valli & Chambliss, 2007). In
addition, there is reason to be concerned about the next generation of teachers preparing to work
in high-needs schools who may – because of this policy climate – have limited access to learning

9
experiences that allow them to see and practice approaches to literacy teaching that research has
shown to be necessary and beneficial for students from historically marginalized groups (e.g.,
Anderson & Stillman, 2010, 2011; Castro, 2010; Cherian, 2007; Ferguson & Brink, 2004). In
particular, PSTs enrolled in specialized, urban-focused TEPs are likely to complete their
fieldwork requirements (e.g., student teaching) in schools where reductive literacy pedagogical
practices are prevalent, thereby potentially compromising PSTs’ learning about effective literacy
pedagogy for students from historically marginalized groups (e.g., Anderson & Stillman, 2010,
2011; Castro, 2010; Cherian, 2007; Ferguson & Brink, 2004). In this section, I discuss influential
high-stakes accountability policies and their impact on literacy teaching and learning in more
detail.
High-stakes Accountability Policy

Over the past decade, high-stakes accountability policy has had a substantial impact on
teaching and learning in low-performing schools that tend to serve large concentrations of
students from historically marginalized groups, since the pressure to avoid sanctions is most
acute in these schools (e.g., Diamond & Spillane, 2004; Gutiérrez, 2006). The conditions that
accompany high-stakes accountability policy also likely permeate the environments where PSTs
preparing to work with students from historically marginalized groups learn to teach, as PSTs
may complete their clinical experiences in high-needs schools affected by the policy climate
(e.g., Achinstein et al., 2004; Anderson & Stillman, 2010, 2011; Selwyn, 2007).
Although high-stakes accountability policies have influenced instruction in many subject
areas and grade levels, I focus primarily on elementary literacy for three reasons: becoming
literate is foundational to elementary school students’ future learning and education (e.g., K.H.
Au, 1998, 2003; Heath, 1991); accountability policies have targeted elementary literacy (e.g.,

10
Cummins, 2007; Gutiérrez, 2006; U.S. Department of Education, 2002); and the impacts of these
policies have been shown to be particularly harmful for elementary school students from
historically marginalized groups (e.g., Gándara & Hopkins, 2010; Gutiérrez, 2006; McNeil &
Valenzuela, 2001; Orfield & Wald, 2000; Pacheco, 2010). Below, I describe policies that pertain
to elementary literacy and the impact these policies have had on teaching and learning,
particularly in low-performing schools that predominantly serve students from historically
marginalized groups (e.g., Diamond & Spillane, 2004; Gutiérrez, 2006).
No Child Left Behind. No Child Left Behind, the 2001 reauthorization of ESEA,
represents a marked shift in the involvement of the federal government in education policy. In an
effort to increase student achievement, the Title I clause of NCLB requires states to develop
rigorous learning standards and administer standardized exams in reading and math annually in
grades three through eight; biennial science exams are also required but are not counted as part
of a school’s performance status under the law (U.S. Department of Education, 2002). In order to
ensure that schools are held accountable for student performance, NCLB attaches a system of
rewards and sanctions to the results of the standardized tests. It also requires that assessment data
must be disaggregated by several subgroups: race, English proficiency, disability status, and
socioeconomic status. If a school fails to make “adequate yearly progress” toward improvement
benchmarks for any subgroup, it is subjected to increasingly severe sanctions, from offering
students transfers to higher-performing schools to completely “restructuring” the school (U.S.
Department of Education, 2002).
2

2
Currently, many states are receiving waivers out of some of the key components of NCLB,
most notably the requirement of 100% proficiency by 2014. Although ESEA is up for renewal
and revisions are proposed, no changes to the NCLB legislation have occurred at the time of
writing. Additionally, even if changes are made, high-stakes accountability components will
likely remain.

11
The state standardized exams are considered “high stakes” because the consequences of
students not performing well are substantial. In addition to high stakes for schools, the exams
also frequently have high stakes for students (e.g., grade promotion, tracking) and, more
recently, for teachers (e.g., teacher evaluation). Since its inception, NCLB has specifically
targeted reading and English language arts as an area of primary concern for students across the
nation. In fact, the original legislation includes an entire section on primary reading and reading
instruction; it is the only subject matter that receives this much attention in the law. This section
of NCLB is known as Reading First.
Reading First. Reading First,
3
part of NCLB, provides grants to states to implement
reading programs for low-income students in kindergarten through third grade. The law
stipulates that these programs must be proven effective by “scientifically based reading research”
in order to ensure that all students can read at grade level no later than the end of third grade
(U.S. Department of Education, 2002). While this may sound promising, the government’s
definition of “scientifically based research” has proved to be extremely narrow, including only
studies that use “objective” measures that can “test the stated hypothesis” (U.S. Department of
Education, 2002). As a result, studies deemed “scientific” tend to be primarily those with
randomized control trials. This limited definition of scientific research and arguably biased
program approval process (e.g., Cummins, 2007) has led to the sole approval of programs that
emphasize “systematic phonics instruction” above other aspects of literacy instruction (e.g.,
reading comprehension, writing composition) (Cummins, 2007; U.S. Department of Education,
2002). The approved Reading First programs that focus on systematic phonics instruction also

3
Although funding for Reading First is not currently active, its inclusion in NCLB was a marked
turning point in federal involvement in classroom literacy instruction; its legacy lives on with
scripted literacy programs that were initially adopted with Reading First grants.

12
tend to be scripted and teacher-centered, consisting mainly of whole-class instruction that does
not take students’ needs into account (e.g., Cummins, 2007; Gerstl-Pepin & Woodside-Jiron,
2005; Harper, de Jong, & Platt, 2008; Pacheco, 2010).
Not meeting students’ needs is particularly problematic for students from historically
marginalized groups due to a long history of schools devaluing these students’ home languages
and cultural practices (e.g., Gutiérrez et al., 2009; Hollins, 2008; Ladson-Billings, 2006; Oakes,
Lipton, Anderson, & Stillman, 2013). In addition to being disrespectful and dehumanizing,
students’ learning is compromised when their home languages and cultures are devalued, as new
learning builds on prior knowledge and experience and happens through linguistic, social, and
cultural practices (e.g., Cole, 1985; Cole & Engeström, 1993; Gutiérrez & Rogoff, 2003; Rogoff,
2003; Vygotsky, 1978). When students are robbed of the opportunity to learn and communicate
through familiar sociocultural practices, their school and academic learning is inhibited (e.g.,
Gutiérrez et al., 2002; Gutiérrez et al., 2009)
Reading First, and its subsequent promotion of systematic phonics instruction, reflects a
long-standing debate regarding the “best” way to teach children how to read. This debate
permeated the literacy education landscape for the entire twentieth century – and before
(Robinson, Baker, & Clegg, 1998). In particular, the proper place of phonics – instruction in
sound-symbol correspondences (i.e., letters and the sounds they make) – in reading instruction
featured prominently in the so-called “reading wars” (Chall, 1967) of the twentieth century
(Robinson et al., 1998). Despite ample research showing there is no “perfect method” for
teaching literacy but rather it is the teacher and her expertise that matters most for student
learning (Duffy & Hoffman, 1999), these debates persist. Although there is a certain degree of
nuance within the debates about teaching literacy, the current debate can be categorized as

13
having two sides: proponents of meaning-based instruction and advocates of code-based
instruction.
On one side of the debate are proponents of meaning-based instruction that places
meaning and understanding at the center of literacy teaching (e.g., K.H. Au, 1998; Clay, 1998;
Neuman, 2010; Neuman & Bredekamp, 2000). According to this view, literacy learning is, at its
core, a meaning-making endeavor that develops through communication and comprehension;
becoming literate is not seen as the end result of mastering a set of skills but instead
encompasses a much deeper process rooted in sociocultural understanding and development
(e.g., K.H. Au, 1998; Clay, 1998; Neuman, 2010; Neuman & Bredekamp, 2000). Meaning-
centered approaches frequently emphasize student ownership of literacy by incorporating
authentic literacy activities (e.g., reading about a topic of interest, writing about a personal
experience), utilizing multicultural literature, attending to community issues, and organizing
class work in a culturally responsive manner (K.H. Au, 1998, 2003). Though often misconstrued
by proponents of code-based approaches, meaning-based approaches also highlight the
importance of explicit skill instruction, particularly as children from historically marginalized
groups may benefit from explicit teaching of the dominant culture’s modes of discourse, or
“codes of power” (Delpit, 1988). Notably, however, and in contrast to code-based approaches,
this discrete skill instruction mostly occurs in the context of meaningful language and literacy
instruction and in relation to students’ developmental needs and strengths (K.H. Au, 1998, 2003).
On the other side of the debate, proponents of code-based instruction – also referred to as
“phonics first” – maintain that students need explicit instruction in phonemic awareness and
phonics in order to master “the basics” of reading and writing before they can engage in higher-
order processes (e.g., Ehri et al., 2001; Moats, 2004; Perfetti, 2007). In other words, literacy

14
learning is viewed as the cumulative acquisition of discrete skills, typically building from part
(e.g., letter sounds) to whole (e.g., evaluating an author’s argument). Frequently, phonological
awareness lessons in code-based literacy classrooms are taught outside the context of
meaningful, authentic literacy activities as phonics is drilled for rote memorization as opposed to
meaning-making purposes (e.g., Cummins, 2007; Gándara, 2000; Moll & Gonzalez, 2004;
Pacheco, 2010; Pease-Alvarez, Samway, & Cifka-Herrera, 2010). While mastering sound-
symbol correspondence is certainly one aspect of becoming a proficient reader and writer,
research has shown that code-based approaches are particularly harmful for students from
culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds because they tend to deny students access to
high-status knowledge and learning opportunities, such as content-area expertise and critical-
thinking endeavors (e.g., Gándara, 2000; Gutiérrez et al., 2002; Gutiérrez, 2006; Teale, Paciga,
& Hoffman, 2007).
Additionally, code-based approaches are rooted in a theory that posits learning occurs
through trained – and then memorized – responses to stimuli; the individual learner, the content
of the learning material, and the context of the individual’s learning are deemed unimportant in
this view. However, scholars of sociocultural learning theory have long argued for the
importance of culture and context in learning, especially for students from historically
marginalized groups and particularly in the area of literacy, where language, comprehension, and
meaning-making are central (e.g., K.H. Au, 2001; Gay, 2002, 2010; Gutiérrez & Rogoff, 2003;
Hollins, 2008; Ladson-Billings, 1995a, 1995b, 2009; Moll & Gonzalez, 2004). In short, code-
based approaches mirror the notion that learning occurs in a decontextualized “vacuum,” despite
ample research that shows how critical cultural and contextual factors are for learning (e.g., Cole,
1996; Rogoff, 2003).

15
While these debates have raged among literacy professionals and policymakers for many
years, Reading First is a particularly powerful federal policy in that it aligns predominantly with
a particular view of literacy learning (i.e., code-based literacy learning) and “link[s] the
curricular materials to the use of progress monitoring assessment … [and] provide[s] stronger
guidance about how curricular materials should be used” (Coburn, Pearson, & Woulfin, 2011, p.
564). In low-income schools receiving Reading First grants, these strict and comprehensive
requirements send powerful messages to teachers and can severely limit teachers’ autonomy
when it comes to making pedagogical decisions for the students in their classrooms. As a result,
low-income schools required to implement Reading First programs are arguably increasing the
pedagogical divide between low-income and higher-income students, with low-income students
receiving mostly code-based instruction and higher-income students receiving mostly meaning-
based pedagogy that includes instruction in reading comprehension, content knowledge, and
writing (Cummins, 2007; Teale et al., 2007). These tendencies perpetuate – and potentially
exacerbate – the long acknowledged disparities in curricular and instructional rigor provided to
students from low-income backgrounds and historically marginalized groups compared to
students from middle-class and “mainstream” backgrounds (e.g., Anyon, 1981; Dreeben &
Gamoran, 1986; Oakes, 2005). While Reading First has shaped reading instruction in K-3
classrooms in many schools serving students from low-income backgrounds, there are additional
policy areas that further affect ELs specifically.
Restrictive language policies. In addition to NCLB, state-level education policies
compound the impact of contemporary policy on the language and literacy education of students
from historically marginalized groups. For example, three states – California, Arizona, and
Massachusetts – have passed “restrictive language policies” that nearly eliminate bilingual

16
education and mandate “English-only” instruction for ELs, despite research that shows the
benefits of primary-language instruction (Gándara et al., 2010). The combination of NCLB and
California’s restrictive language policy – Proposition 227 – has been called the “perfect storm”
for ELs in that the federal government requires annual exams to demonstrate EL proficiency
while the state prohibits primary-language instruction; as a result, ELs end up being assessed in a
language they do not yet understand (Gándara & Baca, 2008). By not allowing children to learn
in their primary language, students are also denied the opportunity to draw on their complete
linguistic, cognitive, and sociocultural resources for academic learning (Gutiérrez et al., 2002).
As mentioned, sociocultural learning theory emphasizes the critical nature of social interactions
and cultural practices for learning (e.g., Cole, 1996; Cole & Engeström, 1993; Gutiérrez &
Rogoff, 2003; Rogoff, 2003; Vygotsky, 1978); when students cannot use their native language,
their learning opportunities are severely restricted, as their primary means of sense-making (i.e.,
language) has been taken away from them (e.g., Gándara & Hopkins, 2010; Gándara & Orfield,
2012; Gutiérrez et al., 2002).
Restrictive language policies, as well as Reading First and NCLB, have had substantial
impacts on literacy instruction for students from historically marginalized groups, and especially
ELs. In particular, they have limited students’ access to meaning-based approaches to literacy by
focusing on rote memorization of discrete skills in English (e.g., Gándara & Hopkins, 2010;
Menken, 2006; Olsen, 2007; Pacheco, 2010; Pease-Alvarez, et al., 2010). In short, these policies
are representative of what Gutiérrez and colleagues (2002) have referred to as “backlash
pedagogy,” or instruction that “does not harness diversity and difference as resources for
learning but rather regards them as problems to be eliminated or remediated” (p. 337).

17

The Impact of High-stakes Accountability Policy on Literacy Teaching and Learning
Although myriad complexities are involved in policy implementation, high-stakes
accountability policies have had a considerable influence on teachers and their classroom
practice (e.g., W. Au, 2007; Stillman, 2009, 2011; Valli & Buese, 2007). This is particularly true
in schools labeled low-performing that often serve large proportions of students from historically
marginalized groups (e.g., Diamond & Spillane, 2004; Gutiérrez, 2006). While the aim of
holding educators accountable for teaching rigorous academic content by implementing
standards-aligned assessments was to improve instruction and achievement (Smith & O’Day,
1991), many studies suggest this has not occurred.
For example, studies show, in many cases, that high-stakes accountability policy has led
to the narrowing of curriculum in order to prioritize tested subjects and topics (e.g., W. Au,
2007; Crocco & Costigan, 2007); to the lowering the rigor of instruction to focus on procedural
and rote skills (e.g., Anagnostopoulos, 2003; Barksdale-Ladd & Thomas, 2000; Faulkner &
Cook, 2006; Polikoff & Struthers, 2013; Wong et al., 2003); to greater engagement in “test
preparation” (e.g., answering multiple choice questions) at the expense of facilitating reading
comprehension or writing for multiple purposes (e.g., Luna & Turner, 2001; McCarthy, 2008;
Strickland et al., 2001; Valli & Chambliss, 2007); and to the targeting of instruction to students
on the cusp of passing the standardized exams in an effort to most efficiently improve the
school’s overall scores (e.g., Booher-Jennings, 2005; Hamilton & Berends, 2006). Although
there is some evidence of “curricular expansion” (W. Au, 2007) and increased alignment of
instruction with standards and assessments (Polikoff, 2012), most research suggests that –
especially in low-performing schools serving low-income students of color – high-stakes
accountability policies have not improved literacy instruction, and, in fact, may have decreased

18
its quality (e.g., Diamond & Spillane, 2004; Gándara, 2000; McNeil & Valenzuela, 2001; Orfield
& Wald, 2000; Pacheco, 2010).
Another instructional consequence of high-stakes accountability policies is the adoption
of scripted literacy curricula in many low-performing schools and districts. These prepackaged
curricular programs (e.g., Open Court Reading) purportedly prepare students to perform well on
standardized exams. They also tightly control teachers’ instruction by providing lesson “scripts”
for teachers; these scripts tell teachers what to do, read, and say in each day’s language arts
lessons (e.g., Gutiérrez, 2006). In schools affected by high-stakes accountability policies,
scripted programs often do not serve as a mere resource for teachers; rather, teachers are
expected to strictly implement the programs according to the set script and pacing guide
(MacGillivray et al., 2004; Gutiérrez, 2006). Scripted curriculum is arguably problematic as the
rigid implementation of lessons may limit the flexibility teachers need to address students’
individual needs and interests; this limited flexibility likewise undermines teachers’ expertise,
creativity, autonomy, and professionalism (e.g., Costigan, 2008; Crocco & Costigan, 2007;
MacGillivray et al., 2004; Pease-Alvarez & Samway, 2008). Scripted programs also tend to
follow a code-based approach to teaching literacy, which, as mentioned, limits students’
opportunities to engage in authentic, meaning-making classroom literacy activities (e.g.,
Gutiérrez, 2006; Pacheco, 2010; Pease-Alvarez et al., 2010).
Although many studies document the adverse instructional effects of high-stakes
accountability policies, fewer studies measure and report on student learning directly. The
research that does focus on student learning has yielded mixed results. Studies that suggest
moderate increases in student achievement after NCLB, for example, found most of these
improvements in mathematics, not reading (e.g., Dee & Jacob, 2011; Stullich, Eisner, McCrary,

19
& Roney, 2006). In the area of literacy, the long recognized “fourth-grade slump” (Chall, Jacobs,
& Baldwin, 1990) – the sudden dip in low-income students’ reading comprehension scores – has
persisted (e.g., Hirsch, 2003; National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2008). There is
reason to believe that the “backlash pedagogies” (Gutiérrez et al., 2002) described above – with
their predominate emphasis on phonics and decoding at the expense of comprehension,
vocabulary, and content-area instruction – are exacerbating disparities in comprehension (e.g.,
Cummins, 2007; Sanacore & Palumbo, 2009; Teale et al., 2007). Importantly, reading
achievement gaps between different groups of students have not narrowed significantly since the
onset of high-stakes accountability policies (Hanushek & Raymond, 2005; Ladd & Lauen, 2010;
Lee & Wong, 2004) and in some cases, have increased (Reardon, 2011). Overall, the research
base suggests that standards-based reform and accompanying high-stakes accountability policies
have not been beneficial for literacy teaching and learning of students from historically
marginalized groups (e.g., W. Au, 2007; Gutiérrez, 2006; Ladd & Lauen, 2010; McNeil &
Valenzuela, 2001; Orfield & Wald, 2000; Reardon, 2011).
The Role of Teacher Quality
Although many factors (e.g., economic, historical, political, social) contribute to
achievement gaps between different groups of students, research increasingly demonstrates that
teacher quality is critically important in improving student academic learning and performance,
particularly in the complex area of literacy (e.g., Darling-Hammond, 2000; Duffy & Hoffman,
1999; Hoffman & Pearson, 2000; Rivkin, Hanushek, & Kain, 2005). Indeed, although subsumed
in the broader discourse of high-stakes accountability, educational policy’s newfound emphasis
on teacher quality – at pre- and in-service levels – reflects this growing understanding. At the in-
service level, for example, NCLB requires that a “highly-qualified” teacher teach all students

20
(U.S. Department of Education, 2002); many states have also revamped their teacher evaluation
policies to include students’ standardized test scores in teachers’ evaluations (e.g., National
Council on Teacher Quality [NCTQ], 2011).
At the preservice level, policy has targeted teacher preparation, and specifically
university-based TEPs that are still responsible for preparing the majority of future teachers in
the United States. Much of the current public and policy discourse surrounding teacher education
consists of the message that TEPs are not doing an adequate job preparing effective teachers
(e.g., Duncan, 2010; Walsh, Glaser, & Wilcox, 2006). One criticism is that PSTs in TEPs do not
spend enough time in the “field” actually working with children and adolescents in school and
community settings. This criticism of TEPs being too focused on theory and not enough on
practice has led to an increased emphasis on clinical, or field, experiences in preservice teacher
education (e.g., American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education [AACTE], 2010;
National Council of Accreditation of Teacher Education [NCATE], 2010; National Research
Council [NRC], 2010).
The most common – nearly universal – clinical experience in TEPs is student teaching,
where PSTs spend multiple weeks in a cooperating teacher’s (CT’s) classroom and progressively
take over more of the teaching responsibilities (e.g., Cochran-Smith & Zeichner, 2005; Darling-
Hammond, 2006; Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005). Despite the ubiquity of student
teaching, relatively little is known about what PSTs actually learn from this experience
(Anderson & Stillman, 2013b), and questions remain about the types of field-based opportunities
that best contribute to the preparation of effective teachers for students from historically
marginalized groups (e.g., Anderson & Stillman, 2011; LaBoskey & Richert, 2002; Ronfeldt,
2012). Additionally, scholars have cautioned that “more” is not necessarily “better” in terms of

21
clinical experiences; simply increasing PSTs’ time in the field will not by itself produce highly
effective teachers (e.g., Zeichner, 2012). Merely increasing field experiences may be particularly
problematic for PSTs in specialized, urban-focused TEPs because they tend to complete their
field placements in classrooms where high-stakes accountability policy has led to reductive
literacy instructional practices, thereby limiting their exposure to quality literacy instruction
(e.g., Anderson & Stillman, 2010, 2011, 2012). Given the importance of teacher quality for
student learning, it is critical to look deeply into how novice teachers learn to teach literacy in the
current policy climate.
High-stakes accountability policies and their subsequent influence on literacy teaching
and learning are part of the education landscape for all teachers who work with students from
historically marginalized groups in high-needs schools. Novice teachers are not immune from
these conditions; in fact, they may be more influenced by policy than their veteran colleagues
due to their inexperience and “malleability” (Grossman & Thompson, 2004). Research suggests
this may be especially true for novice teachers who are learning how to teach literacy in the
current educational climate (e.g., Achinstein et al., 2004; Anderson & Stillman, 2010, 2011;
Selwyn, 2007).
The contemporary era of high-stakes accountability and its influence on literacy
pedagogy have crucial implications for the preparation of elementary teachers who desire to
work in high-needs

urban schools with large populations of students from culturally and
linguistically diverse backgrounds. Yet, the research base about the preparation of quality
literacy teachers in today’s policy climate is thin. Therefore, this study aims to advance
understanding about how PSTs preparing to work with historically marginalized students in
high-needs, urban schools develop their literacy pedagogy.

22
Study Summary and Contribution
This dissertation explored how preservice elementary teachers preparing to teach in high-
needs urban schools learn to teach literacy in the current policy climate. The study looked at
PSTs’ learning over time and across contexts as well as the factors that mediated their
development. It was important to look at learning over time and across contexts because learning
to teach is a complex endeavor that extends along a continuum throughout a teacher’s
professional lifespan (Feiman-Nemser, 2001) and, despite the critical influence of context on
learning (e.g., Cole, 1996; Rogoff, 2003), relatively little is known about how various contextual
factors influence teacher learning (e.g., Anderson & Stillman, 2013b; Clift & Brady, 2005;
Hollins, 2011; Zeichner, 2011). In particular, while research has documented various impacts of
the current education policy climate on literacy teaching and students’ learning (e.g., Gutiérrez,
2006; Pacheco, 2010; Pease-Alvarez & Samway, 2008; Stillman, 2009, 2011), few studies
address the impact of the policy climate on PSTs’ learning and development (e.g., Anderson &
Stillman, 2010, 2011, 2012). It is critical to understand more about how PSTs learn to teach
literacy in today’s educational environment, especially given the well-documented importance of
teacher quality (e.g., Darling-Hammond, 2000; Duffy & Hoffman, 1999; Hoffman & Pearson,
2000; Rivkin et al., 2005) and the recent policy emphasis on teacher preparation and PSTs’ field-
based experiences, specifically (e.g., AACTE, 2010; NCATE, 2010; NRC, 2010).
Given these issues, the following research questions framed this study about PSTs
enrolled in a social justice-oriented TEP that aims to prepare teachers to work with students from
historically marginalized groups in high-needs, urban schools:
1) How do PSTs’ perspectives on literacy teaching and learning develop over time and
across contexts (i.e., during methods courses, during student teaching)?

23
2) How does PSTs’ literacy instructional practice develop over time and across contexts
(i.e., during methods courses, during student teaching)?
3) What factors mediate the development of PSTs’ perspectives on literacy teaching and
learning and PSTs’ literacy instructional practice and in what ways (e.g., course
assignments, TEP context, teacher educator mediation, field placements, policy
climate, etc.)?
Due to the complexity of the process of learning to teach, I approached these questions
from an “ecological perspective” (e.g., Wideen, Mayer-Smith, & Moon, 1998) utilizing a nested
case study of three PSTs enrolled in the same TEP. I investigated the process of PSTs’ learning
across TEP literacy coursework and their student teaching placements in high-needs, urban
schools, paying particular attention to the factors that mediated their development within and
across these different contexts. I anchored the study in two complementary conceptual and
theoretical frameworks: Cochran-Smith & Lytle’s (1999) conceptions of the relationships of
knowledge and practice, and Cultural Historical Activity Theory, a strand of sociocultural
learning theory that emphasizes the importance of culture and context in learning (e.g., Cole &
Engeström, 1993; Engeström, 1999a; Engeström & Miettinen, 1999).
The combination of these two frameworks provided particular affordances not possible
by utilizing either framework on its own and reflects a unique contribution of this study.
Specifically, a CHAT perspective aided in generating findings that helped explain how and why
individual learners may arrive at different learning outcomes, even in similar contexts, due to the
interaction among different elements within and across settings (e.g., community members,
individual background). The relationships of knowledge and practice framework helped me draw
particular attention to PSTs’ experiences of knowledge production within and across the TEP

24
and the field and provided language to facilitate description of what I was seeing within and
across these two contexts.
This study stands to offer an empirical contribution in part due to the dual focus on PSTs’
perspectives and practice. Many previous studies document “positive” changes in PSTs’ beliefs
about students from historically marginalized groups, but they often do not focus on PSTs’
instructional practice enacted with students (e.g., Conaway, Browning, & Purdum-Cassidy,
2007; Dooley, 2008; Sabis-Burns & Lowery, 2007; Walker-Dalhouse & Dalhouse, 2006). The
implicit assumption undergirding many of these studies is that changes in beliefs will translate
into practice. Findings from this study challenge that implicit assumption. Findings indicate that
PSTs’ perspectives around literacy tended to develop toward a TEP-aligned stance – rooted in
socioculturalism and cultural responsiveness – on literacy teaching and learning. Specifically,
PSTs seemed to have internalized core aspects of the TEP’s sociocultural approach to literacy,
such as broad conceptions of what it means to be literate and the importance of leveraging
students’ strengths to facilitate new academic learning. On the other hand, PSTs’ literacy lessons
more often suggested that PSTs had not taken up the pedagogical practices promoted by the TEP,
or that they had taken up TEP-promoted instructional strategies only superficially. The dissimilar
trajectories of PSTs’ perspectives and practice suggest that “positive” (i.e., TEP-aligned)
development of PSTs’ perspectives does not necessarily – or automatically – translate directly
into PSTs’ instruction.
That PSTs’ perspectives and practice developed in notably different ways seemed to be
due to several mediating factors, some involving broader contextual features and others
reflecting more individual factors. For instance, the conditions of the current policy climate
seemed to exacerbate the disconnect between what the TEP was espousing and what PSTs were

25
experiencing in the field, and teacher educators often did not effectively facilitate PSTs’ field-
based learning within and around this disconnect. These factors contributed to PSTs’ difficulty
teaching literacy in ways that reflected TEP principles. Additionally, individual factors such as
PSTs’ tendency toward criticality as well as the relationships between PSTs and their
cooperating teachers mediated PSTs’ development in unique ways, leading to more or fewer
opportunities for particular PSTs to practice teaching literacy in TEP-aligned ways.
For example, for two PSTs, the state credentialing requirement of completing a teaching
performance assessment provided a rare window of opportunity to teach literacy outside of the
district mandated scripted reading program, which allowed them to experiment with approaches
to literacy teaching that were more aligned with their own perspectives and more reflective of the
TEP’s principles. That the third PST chose to adhere to the mandated program’s script for her
performance assessment evidences how individual factors – in this case, the PST’s relationship
with her cooperating teacher, in particular – interacted with other contextual factors (e.g., the
performance assessment) to uniquely shape PSTs’ literacy learning opportunities and outcomes.
Analyzing the interaction between various contextual factors within and across settings (e.g., the
TEP, student teaching placements) highlighted the complexity of PSTs’ field-based literacy
learning. Implications of the study include tempering the policy emphasis on more field
experiences for PSTs. Instead, TEPs might focus on providing PSTs’ with complementary field
experiences, coupled with more intentional teacher educator mediation, in order to further PSTs’
literacy learning in individualized, context-specific ways.
In the following chapter, I situate the study in the research literature on literacy teacher
preparation and preparing teachers for diversity. I pay particular attention to PSTs’ field-based
experiences, because they tend to be particularly meaningful for PSTs (e.g., Feiman-Nemser &

26
Buchman, 1987), and while clinical experience is an area of current emphasis in teacher
education policy (e.g., AACTE, 2010; NCATE, 2010; NRC, 2010), questions remain about what
types of field placements are most beneficial for PSTs (e.g., Anderson & Stillman, 2011, 2013b;
LaBoskey & Richert, 2002; Ronfeldt, 2012).

27

CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
As discussed in the previous chapter, the preponderance of high-stakes accountability
policies ushered in by NCLB has serious implications for literacy teaching and learning,
particularly in “low-performing” schools that tend to serve students from historically
marginalized groups (e.g., Diamond & Spillane, 2004; Gutiérrez, 2006; MacGillivray et al.,
2004; Pacheco, 2010; Stillman, 2009, 2011). The current policy climate’s influence on literacy
pedagogy thus raises questions about how PSTs – particularly those preparing to work in high-
needs schools – learn to teach literacy to students from historically marginalized groups in
today’s educational environment. This is especially true in light of increasing tendencies among
PSTs who aim to work in high-needs schools to complete their required fieldwork in schools
where literacy instruction is shaped by accountability pressures (e.g., Anderson & Stillman,
2010, 2011; Castro, 2010; Ferguson & Brink, 2004; Stairs, 2010). Despite the urgency of such
questions, the research base about the preparation of literacy teachers in the current era of high-
stakes accountability is relatively thin. This study intends to advance understanding in this
critical area.
In this chapter, I review the literature on learning to teach literacy to students from
historically marginalized groups. I note that little is known about the process by which novice
teachers learn to teach literacy effectively. I additionally pay particular attention to PSTs’ field-
based learning, because despite a policy focus on increasing PSTs’ clinical experiences (e.g.,
AACTE, 2010; NCATE, 2010; NRC, 2010), as well as the ubiquity of field-based requirements
across TEPs (e.g., Cochran-Smith & Zeichner, 2005; Darling-Hammond, 2006; Darling-
Hammond & Bransford, 2005), there is limited evidence about how to make these learning

28
opportunities maximally educative for PSTs (e.g., Anderson & Stillman, 2011, 2013b; LaBoskey
& Richert, 2002; Valencia, Martin, Place, & Grossman, 2009). Given the importance of literacy
as a gate-keeping mechanism for students from historically marginalized groups (e.g., Freire &
Macedo, 1987; Heath, 1991) and the crucial role teachers play in students’ literacy learning (e.g.,
Duffy & Hoffman, 1999; Hoffman & Pearson, 2000), the extant literature points to a need to
gain an in-depth understanding of how PSTs learn to teach literacy to students from historically
marginalized groups in the current policy climate. The chapter concludes with a discussion of
how Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) provided a particularly generative lens for
studying PST literacy learning while attending to the influence of culture and context on
learning.
Challenges of Preparing Literacy Teachers
As mentioned in Chapter One, debates about the “best” way to teach reading have
proliferated for many years (e.g., Chall, 1967; Robinson et al., 1998). Part of the difficulty in
“resolving” these debates is that reading and writing are extraordinarily complex endeavors, and
becoming literate is a complicated undertaking that is challenging for many students (e.g., Clay,
1998; Gunning, 2006). Proficient readers, for example, seamlessly and simultaneously decode
individual words; make connections between sentences, paragraphs, and whole texts; use their
background knowledge to make sense of new information; and monitor their understanding of
the author’s message, to name just a few of the many processes that occur during reading (e.g.,
Clay, 1998; Gunning, 2006; Irwin, 2007). Due to the multifaceted nature of reading and writing,
teaching literacy is particularly difficult, and instruction must respond to students’ individual
needs (e.g., Duffy & Hoffman, 1999; Hoffman & Pearson, 2000).

29
Perhaps precisely because literacy teaching and learning are so complicated, relatively
little is known about the process of learning to teach literacy effectively (e.g., Risko et al., 2008;
Smagorinsky, Cook, & Johnson, 2003). In a comprehensive literature review on reading teacher
education, Risko and colleagues (2008) point to a dearth of research that focuses on how – and
under what conditions – literacy teachers’ knowledge, beliefs, and learning translates into actual
classroom literacy teaching practice. The few longitudinal studies that follow novices from
teacher education into their beginning years of teaching seem to be the most informative about
how novice teachers’ literacy practice develops (e.g., Grossman et al., 2000; Jones & Enriquez,
2009; Smagorinsky, Cook, Moore, Jackson, & Fry, 2004; Smagorinsky, Gibson, Bickmore,
Moore, & Cook, 2004; Valencia, Place, Martin, & Grossman, 2006; Wang & Odell, 2003). For
example, Smagorinsky, Cook, and colleagues (2004) conducted a case study that followed a
novice teacher from student teaching into her first-year teaching. They found that even when her
student teaching placement provided limited opportunities to practice teaching literacy in
constructivist ways – as promoted by her TEP – the teacher was still able to implement
constructivist literacy practices in her first-year teaching due to the strong foundation in and
commitment to constructivism she gained through her TEP coursework. Another longitudinal
study with 10 participants found that beginning teachers effectively used various TEP-introduced
pedagogical tools to teach literacy, but this was much more evident in participants’ second year
of teaching than in their first (Grossman et al., 2000). These studies, among others, point to the
lasting potential of what is learned about teaching literacy during teacher education; they also
indicate that this learning is mediated by teachers’ professional knowledge and beliefs as well as
contextual factors, such as curriculum materials and school climate (e.g., Grossman et al., 2000;

30
Grossman & Thompson, 2004; Smagorinsky, Cook, et al., 2004; Smagorinsky, Gibson et al.,
2004; Valencia et al., 2006; Wang & Odell, 2003).
One of the other reasons we know so little about the process of learning to teach literacy
to historically marginalized students is that the body of literature on literacy teacher preparation
tends to focus on learning to teach literacy generally, with only limited attention paid to
preparing to teach literacy to students from historically marginalized groups, specifically. Of
course, general findings about learning to teach literacy – such as the importance of providing
PSTs with repeated practice with literacy assessments (e.g., Traynelis-Yurek & Strong, 2000),
the influential nature of showing PSTs videos of classroom literacy instruction (e.g., Foegen,
Espin, Allinder, & Markell, 2001), and the lasting impact of teacher education pedagogy seen in
the longitudinal studies mentioned above (e.g., Grossman et al., 2000; Smagorinsky, Cook, et al.,
2004; Valencia et al., 2006; Wang & Odell, 2003) – certainly apply to learning how to teach
literacy students from historically marginalized groups. However, the chronic under-serving of
students from historically marginalized groups in public education – evidenced by persistent
gaps in reading achievement between groups of students (e.g., Barton & Coley, 2009; Ladd &
Lauen, 2010; Reardon, 2011) – and the essentialness of literacy for access to higher education
and life opportunities (e.g., Freire & Macedo, 1987; Heath, 1991) makes attending to the literacy
teaching and learning of students from historically marginalized groups particularly important.
While learning to teach literacy is a challenging endeavor under any circumstance, there
is an added layer of complexity when novice teachers are preparing to work with students from
historically marginalized groups. Scholars have long documented the “cultural mismatch” that
occurs when students from historically marginalized groups enter schools staffed primarily with
teachers from the dominant culture who in many cases expect and enact language and literacy

31
practices that are unfamiliar to students because they differ from the literacy and language
practices used in their homes and communities (e.g., Delpit, 1988; Heath, 1982; Sleeter, 2001).
As posited by sociocultural learning theory, learning occurs within and through social and
cultural worlds, and individuals – who are social and cultural beings – construct knowledge by
participation in these social and cultural worlds (e.g., Cole, 1996; Gutiérrez & Rogoff, 2003;
Rogoff, 2003; Vygotsky, 1978). Therefore, scholars have argued that school-based literacy
instruction that fails to be “culturally responsive” – or to leverage students’ prior knowledge and
cultural practices – may compromise students’ academic learning in consequential ways (e.g.,
Banks et al., 2005; Gay, 2002, 2010; Gutiérrez et al., 2002; Hollins, 2008; Ladson-Billings,
1995a, 1995b, 1999, 2009; Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzalez, 1992; Moll & Gonzalez, 2004).
However, while there is a large theoretical base and consensus on the importance of
teaching in culturally responsive ways (e.g., Banks et al., 2005; Gay, 2002, 2010; Hollins, 2008;
Ladson-Billings, 1995a, 1995b, 1999, 2009), less is known about empirically about how
culturally responsive literacy instruction facilitates student learning. Even less is known about
how teachers develop a culturally responsive literacy teaching practice.
Empirical evidence does demonstrate the effectiveness of conducting literacy lessons that
draw on the language and literacy knowledge and experiences of students from historically
marginalized groups to facilitate academic learning. Literacy scholar Kathryn Au, for instance,
argues for constructing “hybrid events” which “foster literate activities that resemble, but are not
identical to, those in the community and school” (K.H. Au, 2001, n.p.). In one study, for
example, Au and Mason (1981) found that when a teacher’s reading lesson followed the social
interaction style of “talk-story,” a native Hawaiian cultural practice, students engaged in more
productive discussions about reading than they did when participating in a more traditional

32
classroom literacy discussion (i.e., the teacher calls on an individual student for a response that is
then evaluated by the teacher). In this way, hybrid events serve as bridges from students’ home
cultural practices to new academic content (K.H. Au, 2001; Au & Mason, 1981). Carol Lee’s
work (1995a, 1995b, 2001) provides another example of the value of drawing on students’
cultural language practices – in this case, the African American Vernacular English practice of
signifying – as a bridge to scaffold students’ responses to and analysis of literature. By first
explicitly drawing on students’ “funds of knowledge” (e.g., Moll & Gonzalez, 2004) about the
figurative language embedded within students’ natural language practice and then leveraging that
knowledge to apply it to literary texts, students’ comprehension and analysis of texts improved
significantly (Lee, 1995a). These empirical studies lend credence to the widespread agreement
on the theoretical effectiveness of culturally responsive literacy instruction that draws on
students’ funds of knowledge and familiar cultural practices.
Learning to Teach in Culturally Responsive Ways
Although the theoretical foundation for culturally responsive literacy instruction is strong
and the available empirical evidence supports its effectiveness, very little is known about how
teachers learn to teach literacy in culturally responsive ways. Many accounts of teachers’
enacting culturally responsive pedagogy describe what teachers do but not how they learned to
teach in these ways (e.g., Howard, 2001; Ladson-Billings, 1995a, 1995b, 2009; Morrison,
Robbins, & Rose, 2008). Gloria Ladson-Billings’ (1995a, 1995b, 2009) ground-breaking work
on culturally relevant pedagogy, for example, is rooted in the teaching of eight highly effective –
and experienced – teachers of African American students; the teachers’ theories behind and
commitments to teaching African American youth exemplify culturally relevant pedagogy.
However, Ladson-Billings does not explore the teachers’ learning and development. While

33
accounts of successfully enacted culturally responsive instruction are helpful for envisioning
pedagogical possibilities, empirical studies that demonstrate the process of learning to teach
literacy to students from historically marginalized groups are critical.
The limited number of studies that do focus on the processes of preparing teachers to
work with students from historically marginalized groups find that teachers often struggle to
implement culturally responsive pedagogy because many have never seen it enacted and have
difficulty conceiving of how it fits in with the established curriculum (e.g., Buehler, Gere,
Dallavis, Haviland, 2009; Young, 2010). For example, Buehler and colleagues (2009) analyze
the experience of one PST – a White female committed to developing cultural competence and
reflecting on her learning processes – and find considerable “fraughtness” involved in her
student teaching in a diverse setting, especially in contending with race and racial issues in her
teaching. This study highlights “the deep gap separating [the PST’s] stated ideals and training
from her ability to enact those ideals in practice” (p. 413). In a study of eight in-service teachers
learning to enact culturally relevant pedagogy, Young (2010) found that teachers believed
culturally relevant pedagogy was more appropriate for isolated “teachable moments” than for
core content instruction and that confusion surrounding culturally relevant pedagogy was
widespread amongst teachers and administrators.
In contrast to studies demonstrating the difficulty in learning to teach students from
historically marginalized groups in culturally responsive ways, some studies demonstrate
positive PST development (e.g., Au & Blake, 2003; Barnes, 2006; Bennett, 2013; Conaway, et
al., 2007; Dooley, 2008; Haddix & Price-Dennis, 2013; Rogers, Marshall, & Tyson, 2006; Sabis-
Burns & Lowery, 2007; Walker-Dalhouse & Dalhouse, 2006). However, studies that show
success tend to focus on PSTs’ purportedly necessary belief changes – moving from deficit-laden

34
to more asset-based views – about students from historically marginalized groups and not their
instructional practice (e.g., Conaway et al., 2007; Dooley, 2008; Sabis-Burns & Lowery, 2007;
Walker-Dalhouse & Dalhouse, 2006). This is partly attributable to the fact that much of the
literature on changes in PSTs’ beliefs is limited to what occurs inside the university-based TEP
(e.g., as shown by pre- and post- surveys from a TEP course on multicultural education) and
does not follow participants into the field where they actually work with students from
historically marginalized groups (e.g., Barnes, 2006; Brock et al., 2007; Conaway et al., 2007;
Dooley, 2008; Rogers et al., 2006; Sabis-Burns & Lowery, 2007; Walker-Dalhouse & Dalhouse,
2006; Zoos, Holbrook, McGrail, & Albers, 2014). For example, Dooley (2008) studied eight
beginning teachers enrolled in a semester-long literacy methods course for culturally and
linguistically diverse students and found that participants’ conceptions about language, culture,
literacy, and equity broadened over the course of the semester. However, since the teachers were
not observed teaching literacy to culturally and linguistically diverse students, it is not possible
to know whether these conceptual changes led to the enactment of effective culturally responsive
literacy instruction. Similarly, Barnes (2006) studied 23 PSTs enrolled in a reading methods
course with a culturally responsive framework, and while a field component accompanied the
course, the data presented is only from participants’ reflections on their learning – not the actual
observed development of their literacy practice.
Additionally, not all studies that center on PSTs’ beliefs and attitudes report positive
changes (e.g., Brock et al., 2007; Brock, Case, & Taylor, 2013; Cornbleth, 2010; Rushton, 2004;
Zoos et al., 2014). For example, Brock and colleagues (2007) conducted a study situated in a
literacy methods course with an accompanying field component teaching literacy to students
from diverse backgrounds. They found that without effective teacher educator mediation in

35
small-group discussions about PSTs’ reflections on the field component, PSTs’ deficit beliefs
and ideologies about teaching literacy to students from historically marginalized groups persisted
– and may have even strengthened due to other group members’ validation. Given tendencies in
the literature to focus more on PSTs’ beliefs than the development of their instructional practice,
it is therefore still unclear whether purported changes in PSTs’ beliefs, particularly within
programs that aim to equip PSTs with a specialized knowledge base, translate into effective
literacy instruction for students in high-needs schools (e.g., Anderson & Stillman, 2013b; Hollins
& Guzman, 2005; Sleeter, 2001).
The Role of Preservice Teachers’ Field-based Learning
One of the primary contexts in which PSTs learn to teach literacy is in field experiences,
with student teaching in an experienced cooperating teacher’s (CT’s) classroom typically serving
as a capstone requirement in most university-based TEPs (e.g., Cochran-Smith & Zeichner,
2005; Darling-Hammond, 2006; Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005). Additionally, as
mentioned in Chapter One, increased clinical experience is currently proffered as a way to
improve teacher education (e.g., AACTE, 2010; NCATE, 2010; NRC, 2010). Indeed, some
empirical work has found that TEPs that directly connect course content to teaching practice
produce more effective first-year teachers than other TEPs (Boyd, Grossman, Lankford, Loeb, &
Wyckoff, 2009). Some scholars, however, caution that more clinical experience is not
necessarily better, and the focus should be on creating quality field-based learning opportunities
for PSTs (e.g. Zeichner, 2012). However, the current policy climate – which research has shown
to engender reductive, code-based literacy instructional practices (e.g., Gutiérrez, 2006;
Gutiérrez et al., 2002; Pacheco, 2010) – makes it particularly difficult to find field placements
where PSTs are able to observe and practice teaching literacy in ways that research has shown to

36
be effective for students from historically marginalized groups (e.g., Anderson & Stillman,
2011).
Student teaching has also long been recognized as potentially problematic due to the
“two-worlds pitfall,” where goals of the university do not align with those of the K-12
classroom, and the novice is therefore left to navigate these potentially conflicting goals on her
own (Feiman-Nemser & Buchman, 1985). In addition, despite the ubiquity of student teaching,
relatively little research focuses on how student teaching contributes to PSTs’ learning,
particularly as it relates to PSTs’ learning to teach students from historically marginalized groups
in high-needs schools (Anderson & Stillman, 2013b). In this section, I address the research
literature on PSTs’ field-based experiences learning to teach literacy to students from historically
marginalized groups, paying particular attention to what is known about how contextual factors,
such as the curriculum, policy climate, and CTs, shape novice teachers’ learning.
The “Triad” and Challenges to Facilitating PSTs’ Field-Based Learning
Student teaching typically consists of a “triad” of individuals: the PST and two teacher
educators – the CT and the university field supervisor (UFS) or faculty advisor (FA). Each of
these individuals enters the triad with his or her own background, knowledge, responsibilities,
and expectations for student teaching shaped by his or her role and position within the triad.
Because of these complexities, there are many challenges that can hinder the potential of all triad
members to be working toward an agreed upon set of goals for the PST; these difficulties
frequently prevent the triad from realizing its potential to facilitate PST learning optimally (e.g.,
Anderson & Stillman, 2013a; Bullough & Draper, 2004; Valencia et al., 2009). For example,
Valencia and colleagues (2009) conducted a study focused on the development of nine student
teachers’ language arts pedagogy, and found that each triad member – not just the student

37
teacher – had to contend with “competing demands” and conflicting goals between settings, such
as the TEP’s expectations for language arts instruction and the literacy pedagogy expected and
enacted in the student-teaching classroom. Ultimately, the competing demands faced by each
triad member resulted in surprisingly few in-depth, content-focused, educative conversations
about language arts pedagogy, leading to many “lost opportunities for learning” about literacy
teaching for the PSTs.
Perhaps not surprisingly given the importance of prior knowledge and experience in
learning (e.g., Vygotsky, 1978), studies have shown that PSTs’ identity and beliefs affect their
learning experiences in student teaching (e.g., Bullough, 2005; Clift & Brady, 2005; Pajares,
1992; Sexton, 2008; Tabachnick & Zeichner, 1984; Wang & Odell, 2003; Wideen et al., 1998).
Thirty years ago, Tabachnick and Zeichner (1984) found that PSTs’ initial teaching perspectives
were not significantly altered by the student teaching experience and that they, in fact, “solidified
but did not change fundamentally” during student teaching (p. 33, original italics). In a more
recent study, when two PSTs had the same mentor teachers, “the changes in the preservice
teachers’ conceptions of learning and teaching were influenced strongly by their ideas about
what and how they were going to learn from their mentors” (Wang & Odell, 2003, pp. 167-168).
In other words, although these student teachers experienced the same classrooms and mentors
during student teaching, their learning – and ultimately their literacy instruction – was shaped not
only by these environmental factors but also by each individual’s relationship with and response
to them. Importantly, though, these studies (among others) did not find that PSTs’ beliefs
remained completely unchanged, but rather that their new learning during student teaching was
mediated by their identity and preexisting beliefs (e.g., Sexton, 2008; Tabachnick & Zeichner,
1984; Wang & Odell, 2003).

38
The student teaching triad is based on the assumption that the CT and UFS/FA can and
should both serve as essential teacher educators for student teachers. Notably, this potential often
goes unrealized due to conflicting expectations, many of which are rooted in the discrepancies
between the ideals of the TEP and the realities of the K-12 classroom (e.g., Anderson &
Stillman, 2011; Bullough & Draper, 2004; Feiman-Nemser & Buchman, 1985; Valencia et al.,
2009). Ideally, the CT’s classroom practice serves as a model for student teachers, both in terms
of pedagogy and the backstage intellectual work of planning instruction to facilitate student
learning and understanding (e.g., Darling-Hammond, 2006; Feiman-Nemser & Buchman, 1987).
However, much research documents the misalignment between TEP-sanctioned literacy
pedagogy and that enacted by CTs in student-teaching placements; this misalignment has been
shown to constrain PSTs’ learning when they are unable to observe TEP-promoted pedagogy
and/or unable to practice implementing it themselves (e.g., Anderson & Stillman, 2010, 2011;
Cherian, 2007; Smagorinsky, 1999; Smagorinsky, Cook, et al., 2004; Smagorinsky, Gibson, et
al., 2004; Smagorinsky, Lakly, & Johnson, 2002).
For example, Smagorinsky, Cook, and colleagues (2004) document the experience of a
PST whose student teaching experience did not provide her the opportunity to teach literacy
according to the student-centered, constructivist approach promoted by the TEP. This PST left
student teaching with a “fear … that she would become the traditional teacher she had learned to
deprecate at the university” (p. 17) since she had never seen TEP approaches to literacy
effectively implemented in K-12 classrooms. Additionally, in a case study of a Native American
student teacher placed in a classroom adhering to a traditional, teacher-centered approach to
literacy instruction, Smagorinsky (1999) found that the student teacher “felt handcuffed when
given the opportunity to teach” (p. 60), particularly as the strict time constraints imposed on

39
language arts lessons interfered with her ability to teach literacy responsively and productively
for the students.
Yet, alignment between the TEP’s and CT’s approaches to literacy instruction is not the
only factor that influences PSTs’ capacities to develop their literacy instructional practice.
Indeed, even when the CT’s pedagogy is aligned with the TEP’s ideals, some PSTs may still
struggle with implementation (e.g., Weaver & Stanulis, 1996). Additionally, evidence suggests
that CT mentoring tends to focus primarily on emotional and technical support for PSTs as
opposed to more substantive feedback on pedagogy (e.g., Bullough, 2005; Valencia et al., 2009;
Wang & Odell, 2002). As a result, PSTs may not be receiving the mentoring they need to realize
their potential as novice literacy teachers (e.g., Anderson & Stillman, 2013a; Stillman &
Anderson, 2011; Valencia et al., 2009). Although scholars repeatedly argue for quality CTs and
the support to make them so, as well as better collaboration between university TEPs and K-12
classrooms (e.g., Anderson & Stillman, 2013b; Cochran-Smith, 1991; Darling-Hammond, 2006;
Ladson-Billings, 2001), student teachers continue to contend with these issues.
While CTs provide access to the daily practice of teaching K-12 students, UFSs/FAs also
play a potentially educative role during student teaching (e.g., Anderson & Stillman, 2010;
Ferguson & Brink, 2004; Freidus, 2002). For example, UFSs can help PSTs imagine “what’s
possible” in classrooms (Anderson & Stillman, 2010) and can help connect theory learned in the
TEP to practice implemented in the K-12 classroom (e.g., Darling-Hammond, 2006; Feiman-
Nemser & Buchman, 1987). Evidence suggests, however, that UFSs frequently do not mediate
PST learning optimally during student teaching, resulting in PSTs’ having to navigate the
experience on their own (e.g., Anderson & Stillman, 2010, 2011; Smagorinsky, Cook et al.,
2004; Stillman & Anderson, 2011; Valencia et al., 2009). However, limited evidence exists

40
regarding “effective” teacher educator mediation (e.g., Anderson & Stillman, 2013a; LaBoskey
& Richert, 2002; Stillman & Anderson, 2011, in press). Indeed, in a seminal article on student
teaching, Feiman-Nemser & Buchman (1987) stressed the importance of both CTs and UFSs: “If
cooperating teachers and university supervisors do not act as teacher educators, other factors
(e.g., persons, setting) will dominate, shaping what can be learned in student teaching” (p. 41). In
fact, these additional factors often do influence PSTs’ learning from student teaching.
Policy and PSTs’ Field-based Learning
As previously discussed, the current policy climate has affected teachers’ literacy
instruction, particularly in regards to the mandated rigid implementation of scripted curriculum
and the narrowing of curriculum to tested topics (e.g., W. Au, 2007; Gutiérrez, 2006; Valli &
Buese, 2007; Pacheco, 2010; Stillman, 2009, 2011). In light of these conditions, PSTs preparing
to teach students from historically marginalized groups are increasingly likely to student teach in
classrooms where literacy instruction has been affected by high-stakes accountability policies
(e.g., Achinstein et al., 2004; Anderson & Stillman, 2010, 2011; Selwyn, 2007). Accordingly,
research is beginning to document how PSTs’ learning and experience are shaped by these
conditions. In one study, for example, PSTs student teaching in high-needs schools tended to
have CTs that either followed a required scripted language arts program with fidelity or
completely ignored the mandated curriculum. Student teachers therefore either did not observe
how to “strategically adapt mandated curricula to meet students’ needs authentically,
responsively, and engagingly” or did not become familiar with required curriculum at all
(Anderson & Stillman, 2011, p. 450), both of which constrained their opportunities to learn to
teach literacy effectively in the face of rigid instructional constraints.

41
Other studies suggest that although student teachers may be subjected to curricular
restraints and tend to have limited autonomy since they are guests in their CT’s classroom, it is
still possible for them to resist, adapt, and/or supplement the curriculum (e.g., Castro, 2010;
Ferguson & Brink, 2004; Lloyd, 2007; Stillman & Anderson, 2011). For example, Stillman and
Anderson (2011) analyze one PST’s attempt to integrate an activity learned in her TEP – creating
a mural – in the context of an elementary classroom that followed a mandated scripted literacy
curriculum. The PST was able to create an authentic learning opportunity for students to work
together and draw on their prior knowledge to expand their understanding of the content in a text
from the required scripted program. However, due to insufficient teacher educator mediation, the
activity remained an opportunity to deeply enhance student learning, but the full potential of this
opportunity was not realized in practice. Another study points to the potential for PSTs to engage
in “strategic compromise” – acquiescing to some aspects of the school’s expectations while
staying committed to professional principles – in order to create instruction that meets students’
needs (Lloyd, 2007). These studies demonstrate the possibilities for student teachers to creatively
negotiate policy-imposed restrictive instructional constraints, but there is less evidence indicating
how PSTs’ experiences grappling with policy influence their learning (Anderson & Stillman,
2013b), or how teachers actually learn to engage in such negotiations.
While many studies discuss various contextual factors involved in in-service teachers’
policy implementation – such as colleagues, school leaders, district officials, and professional
development opportunities – and do in fact frame teachers’ policy implementation as a learning
issue (e.g., Burch & Spillane, 2003, 2005; Coburn, 2001, 2004, 2005; Coburn & Stein, 2006;
Cohen, 1990; Cohen & Hill, 2001; Datnow, 2002; Datnow & Castellano, 2000; Hargreaves, Earl,
Moore, & Manning, 2001; Spillane, 2002, 2004; Spillane, Resier, & Reimer, 2002; Stillman,

42
2011), there is a dearth of knowledge about the interplay of educational policy and teacher
learning at the preservice level (e.g., Anderson & Stillman, 2010, 2011). Out of the few studies
that do examine PST learning in the current policy climate, most rely primarily on self-reported,
retrospective data, thereby providing limited evidence triangulated across multiple sources (e.g.,
Anderson & Stillman, 2010, 2011), or do not focus specifically on teaching students from
historically marginalized groups (e.g., Smagorinsky, 1999; Valencia et al., 2009). Ultimately,
and as Anderson and Stillman (2013b) have noted, although learning is always situated in
context, relatively few student-teaching studies pay particular attention to nuance and complexity
within the school and policy context and how these factors contribute to PST learning.
Teacher Educator Mediation and PSTs’ Field-based Learning
While sociocultural learning theory emphasizes the criticalness of the environmental
context on learning, it also posits that all learning is mediated through cultural artifacts, social
interaction, community norms, and so forth (e.g., Cole & Engeström, 1993; Cole, 1985;
Engeström, 1999a, 1999b). It is not surprising then, that teacher educators often serve as key
actors in mediating PSTs’ learning to teach students from historically marginalized groups (e.g.,
Anderson & Stillman, 2010, 2013a; Brock et al., 2007; Clift & Brady, 2005; Feiman-Nemser &
Buchman, 1987; LaBoskey & Richert, 2002; Rogers et al., 2006; Sleeter, 2008; Stillman &
Anderson, 2011; Zeichner & McDonald, 2011; Valencia et al., 2009). The often-unrealized
potential of teacher educator mediation was mentioned previously (e.g., Anderson & Stillman,
2010, 2011; Bullough & Draper, 2004; Smagorinsky, Cook et al., 2004; Valencia et al., 2009).
Here, I draw particular attention to the importance of teacher mediation in preservice literacy
teachers’ field-based learning for several reasons. Namely, while mediation is crucial for PST
learning, there is limited documentation of what effective mediation looks like; this is

43
particularly critical given the current policy emphasis on PSTs’ field-based experiences (e.g.,
Anderson & Stillman, 2013b; Clift & Brady, 2005).
Although the research knowledge base is largely unequivocal about the importance of
teacher educator mediation in PSTs’ learning to teach students from historically marginalized
groups (e.g., Anderson & Stillman, 2013b; Clift & Brady, 2005; Feiman-Nemser & Buchman,
1987; LaBoskey & Richert, 2002; Sleeter, 2008; Zeichner & McDonald, 2011), shockingly few
studies document the actual mediation teacher educators provide PSTs and with what
consequences for PSTs’ learning to teach literacy (e.g., Brock et al., 2007; Rogers et al., 2006;
Stillman & Anderson, in press; Valencia et al., 2009). One study that does focus on teacher
educator mediation in PSTs’ learning to teach literacy to diverse students finds that through
dialogue where teacher educators intentionally sought to “destabilize any stereotypical
representations of particular cultural groups by offering counter-stories” to PSTs’ narratives
(Rogers et al., 2006, p. 211), PSTs’ social and cultural perspectives were broadened and became
more encompassing of difference. The overall lack of studies reporting successful teacher
educator mediation has prompted scholars to conjecture what effective re-mediation (additional
mediation focused on the reorganization of the sociocultural learning environment and not
remediation of the individual learner (e.g., Cole & Griffin, 1983; Gutiérrez et al., 2009)) of PST
learning might entail in the current policy climate in an effort to provide hypothetical evidence
about the possibilities of teacher educator re-mediation on PST learning to teach literacy (e.g.,
Anderson & Stillman, 2013a; Stillman & Anderson, 2011).
Evidence regarding teacher educator mediation is particularly important due to the
aforementioned increased policy emphasis on field-based experiences during teacher education
(e.g., AACTE, 2010; NCATE, 2010; NRC, 2010). Scholars have often reported on the powerful

44
learning opportunities provided by clinical experiences (e.g., Cochran-Smith & Zeichner, 2005;
Darling-Hammond, 2006; Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005; Feiman-Nemser & Buchman,
1987), but in order for clinical experiences to be maximally educative for PSTs, guidance by
teacher educators is critical (e.g., Anderson & Stillman, 2013b; Clift & Brady, 2005). Yet, very
little is known about the specifics of how teacher educators mediate PST learning and with what
effects on PSTs’ instructional practice (Clift & Brady, 2005; Anderson & Stillman, 2013b).
Ultimately, it is imperative to understand how to create conditions and enact mediation that
optimize PSTs’ field-based learning so that learning translates into effective pedagogy for
students from historically marginalized groups.
Summary
While a considerable amount of research exists regarding preparing teachers to work with
students from historically marginalized groups, significant gaps remain in the knowledge base.
First, little is known about the processes by which novice teachers learn to teach literacy
effectively to students from historically marginalized groups. Specifically, there is a dearth of
knowledge about how teachers’ TEP learning relates to their classroom practice. Second, the
research base is particularly thin regarding how the current climate of high-stakes accountability
policy influences PSTs’ literacy learning – especially during their student teaching field
experiences – and with what impact on their literacy instructional practice. Third, while teacher
educator mediation of learning is important, few studies report on the specifics of how teacher
educators mediate PSTs’ learning and with what influence on PSTs’ classroom literacy practice.
Given the importance of literacy, the crucial role teachers play in students’ literacy
learning, and the frequently negative effects of high-stakes accountability policies on literacy
instruction (e.g., Duffy & Hoffman, 1999; Freire & Macedo, 1987; Gutiérrez, 2006), there is a

45
critical need to understand how PSTs learn to teach literacy to students from historically
marginalized groups in the current policy climate. This study aims to address the aforementioned
gaps in the knowledge base. It also heeds scholars’ calls for an “ecological approach” to studying
learning to teach (e.g., Olsen, 2011; Risko et al., 2008; Wideen et al., 1998) that takes into
account “the broader ecology that influences – and is influenced by – developing teachers [and]
includes multiple levels of educational context” (Olsen, 2011, p. 269). By studying PSTs’
learning from an ecological perspective, it will be possible to understand how context and culture
enable or constrain PSTs’ development of literacy pedagogy and will provide insight into what,
why, and how various conditions are optimal – or non-optimal – for PSTs learning to teach
literacy to students from historically marginalized groups in the current policy climate.
In the following sections, I delineate two complementary frameworks – Cochran-Smith
and Lytle’s (1999) Relationships of Knowledge and Practice and Cultural Historical Activity
Theory ([CHAT]; e.g., Cole, 1985; Cole & Engeström, 1993; Engeström, 1999a, 1999b) – that
guide the proposed study in ways that help draw attention to the sociocultural context of PSTs’
learning. Specifically, Cochran-Smith and Lytle’s conceptual framework focuses on the
underlying notions of teacher learning in various learning initiatives and helps to uncover the
influence of implicit conceptions of relationships to knowledge and practice on PST learning in
different situations. As a learning theory, CHAT takes history, culture, context, and individuals
into account and thus provides a robust way of thinking about the myriad factors influencing
PST learning across time and settings. I primarily use the relationships of knowledge and
practice framework to attend to PSTs’ experiences of knowledge production and CHAT to attend
to the social and cultural settings of that learning.

46

Relationships of Knowledge and Practice Framework
Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1999) posit that different conceptions of teacher learning exist
– albeit sometimes implicitly – in various initiatives designed to improve teaching and learning.
These varying conceptions “lead to very different ideas about how to improve teacher education
and professional development” (p. 249). Key to these notions of teacher learning is the (explicit
or implicit) underlying relationship between knowledge and practice in teaching (e.g., who holds
knowledge, who creates knowledge, what/whose knowledge is useful for practice). Cochran-
Smith and Lytle argue that three different relationships of knowledge and practice undergird
initiatives to improve teaching and learning. Importantly, the same methods or approaches (e.g.,
coaching, reflective journals) do not necessarily reflect the same conceptions of teacher learning;
it depends on how the methods are implemented and the underlying rationale behind the
approach. The three relationships between knowledge and practice are described below.
Knowledge-for-Practice
Knowledge-for-practice is characterized by the notion of “formal” knowledge, typically
held and generated by university-based researchers. Formal knowledge includes theory, content
knowledge, and other research-based findings that constitute the “knowledge base” for teaching.
In this conceptualization, “knowing more … leads … to more effective practice” (p. 254), and
outside authorities (e.g., researchers, trainers) are the holders of this knowledge. According to
this perspective, excellent teachers have a deep understanding of the knowledge base and are
able to put their knowledge – gleaned from outside experts – into practice in the classroom. That
is, “Teaching … is understood primarily as a process of applying received knowledge to a
practical situation: Teachers implement, translate, use, adapt, and/or put into practice what they
have learned of the knowledge base” (p. 257). Importantly, teachers use their knowledge for their

47
practice, but they are not considered generators of knowledge in this view. Examples of teacher-
learning initiatives based on this conception might involve an outside expert coming into schools
to train teachers in a new curricular program or a traditional TEP course in child development.
Knowledge-in-Practice
Knowledge-in-practice emphasizes that knowledge for teaching is actually embedded in
the practice of expert teachers. Teaching is seen as a type of artistry where teachers strategically
react to new and unknown situations based on their knowledge gained through practical
experience working with students. Teachers learn by examining, inquiring into, and reflecting on
the implicit knowledge that underlies the craft of highly skilled teachers. In initiatives to improve
teaching based on this conceptualization, it is assumed that “teachers need opportunities to
enhance, make explicit, and articulate the tacit knowledge embedded in experience and in the
wise action of very competent professionals” (pp. 262-263). Knowledge-in-practice elevates the
status of teachers’ practical knowledge that they have developed through years of refining their
craft. In this view, it is “assumed that professional expertise comes in great part from inside the
teaching profession itself … [T]eachers … are also understood to be the generators of
knowledge” (p. 267). Student teaching, or placing a PST in a master teacher’s classroom for
several weeks, is typically based on this view of knowledge and practice; the novice learns from
observing and being coached by the master teacher.
Knowledge-of-Practice
While the knowledge-for-practice and knowledge-in-practice conceptualizations maintain
the theory-practice divide by foregrounding formal knowledge and practical knowledge,
respectively, knowledge-of-practice goes against this divide altogether. In this view, theory and
practice are both considered “inherently problematic … [and are] always open to discussion” (p.

48
272). Teachers are seen as knowledge generators and knowledge users throughout their
professional life span, thereby also eliminating the divide between “novice” and “experienced”
teachers. New and veteran teachers come together to inquire into their own and others’ practice
as a community engaged in teacher research. Knowledge is viewed as socially constructed
among teachers working together; in other words, teachers create their own understandings of
teaching and learning through dialogue and interaction with each other, as opposed to reading the
“facts” in a textbook, for example. The knowledge-of-practice conceptualization “emphasizes …
teaching as agency in the classroom and in larger educational contexts” (p. 276), and initiatives
are frequently linked to critical issues and change efforts outside of the classroom. Teachers are
seen as “leaders and activists” (p. 281) in both the local and the broader educational community,
and teacher activism for local and/or broader change occurs via a collaborative group of
committed educators. An initiative grounded in the knowledge-of-practice conceptualization
might include the formation of an action research group or teacher inquiry community, where
teachers “can take critical perspectives on their own assumptions as well as the theory and
research of others and also jointly construct local knowledge that connects their work in schools
to larger social and political issues” (p. 283).
Affordances and Limitations of the Relationships of Knowledge and Practice Framework
Cochran-Smith and Lytle’s conceptual framework is particularly useful for studying
PSTs’ learning experiences over time and across contexts. More specifically, it provides a means
of considering the potentially different – and possibly implicit – conceptions of teacher learning
that underlie the various learning experiences in which PSTs are expected to engage. For
example, the TEP may espouse a commitment to teacher inquiry and prioritize the knowledge-of-
practice relationship, while a student teacher’s CT may desire the novice to imitate her

49
exemplary practice, reflecting the knowledge-in-practice view. It is conceivable that PSTs will
be exposed to multiple learning opportunities that are grounded in different conceptions of the
relationship between knowledge and practice. This framework is particularly generative because
it recognizes the implicitness of the varying conceptions, thereby providing language to help
uncover and address notions that may not be explicitly stated. It can therefore help to tease apart
some of the more subtle, underlying differences in PSTs’ learning experiences in a variety of
situations over time.
The framework, however, does not address how individuals exposed to various learning
opportunities might respond to and within these experiences. For example, it is likely that PSTs
will engage in some learning experiences grounded in the knowledge-for-practice
conceptualization (e.g., a child development course). Although the learner is typically viewed as
the receiver of knowledge in this situation, what if, for example, a PST brings in samples of
student work that challenge the instructor’s (and textbook’s) presentation of developmental
stages? The PST has apparently brought in her own views of knowledge and practice, seemingly
rooted in the knowledge-of-practice conception, but what are the effects of such a scenario? It
likely depends on how the instructor responds in this hypothetical situation, but regardless, the
framework does not discuss how teachers interact with and work within and across various
learning initiatives, thereby shaping and reshaping the original intent of the learning initiatives.
In addition, this conceptual framework does not address the institutional and larger societal
issues that may affect teacher learning across settings. Cultural Historical Activity Theory,
discussed next, draws attention to both local and broader contextual factors that may influence
learning, thereby providing a useful means of exploring the role of context in teachers’ learning
in ways that the relationships of knowledge and practice framework does not.

50
Cultural Historical Activity Theory
Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) is a particular strand of Vygotsky’s (1978,
1986) sociocultural learning theory and is ultimately a “cultural theory of mind” (Cole &
Engeström, 1993, p. 42). In particular, Vygotsky (1978) was concerned with the development of
“higher psychological functions” and maintained that these processes appear “first, on the social
level, and later, on the individual level; first, between people … and then inside the child … All
the higher functions originate as actual relations between human individuals” (p. 57; original
italics). Humans therefore develop based on their social interactions with others. Tools and signs
– of which language is preeminent – culturally mediate these interactions (Vygotsky, 1978,
1986).
Instead of focusing solely on an individual learner, CHAT uses an “activity system” as its
unit of analysis. In an effort to overcome the dichotomy between individual and societal levels of
analysis, the notion of an activity system places the individual and the social structure in a
dialectical relationship with one another (Cole & Engeström, 1993; Engeström, 1999a). Activity
systems are “historically conditioned systems of relations among individuals and their proximal,
culturally organized environments” (Cole & Engeström, 1993, p. 9), so analysis of the entire
system of activity allows for inclusion of other individuals and additional salient factors that
affect the primary subject’s learning and development within a community (Cole & Engeström,
1993; Engeström, 1999a). Within the context of a given activity system, CHAT pays particular
attention to the history of local practices and attempts to explain changes in these practices over
time (Engeström, 1999b). Human activity within the system includes the “goals, means, and
constraints operating on the subject” and is deeply interconnected to social systems and social
relationships (Cole, 1985, p. 151).

51
Components of an Activity System
An activity system is conceptualized as consisting of a variety of interrelated components
that collectively contribute to the complex, “multivoiced” nature of learning and human activity
(Engeström & Miettinen, 1999). Learning and activity within an activity system is always
culturally mediated – every setting has a social and cultural history that influences individual and
collective practices within the activity system; in turn, the environment of the activity system is
shaped (and reshaped) by community members’ actions (Engeström & Miettinen, 1999;
Engeström, 1999b). An activity system includes various elements that have dialectical
relationships with one another: subject, object, outcome, mediating artifacts, rules, community,
and division of labor. The subject, or learner, and the community relate to each other through the
use of mediating artifacts (i.e., signs and tools) and through the rules, or accepted norms, of the
community; communities also include a division of labor amongst participants in an activity
system (Cole & Engeström, 1993). The subject and/or other actors within the activity system
construct the object in order to meet a human need. The object then becomes the horizon of
actions within the activity system, however “the object is never fully reached or conquered”
(Engeström, 1999b, p. 381), but rather is continually restructured and redefined based on the
activity within the system (Engeström, 1999b). Hence, the outcome is the actual result of activity
within the activity system. Figure 2.1 depicts the triangular heuristic that is typically used to
depict the various interrelated components of an activity system (e.g., Cole & Engeström, 1993;
Engeström & Miettinen, 1999).

52

Figure 2.1. CHAT activity system

Importantly, CHAT recognizes that tensions and contradictions between different parts of
an activity system are inherent in a multivoiced activity system (e.g., the subject disagrees with
established norms of the community); in fact, “equilibrium is an exception” (Cole & Engeström,
1993, p. 8) within an activity system. In other words, disturbances or disagreements within the
activity system are considered by theorists to be catalysts for change and innovation (Cole &
Engeström, 1993; Engeström, 1999b; Engeström & Miettinen, 1999). An activity system is
always concerned both with internalization – the reproduction of culture as neophytes learn the
rules and norms of the community – and externalization – the innovations that contribute to the
transformation of culture (Engeström & Miettinen, 1999). Internalization and externalization are
always simultaneously occurring, thereby contributing to the dialectical relationship between
subject and community via mediating artifacts.
Appropriation
Learning from a CHAT perspective is conceived of a process of appropriation (e.g.,
Grossman, Smagorinsky, & Valencia, 1999; Rogoff, 1990; Tolman, 1999; Wertsh, 1991).

53
Appropriation refers to the developmental process through which a learner “internalizes ways of
thinking endemic to specific cultural practices” (Grossman et al., p. 15). It is both the individual
process of a learner adopting particular social and cultural practices and a societal process of a
learner developing new “psychological formations” (Tolman, 1999, p. 74). Importantly,
appropriation does not only consist of an individual mastering specific (socially, culturally, and
historically formulated) tools in ways other community members intend, but also stresses the
learner’s agency in appropriating societal practices and making them uniquely his or her “own”
(Rogoff, 1990; Wertsch, 1991). “[L]earners reconstruct the knowledge they are internalizing,
thus transforming both their conception of knowledge and, in turn, that knowledge as it is
construed and used by others” (Grossman et al., 1999, p. 15). In other words, learners bring their
unique knowledge, experiences, personalities, and so forth to the process of appropriating new
social and cultural concepts and practices, thereby constructing and taking ownership of their
appropriated knowledge in individualized ways. Learning and appropriation of societal practices
occurs through mediated actions.
Mediation
Mediation of learning through artifacts is one of the key elements of an activity system
and, according to CHAT scholars, is “the central distinctive characteristic of human beings”
(Cole & Engeström, 1993, p. 13). Humans (as compared to other animals) are unique in that they
are not confined to only interacting with their direct physical environment based on their
biological urges and necessities but rather can regulate their behavior by using and creating
artifacts – signs and tools – that allow for abstraction across time and place (e.g., Engeström,
1999a; Vygotsky, 1978). The most important and powerful mediating artifact developed by
humans is language, but anything used to moderate behavior can be considered a tool or a sign

54
(e.g., a pencil, a sticky note, a curriculum guide). Tools and signs both mediate activity, with the
primary difference being that tools are “externally oriented … lead[ing] to changes in objects”
while signs “[change] nothing in the object … [and are] internally oriented” (Vygotsky, 1978, p.
55, original italics). A pencil, for example, serves as a tool when writing a reminder note but as a
sign when merely seeing it serves as reminder that an important exam takes place today.
Although these distinctions are important, the main focus here is on the larger category of
“mediating artifacts,” which includes both signs and tools.
While mediation is important to an individual’s functioning within an activity system,
“mediated activity simultaneously modifies both the environment and the subject” (Cole &
Engeström, 1993, p. 9), thereby putting the subject and environment in a dialectical relationship.
Cole and Engeström (1993) emphasize that “mediation of activity through artifacts implies a
distribution of cognition among individual, mediator, and environment, as well as the
fundamental change wrought by artifact-mediated activity” (p. 13) within an activity system. For
example, in the activity system of a classroom, a student (subject) and teacher (mediator) work
with mediating artifacts – a book, a graphic organizer, a pencil – during a reading lesson. If the
student is successful, she has certainly changed – she has learned, or appropriated, something
new – but the entire environment is also altered; because one community member has grown and
changed, the entire activity system feels the repercussions of this mediated activity between
student and teacher. Therefore, all of the components of the activity system work simultaneously
to move toward the desired object of the activity. Importantly, any activity within an activity
system utilizes “historically formed mediating artifacts, cultural resources that are common to
the society at large” (Engeström & Miettinen, 1999, p. 8). Although continually changing due to

55
contradictions and innovations, the mediated activity is still strongly grounded in the activity
system’s particular cultural history.
Re-mediation
While human activity is always mediated through signs and tools, the notion of re-
mediation – or mediating again – has also been employed in regards to teaching literacy to
students from non-dominant groups (e.g., Gutiérrez et al., 2009) and to teacher education (e.g.,
Anderson & Stillman, 2013a; Gutiérrez & Vossoughi, 2010). Re-mediation involves intervening
and providing additional mediation in order to facilitate the subject’s learning or progression
toward the desired object. Importantly, re-mediation emphasizes the reorganization of the socio-
historical system and the entire learning ecology surrounding the individual(s) (Cole & Griffin,
1983), as opposed to remediation, which focuses on “fixing” the individual learner (Gutiérrez et
al., 2009). Re-mediation “involves a more robust notion of learning and thus disrupts the
ideology of pathology linked with most approaches to remediation” (Gutiérrez & Vossoughi,
2010, p. 102). Re-mediation is especially important to consider when one is concerned with
educators teaching students from historically marginalized groups, who frequently have been
subjected to basic, remedial literacy instruction based on deficit notions of culture and difference
(Gutiérrez et al., 2009). Given the previously addressed tensions and contradictions during
student teaching fieldwork, re-mediation also has potential in terms of rethinking how teacher
educators can facilitate PST learning (e.g., Anderson & Stillman, 2013a).
Affordances of CHAT
Cultural Historical Activity Theory provides many affordances for studying PSTs
learning to teach literacy to students from non-dominant groups. One of the most important
contributions of using CHAT as a lens is its simultaneous emphasis on both the subject and the

56
surrounding “sociocultural milieu” (Cole & Engeström, 1993, p. 3) that affects his or her
learning. In preservice teacher education, for example, it is known that a PST’s prior beliefs,
attitudes, and dispositions have a substantial impact on his or her learning to teach (e.g., Feiman-
Nemser, 2001; Pajares, 1992; Wideen et al., 1998), but a PST’s multifaceted identity also
interacts with other components of a TEP, such as methods courses and field experiences, and
with other individuals within the activity system (e.g., CTs, UFSs/FAs). Similarly, the K-12
school and broader policy context also affect the PST and other elements within the activity
system. CHAT importantly allows for analysis of both how the environment shapes the
individual and how the individual shapes the environment through mediating artifacts. This helps
eliminate a singular focus on the individual or the TEP or the policy context.
A second notable strength of CHAT is its robust notions of culture, which are arguably
especially important when considering teaching students from historically marginalized groups.
As others have noted, these students are often essentialized according to (frequently negative)
stereotypical notions (e.g., Gutiérrez et al., 2009; Gutiérrez & Rogoff, 2003). CHAT does not
treat culture as a static “trait” that individuals “have” but rather adheres to the notion of
individuals potentially having certain “repertories of practice” (Gutiérrez & Rogoff, 2003) based
on their experiences living culturally everyday (e.g., Moll & Gonzalez, 2004). Cole &
Engeström (1993) maintain, “culture is … history in the present” (p. 9) and describe it as
follows:
There is no doubt that culture is patterned, but there is also no doubt that it is far from
uniform, because it is experienced in local face-to-face interactions that are locally
constrained and, hence, heterogeneous with respect to both ‘culture as a whole’ and the
parts of the entire cultural toolkit experienced by any given individual. (p. 15)

These notions of “repertories of practice” and a “cultural toolkit” allow for analysis of “culture”
and cultural influences without essentializing all members of a particular group.

57
Limitations of CHAT
Although I maintain that CHAT is an especially generative theory for studying PSTs
learning to teach literacy to students from historically marginalized groups, weaknesses still
exist. In fact, some of the strengths of CHAT can also be conceived of as relative weaknesses.
For instance, while it points to all of the areas that one should be attentive to in studying learning
within an activity system, CHAT does not prioritize any of them. For example, if a PST is
struggling to learn how to teach literacy during student teaching, should a teacher educator alter
some of the mediating artifacts (e.g., course assignments, K-12 curriculum), attempt to change
the distribution of labor for the PST (e.g., teach more or less), or move her out of the setting
completely (e.g., to a different student teaching placement)? Although CHAT draws attention to
the various influential aspects of learning within an activity system, it does not help pinpoint
particular areas of needed re-mediation. However, a specific focus for re-mediation depends
upon the unique circumstances and characteristics of the different actors and norms within a
given activity system.
Additionally, while CHAT points to historical issues of power and division of labor, it
does not by itself locate certain groups within that structure. Accordingly, in studying students
from historically marginalized groups, it is important to explicitly draw attention to historical
issues of power and (lack of) opportunity and how these affect current students and teachers
working with students of color in low-income communities. CHAT, however, is conceived on
universal principles of activity systems, so it is not possible (or preferable) for it to be too
prescriptive in terms of particular histories and re-mediations.

58

CHAT and Teacher Learning
Since I am interested in teacher learning, it is appropriate to utilize learning theory as an
overarching theoretical framework, and since I aim to understand the dialectical nature between
learners and their multifaceted environments across time, settings, and contexts, CHAT provides
a particularly useful framework for analysis. Indeed, due to its capacity to capture complexity, a
number of education scholars are using sociocultural learning theory and turning to CHAT, in
particular, to study teacher learning (e.g., Anderson & Stillman, 2013a; Brayko, 2013; Brock et
al., 2007; Grossman et al., 1999; Grossman et al., 2000; Stillman, 2011; Stillman & Anderson,
2011; Valencia et al., 2009). For example, Stillman and Anderson (2011) use CHAT to analyze a
student teacher’s experience using a mandated scripted literacy program, recognizing multiple
tensions within the activity system, key among them being that the cooperating teacher and TEP
did not share the same “object” of the student teaching experience. The authors then use CHAT
to consider opportunities for re-mediation within the activity system to facilitate the PST’s
learning in this context.
Grossman and colleagues (1999) argue that CHAT is a particularly generative framework
for studying the developmental process of novice teachers’ learning, because CHAT’s focus on
social and cultural contexts across settings of teacher learning “can reveal the kinds of social
structures that promote the appropriation of pedagogical tools, that, in turn, result in particular
kinds of teaching” (p. 24). Understanding under what conditions teachers learn how to enact
effective pedagogy provides insight into how to structure and facilitate optimal learning
experiences for teachers (Grossman et al., 1999). Additionally, Valencia and colleagues (2009)
utilized CHAT in a study about learning to teach literacy during student teaching; CHAT helped
reveal that many of the “lost opportunities for learning to teach” were rooted in tensions and

59
contradictions between the various settings (e.g., TEP, K-12 classroom) in which the three triad
members (i.e., PST, CT, and UFS) participated.
In addition to individual studies and positions, at least three relatively recent literature
reviews have recommended using sociocultural learning theory – and CHAT in particular – for
future educational research (Anderson & Stillman, 2013b; Risko et al., 2008; Roth & Lee, 2007).
Roth and Lee (2007), for example, argue that CHAT’s holistic and dialectical nature “can
potentially overcome a range of troublesome dualisms in education” such as theory versus
practice and individual versus collective (p. 218). They also point especially to the potential of
CHAT’s acknowledgement of human agency within institutional and societal contexts that may
lead to change. Anderson and Stillman (2013b) argue for the importance of using sociocultural
learning theory in studies that focus on PSTs’ field-based learning in urban schools, specifically,
given the need to better understand the influences of context, culture, and mediating factors in
PSTs’ field-based learning. Previous work has utilized sociocultural theory and CHAT to inform
data collection (e.g., Grossman & Thompson, 2004) as well as data analysis (e.g., Smagorinsky,
Cook, et al., 2004). In Chapter Three, I discuss how CHAT contributed methodologically to both
of these aspects in this study concerning PSTs learning to teach literacy to students from non-
dominant groups in high-needs, urban schools.
Summary and Conclusion
The combination of Cochran-Smith and Lytle’s (1999) relationships of knowledge and
practice conceptual framework with Cultural Historical Activity Theory provides a particularly
useful lens for thinking about PST learning. Specifically, Cochran-Smith and Lytle’s framework
helps to uncover the influence of implicit conceptions of relationships to knowledge and practice
on PST learning in different learning scenarios. CHAT is “the one theory of learning … that

60
explicitly attends to culture” (Gutiérrez et al., 2002, p. 336) and thus provides a robust way of
thinking about the many factors that influence PST learning to teach literacy to students from
historically marginalized groups over time and across settings. In summary, I use the
relationships of knowledge and practice framework to attend to PSTs’ experiences of knowledge
production and CHAT to attend to the social and cultural settings of that learning. The focus on
field-based learning in this study provides the opportunity to flesh out knowledge-for-practice
and knowledge-in-practice in particular. Keeping in mind the previously stated gaps in the
research knowledge base, such as a lack of studies that specifically attend to contextual and
cultural factors in novice teachers’ learning over time (e.g., Anderson & Stillman, 2013b; Clift &
Brady, 2005; Hollins, 2011; Zeichner, 2011), I now propose methodological approaches for a
study designed to capture PST learning – including their field-based learning – to teach literacy
to students from historically marginalized groups in the current policy climate.

61
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND METHODS
The purpose of this study was to gain an in-depth understanding of how PSTs preparing
to teach students from historically marginalized groups learn to teach literacy over time and
across contexts in the current era of high-stakes accountability. In this chapter, I describe the
research methods I utilized that allowed me to capture PSTs’ learning over time and across
contexts with nuance and complexity in an effort to understand the oftentimes “messy” learning
process (Parks, 2008). I also aim to provide detailed, useful information for teacher educators
charged with supporting PSTs preparing to work in high-needs schools. I first argue that a
qualitative approach was most appropriate for a study designed to understand PSTs’ literacy
learning. I also discuss how feminist methodology informed my stance as a researcher. Next, I
describe how an instrumental nested case study design was particularly generative for a study of
PSTs’ field-based learning over time and across contexts. I then delineate the specific methods I
used in this study and present my approach to analyzing the data collected. Finally, I explain the
steps I took to ensure the trustworthiness of the findings and how I approached reciprocity with
study participants.
A Qualitative Approach
A qualitative study provided the best means of capturing the non-linear, complicated, and
even “messy” process (Parks, 2008) of PSTs learning to teach literacy to students from
historically marginalized groups in this study. Qualitative research is “rich in description of
people, places, and conversations” (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007, p. 2); it relies heavily on fieldwork
in naturalistic settings and in-depth interviews that aim to capture participants’ viewpoints and
experiences (Creswell, 2007; Patton, 2002). Qualitative researchers are fundamentally concerned

62
with context and how actions, artifacts, decisions, feelings, opinions, and so forth are formed
within particular contexts that have specific histories (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Creswell, 2007).
Research in the qualitative tradition supports the idea that it is not possible to “separate what
people say [and do] from the context in which they say [and do] it” (Creswell, 2007, p. 40).
These assumptions behind qualitative research also reflect the central tenets of Cultural
Historical Activity Theory – namely, that learning is always situated in and mediated by social,
cultural, and historical contexts and artifacts. A qualitative approach was therefore well aligned
with the previously discussed theoretical framework. Additionally, a qualitative approach was
warranted because I was interested in the process (and not just the outcome or product) of how
PSTs learn to teach literacy to students from historically marginalized groups over time and
across different contexts, which is critical to understanding how to create optimal learning
opportunities for PSTs (e.g., Grossman et al., 1999).
Feminist Methodology
Key tenets of feminist methodology also informed my work while conducting this study.
Feminist methodology grows out of criticisms of “traditional” empirical research; feminist
researchers argue that traditional theories and scientific claims are based on masculine
worldviews that affect all stages of the research process – research questions, study design,
methods, presentation of findings (Harding, 1987a, 1987b). Feminist methodology complements
a qualitative approach that aims to understand nuance and complexity among individuals situated
in specific contexts, because feminist methodology rejects the notion that everyone – regardless
of race, class, gender, and so forth – experiences and responds to the “same” situation identically
(Harding, 1987a, 1987b, Wolf, 1996).

63
I drew on feminist methodology primarily regarding how I conceived my role as
researcher. In contrast to more traditional methodologies that privilege a researcher detached
from participants and the environment in order to arguably aid in maintaining “objectivity,”
feminist methodology advocates for the researcher’s proximity to participants in an effort to
humanize the research process for participants that may feel objectified by more traditional
approaches (Wolf, 1996). In addition, proximity affords the researcher the opportunity to learn
about individuals and their environment from the inside. In other words, researching in close
proximity to participants allows the researcher to understand situations from participants’ point
of view (O’Reilly, 2005; Wolf, 1996). I therefore did not remain a distant, unattached observer
but rather cultivated genuine relationships with participants and involved myself in their
classrooms in an effort to understand their experiences from their perspective
4
(Wolf, 1996).
Feminist methodologies also highlight the researcher’s positionality regarding race, class,
gender, and culture as well as the researcher’s political motives for engaging in a particular study
(e.g., Harding, 1987a, 1987b). By acknowledging the researcher’s positionality, she “appears to
[readers] not as an invisible, anonymous voice of authority, but as a real, historical individual
with concrete, specific desires and interests” (Harding, 1987b, p. 9), and recognizes that these
factors affect all stages of the research process, from problem definition through the final
writing. In accordance with CHAT, feminist methodology acknowledges the critical nature of an
individual’s race, class, gender, age, culture, language, and so forth on his or her knowledge
construction and production (e.g., Cole & Engeström, 1993; Harding, 1987b).
Therefore, in conducting this study, I acknowledged my positionality as a white woman
from an upper-middle class Midwestern family whose experience teaching students from

4
Further discussion of participant observation is addressed later in this section.

64
historically marginalized groups in New York City greatly influenced my desire to conduct the
study. My assumptions, beliefs, knowledge, and experiences regarding teacher education,
literacy teaching and learning, high-stakes accountability policy, and conditions in high-needs
schools inevitably permeated the study. They influenced the way I interacted with participants –
as well as how they responded to and interacted with me – and the way I collected data (e.g., the
interview questions I asked, what I noticed during observations), how I analyzed data, how I
drew conclusions, and how I wrote and presented my findings. For example, as a former teacher
who struggled with literacy teaching in my first year in the classroom – due partly to high-stakes
accountability policies and partly to my lack of preparation – I empathized with participants in a
way that likely would not have been possible had I never been an elementary school teacher.
While empathizing with participants may have furthered my understanding of their learning
experiences, it was crucial to stay true to participants’ experiences and not project my own
opinions into their perspectives.
Although it is not possible – or desirable – to remove myself (and my background,
knowledge, experiences, opinions, and so forth) from the research process, by acknowledging
who I am as a person, I arguably provide a potentially less biased account of my findings, since
my role as researcher and my perspectives inherent throughout the study are open to scrutiny by
readers (Harding, 1987b). In an attempt to keep track of my own potential biases, I kept a journal
during the research process with my reflections about how my positionality may be influencing
the study. Drawing on the broader assumptions of a qualitative research approach and feminist
methodology, I now describe the specific instrumental nested case study design utilized in this
study.

65

Instrumental Nested Case Study
Case study is a qualitative methodology that is especially appropriate when “the
boundaries between [the investigated] phenomenon and context are not clearly evident” (Yin,
2009, p. 18). It allows for an in-depth understanding of an issue through the use of multiple
sources of data, typically observations, interviews, and analysis of documents (Merriam, 2001;
Stake, 1995). Instrumental case study aims to look at “typical” cases of a given issue, thereby
providing useful information to those working in similar situations (Stake, 1995) – in this study,
PSTs learning to teach literacy in a social justice-oriented TEP focused on preparing teachers to
work with students from historically marginalized groups in high-needs, urban schools. As
learning to teach literacy is a multifaceted undertaking – one that includes learning the
developmental processes of reading and writing, learning how to recognize students’ literacy
strengths and needs, learning how to modify instruction to facilitate student learning, and so forth
– and is an endeavor embedded over time and within different contexts, a thorough, holistic
understanding of a small group of participants – afforded by case study – is a desirable approach
for uncovering nuance and complexity (e.g., Smagorinsky, 2010). Additionally, a case study
design allows findings to be useful to other teacher educators in TEPs with a social justice focus
that aim to prepare teachers to work with culturally and linguistically diverse students, for “as
long as inferences are limited to similar populations in similar situations, [case studies] are
amenable to qualified generalizations” (Smagorinsky, 2010, p. 22).
This study consisted of a case of three elementary PSTs enrolled in a social justice-
oriented TEP with field-based learning components (e.g., student teaching) designed to prepare
them to work with students from historically marginalized groups in high-needs, urban schools.
Since I followed the individual PSTs from their TEP coursework and into their two student

66
teaching placements, I viewed each participant as an individual case nested within the larger
group case (Stake, 1995). The nested case study design facilitated drawing conclusions about
individual PSTs and their particular experiences as well as interpretations about patterns found in
the group of PSTs as a whole. In addition to the three primary case study participants, I
interviewed six additional PSTs in the same TEP, but I did not observe them during student
teaching. These additional interviews served to provide supplementary contextual information
about PSTs’ learning within the TEP and to situate the primary case study participants’ learning
and experiences within a slightly larger group of PSTs. Again, the study sought answers to the
following research questions about PSTs enrolled in a social justice-oriented TEP who were
preparing to work with students from historically marginalized groups in high-needs, urban
schools:
1) How do PSTs’ perspectives on literacy teaching and learning develop over time and
across contexts (i.e., during methods courses, during student teaching)?
2) How does PSTs’ literacy instructional practice develop over time and across contexts
(i.e., during methods courses, during student teaching)?
3) What factors mediate the development of PSTs’ perspectives on literacy teaching and
learning and PSTs’ literacy instructional practice and in what ways (e.g., course
assignments, TEP context, teacher educator mediation, field placements, policy
climate, etc.)?
Below, I address the sampling procedure, data sources, and data analysis, as well as efforts to
ensure trustworthiness of findings and reciprocity with participants.

67

Sample Selection
This study employed “purposeful sampling,” a relatively common approach for selecting
study sites and participants in qualitative research (e.g., Creswell, 2007). In purposeful sampling,
the researcher aims to choose sites and participants because they are “information-rich cases that
elicit an in-depth understanding of a particular phenomenon” (Jones, Torres, & Arminio, 2006, p.
65); the sample does not need to be representative of the population at large but rather needs to
have potential to illuminate new knowledge. In case study research, although qualified
generalizations are possible, understanding the particular case under study is the primary goal.
Therefore, “the first criterion [for sampling] should be to maximize what we can learn” (Stake,
1995, p. 4) about the specific case.
In this study, I used purposeful sampling at both the site level and the participant level. At
the site level, I intentionally sampled a “specialized” TEP at the University of the West Coast
(UWC) that had a distinct mission to prepare social justice educators to work in high-needs,
urban schools with culturally and linguistically diverse students from historically marginalized
groups. As argued in Chapter One, understanding how teachers preparing to work in high-needs
schools learn to teach literacy in the current policy climate is critically important. Since literacy
instructional constraints tend to be more pronounced in schools serving students from historically
marginalized groups (e.g., Diamond & Spillane, 2004; Gutiérrez, 2006), I studied PSTs enrolled
in a TEP that aims to prepare them to work in high-needs schools, specifically, in order to learn
about how the policy climate influenced teacher learning for those preparing to work in these
schools. Besides having a specialized focus on preparing social justice teachers for high-needs,
urban schools, the TEP’s core features, such as coursework, student teaching fieldwork, and

68
degree requirements, were relatively “typical” or similar to those found in other specialized
TEPs.
5

I also utilized purposeful sampling at the level of selecting individual participants for the
study. Specifically, I recruited participants during the Elementary Literacy Methods course in the
Fall Quarter, PSTs’ first quarter in the TEP. Since I observed the weekly meetings of one section
of this course, I wanted the case study participants to be enrolled in the same section in order to
follow their literacy learning from their methods course through student teaching. Out of the 16
students who originally returned my participant interest form, eight ultimately followed through
to schedule an initial interview. I conducted initial interviews with these eight PSTs in order to
learn more about them and their backgrounds before selecting my final set of primary case study
participants. Although these PSTs were in the same section of Literacy Methods, five of them
were on faculty advisor Lezcano’s team for student teaching, and three were on Team Stern.
Since I planned to observe participants in their Student Teaching Seminar – led by the faculty
advisor (FA) – in the upcoming quarters, it was necessary for me to select PSTs who were on the
same team. Given that the teams met for Seminar at the same time, it was not possible to attend
both teams’ weekly meetings.
Additional methodological factors influenced my decision to ultimately select the three
PSTs on Tim Stern’s team as my primary participants. First, two of the five PSTs on Team
Lezcano were placed in a newly opened dual-language charter school for their first student-
teaching placements and were pursuing bilingual teaching credentials. As I am not bilingual, it
would have been difficult for me to observe many of these PSTs’ literacy lessons, as these PSTs
often conducted literacy lessons in Spanish. Additionally, new schools are often involved in a

5
The TEP – its curriculum, mission, and so forth – is described in more detail in Chapter Four.

69
steep organizational learning curve not apparent in more established schools, and charter schools
are exempt from certain district-level policies – particularly surrounding curriculum and
instruction mandates – so observing student teachers in these relatively atypical placements
seemed to introduce substantial and unique variation in participants’ student teaching contexts
that could potentially limit the usefulness of my findings for other teacher educators. Second, the
three PSTs on Team Stern all demographically represented the “typical” teacher candidate in the
United Sates: young, white, middle class, monolingual females from suburban areas (Zumwalt &
Craig, 2005). As over 80% of teachers in the U.S. are white and female (NCES, 2012), it is
particularly important to understand how these PSTs learn to teach students who are from
demographically different backgrounds than themselves (e.g., Hollins & Guzman, 2005; Sleeter,
2001, 2008). Also, with a small sample of case study participants, I did not want to endanger
essentializing participants by having, for example, one Latino male and one Asian American
female and risk over generalizing my findings about their particular experiences. Instead, it
seemed more prudent for my sample to include PSTs who were demographically very similar
and then uncover the nuance and complexity within their individual learning and development in
context.
6

Given these various logistical and methodological factors, the three primary case study
participants ended up being Emily, Megan, and Molly, three women enrolled in the same social
justice-oriented TEP with the same FA for student teaching, Tim Stern. The majority (four out of
five) of the PSTs on Team Lezcano I initially interviewed expressed interest in wanting to
continue to speak with me throughout the year, so I continued to conduct interviews with them.
Additionally, Tim suggested that I interview two other PSTs on his team (who were in the other

6
I include a more detailed introduction to the three primary case study participants – their
background, commitments, personalities, and so forth – in Chapter Four.

70
section of the Literacy Methods course), because as students of color, he thought they would
potentially provide a different perspective than my white participants. Ultimately, I conducted
three interviews with nine participants and followed three primary participants into their student
teaching placements to observe their literacy lessons. See Table 3.1 for a summary of
participants’ demographic information; note that I asked participants open-ended questions
pertaining to demographics, so often their answers did not fit neatly into a particular “box.”

71

Table 3.1

Summary of Participants’ Demographic Information

Participant
Name
Gender Age* Race/
Ethnicity
Socioeconomic
Status
Language
Status
TEP
Faculty
Advisor
Amy Female 24 Chicana and
White

Middle Class Monolingual Stern
Chloe Female 24 Chicana,
Oaxaqueña and
Zapotec

Working Poor Bilingual,
English and
Spanish
Lezcano
Diane Female 22 White Lower Class Monolingual Lezcano

Emily** Female 24 White Middle to
Upper-Middle
Class

Monolingual Stern
Esther Female 24 Korean
American
Upper-Middle
Class
Bilingual,
English and
Korean

Stern
Joanna Female 22 White Middle Class Monolingual Lezcano

Megan** Female 23 White Middle to
Upper-Middle
Class

Monolingual Stern
Molly** Female 22 White Upper-Middle
to Upper Class

Monolingual Stern
Ruth Female 21 Asian
American,
Taiwanese and
Chinese
Upper-Middle
Class
Bilingual,
English and
Mandarin
Chinese
Lezcano

*Participant’s age at the beginning of the TEP academic year
** Primary case study participant

72

Data Sources
As mentioned, a small number of participants is ideal for case study in order to
document, analyze, and understand the case with depth and complexity, and one of the main
mechanisms for gaining this nuanced understanding of the case is through collecting multiple
sources of data (e.g., Creswell, 2007; Stake, 1995). Case studies typically utilize three main
sources of data: observations, interviews, and documents (Stake, 1995). The combination of all
three data sources in this study provided a holistic picture of how PSTs learn to teach literacy to
students from historically marginalized groups in high-needs, urban schools. Cultural Historical
Activity Theory also informed the study’s data sources as I attempted to capture the range of
influences on PSTs’ field-based learning, including the TEP, student-teaching context,
participants’ prior beliefs and dispositions, and other significant actors within the activity system
(e.g., CTs, FA).
Since CHAT emphasizes the sociocultural construction and mediation of knowledge, data
collection methods were largely open-ended. For example, observations attempted to be holistic
in nature, and interviews were semi-structured. Since I did not test a specific hypothesis, I aimed
for participants to describe their experiences in their own words. Ultimately, I looked to capture
how they made sense of, or constructed, their new knowledge as literacy teachers for students
from historically marginalized groups and how various influences within the “learning-to-teach
ecosystem” (Wideen et al., 1998) shaped their learning and practice. Table 3.2 presents a
summary of the data sources and when data was collected. I discuss the details of each data
source below.

73
Table 3.2
Summary of Data Sources and Time Collected

Data Sources
Time Frame Observations Interviews Documents
Fall 2013

Elementary Literacy
Methods Course
Meetings
Participant Interview 1:
Initial Background

Literacy Methods
Course Instructor
Literacy Methods
Course: Syllabus, Class
Handouts, Lecture
Slides, Participants’
Course Assignments

TEP-wide: Mission
Statement, Vision, Core
Values, TEP Handbook

Winter 2014 Student Teaching
Seminar Meetings

Student Teaching
Placements
Participant Interview 2:
TEP Coursework and
First Student Teaching
Placement

Cooperating Teachers
Student Teaching
Seminar: Syllabus, Class
Handouts, Participants’
Course Assignments

Student Teaching
Placement: Lesson
Plans, Teacher Educator
Feedback

Spring 2014 Critical Media Literacy
Course Meetings

Student Teaching
Seminar Meetings

Student Teaching
Placements
Participant Interview 3:
TEP Coursework and
Second Student
Teaching Placement

Cooperating Teachers

Faculty Advisor/Critical
Media Literacy Course
Instructor

Critical Media Literacy
Course: Syllabus, Class
Handouts, Lecture
Slides, Participants’
Course Assignments

Student Teaching
Seminar: Syllabus, Class
Handouts, Participants’
Course Assignments

Student Teaching
Placement: Lesson
Plans, Teacher Educator
Feedback

Other TEP
Requirements: edTPA,
Electronic Portfolio

74
Observations. Observations occurred in several sites throughout the course of the study
in order to capture participants’ learning opportunities and developing literacy instruction over
time and across contexts. First, I conducted observations in participants’ TEP. In particular, I
observed in participants’ weekly Elementary Literacy Methods course, taught by Jessica Darcy,
during the Fall Quarter. Observing in the Literacy Methods course provided information about
what the TEP aimed for PSTs to learn about elementary literacy teaching and learning through
their coursework. In the Spring Quarter, I observed in the Critical Media Literacy course, taught
by Tim Stern, which offered information about what the TEP intended PSTs to learn about media
literacy, a “non-traditional” form of literacy that is arguably increasingly important in today’s
media-saturated world. Although observing in the Critical Media Literacy course was not
originally part of my study design, Tim enthusiastically said to me, “If your study is about
literacy, you have to come to my media literacy course.” Not wanting to turn down an offer to
observe an additional TEP course with a literacy focus, I accepted. Critical Media Literacy was
unique in that it was required for PSTs in UWC’s TEP; many TEPs do not have such a course or
perhaps offer media literacy as an elective, and Tim’s course took a particularly critical
perspective on media production and consumption that might not be found in media literacy
courses in other TEPs.
7

In addition to observing in these two literacy courses, I also observed during PSTs’
Student Teaching Seminar in both the Winter and Spring Quarters. This class met weekly and
was designed to accompany PSTs’ student teaching fieldwork. These observations provided
insight into how participants were constructing – and how the FA was mediating – knowledge
gleaned through their student teaching experience. Collecting data in these various settings

7
Chapter Four includes a more detailed description of both the Elementary Literacy Methods
and the Critical Media Literacy courses.

75
within the TEP provided me with the opportunity to understand what the TEP and the university-
based teacher educators aimed for PSTs to learn from their student teaching fieldwork and their
methods courses. Understanding what the TEP aimed for PSTs to know and be able to do
regarding teaching literacy to students from historically marginalized groups also provided me
with insight into which of these ideals PSTs were enacting – or not – in their elementary
classrooms during student teaching. While observing in the TEP, I took detailed field notes that
captured the instructor’s lectures and facilitation, small group discussions, and individual side
conversations amongst the PSTs in an attempt to capture as much of what was occurring as
possible.
Second, I observed the primary case study participants teaching literacy in their two
student teaching placements during the Winter and Spring Quarters. As is typical across many
TEPs, PSTs began by first observing their CT, then teaching a few lessons a week, and finally
“taking over” teaching all lessons in all subject areas for the final two weeks in both their first
and second placements, which were nine and seven weeks long (due to spring breaks),
respectively. (The participants conducted additional observations in their first placements in the
second half of the Fall Quarter, but they did not begin student teaching until the Winter Quarter.)
The placements also occurred in different grade levels, with PSTs being required to student teach
in two of the following three grade spans for their certification: K-2, 3-5, 6-8. As I aimed to
capture PSTs’ development of literacy instructional practice over time, I observed each
participant teaching literacy between 4-6 times during each of her two placements in different
schools and different grade levels. I was therefore able to see literacy lessons participants
designed and conducted at the beginning, middle, and end of student teaching, in order to gain a
sense of how and to what extent their instruction evolved over the course of the two placements.

76
During their two-week “take overs,” I observed 2-3 consecutive days of literacy instruction as a
way to see how PSTs were designing and implementing a progression of literacy lessons.
In addition to observing participants’ literacy instruction, I also observed each participant
conferring with Tim about her literacy instruction during a debriefing session held after he (and
I) observed a particular lesson. I was able to observe 1-2 debriefing conversations with each
participant. For one of Emily’s post-lesson debriefs, her CT also participated in the conversation.
Other than this instance, I did not observe CTs debriefing lessons with their student teachers; I
learned later that these types of discussions with CTs were minimal. These classroom
observations allowed me to see the actual (as opposed to self-reported) literacy instruction taught
during participants’ student teaching experience as well as how teacher educators supported
PSTs’ learning in this context. Across all of the observations in PSTs’ student teaching
placements, I took detailed field notes about the environment, the literacy instruction, and
students’ and the teacher’s interactions and behaviors in an attempt to capture a holistic picture
of each classroom and what was occurring within it. I further discuss my role as a participant
observer in certain situations throughout my data collection efforts.
Participant observation. Participant observation is the primary method of ethnography,
traditionally utilized to facilitate understanding of the emic perspectives of a culture-sharing
group (Hammersley & Atkinson, 2007; O’Reilly, 2005). Participant observation is also
employed by feminist researchers who aim to participate in and contribute to participants’ lives
as opposed to merely “using” participants to serve the researcher’s own interests. Feminist
researchers prioritize their participants’ interests and participate in their lives to the extent – and
in the manner – participants deem appropriate and desirable (Wolf, 1996). As a participant
observer, the researcher both observes settings as well as participates in various activities within

77
them. By participating and interacting with group members within naturalistic settings, the
researcher gains a deeper understanding of the culture than by simply observing at the periphery
(Hammersley & Atkinson, 2007; O’Reilly, 2005).
While I did not conduct a full ethnography, participant observation was a useful method
to employ in this case study. However, I navigated access and appropriateness of my participant
observation in each setting separately and over time (O’Reilly, 2005). For example, the
instructors in the TEP courses encouraged my participation – primarily in small group
conversations but on occasion they asked me to share my thoughts with the whole group. I did
not shy away from engaging in conversation with PSTs during their courses. Often, PSTs would
ask for my opinion or advice on a particular issue with which they were wrestling. During my
observations in participants’ student teaching placements, it was more appropriate for me to only
observe, as participants were guests in someone else’s classroom. However, on occasion, the
elementary students – seeing another adult in the room – would ask me for help while they were
working independently or with peers. As the PST and CT were usually occupied with other
students at these times, I provided what I considered to be appropriate assistance – based on the
lesson goals and the PST’s interactions with other students – when students directly asked me a
question. Incorporating participant observation helped to shed additional light on PSTs’
experiences that I may not have had access to if I acted as a detached observer.
Interviews. Interviews are also an important data source for case study, as they provide a
window into participants’ thoughts, opinions, and perspectives that may not be observable
(Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Creswell, 2007). I conducted three semi-structured interviews with
each of the nine PST participants. The first interview took place during the Fall Quarter, the
PSTs’ first quarter in the TEP. This interview focused on participants’ backgrounds, why they

78
wanted to become a teacher, why they chose to attend UWC’s TEP, and their perspectives on
literacy teaching and learning for students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds.
(See Appendix A for the first interview protocol.)
The second interview occurred at the end of the Winter Quarter, when PSTs had
completed two full quarters of coursework and their first student teaching placement. In this
interview, I asked about participants’ learning in their TEP coursework thus far, primarily
discussing the Elementary Literacy Methods course, as well as their reflections on their teaching
and learning opportunities in their first student teaching placements. This interview also included
questions pertaining to edTPA, or Teacher Performance Assessment. The edTPA consisted of
PSTs’ creating, teaching, and reflecting on a series of three consecutive literacy lessons. The
TEP was piloting the edTPA as a requirement for PSTs’ teaching credential, as the state planned
to utilize edTPA as a credentialing requirement for all PSTs the following year. Lastly, I
repeated questions pertaining to their perspectives on literacy teaching and learning. (See
Appendix B for the second interview protocol.)
I conducted the third interview at the end of the Spring Quarter, which marked the end of
PSTs’ first year in their TEP. At this time, PSTs had completed all of their coursework as well as
their second student teaching placements. This interview consisted of questions pertaining to
additional TEP coursework, specifically Critical Media Literacy, PSTs’ second student teaching
placements, and their two placements in relation to one another. During the Spring Quarter, most
participants took a state standardized reading exam, which was required for their credential, so I
also asked PSTs about their experience with this high-stakes test. I again asked participants about
their perspectives on literacy teaching and learning for students from culturally and linguistically

79
diverse backgrounds after they had now spent two full quarters in elementary classrooms in high-
needs, urban schools. (See Appendix C for the third interview protocol.)
By conducting three interviews over the course of the academic year, I was able to trace
changes – or lack thereof – in participants’ perspectives on literacy teaching and learning at three
different time points. While the initial interview protocols reflected my thinking based on
existing literature and CHAT, I crafted subsequent interview protocols to reflect preliminary
findings from ongoing data analysis and immersion in the settings. The first interview lasted
approximately 60 minutes, while the second and third interviews lasted between 90-120 minutes.
All interviews were audio recorded and transcribed.
In addition to interviewing PSTs, I interviewed the teacher educators charged with
facilitating participants’ learning around literacy teaching. Specifically, within the TEP, I
interviewed the Elementary Literacy Methods course instructor, Jessica Darcy, during the Fall
Quarter to gain insight into her thinking behind the design and implementation of the course. In
the Spring Quarter, I interviewed Tim Stern, who both taught the Critical Media Literacy course
and was the primary case study participants’ FA. I asked him questions about the Critical Media
Literacy class and his goals for the course as well as questions pertaining to his role as an FA
generally and in relation to Emily, Megan, and Molly specifically. In addition to these two
university-based teacher educators, I conducted interviews with each case study participant’s two
CTs. The six CTs provided their perspectives on Emily’s, Megan’s, or Molly’s learning about
literacy instruction and gave me additional insight into the setting of their classrooms. By
interviewing the teacher educators guiding the participants throughout the course of the study, I
was able to gain a more complete and holistic picture of PSTs’ development as elementary
literacy teachers. The interviews with the university-based educators were between 60-90

80
minutes, while interviews with CTs lasted between 45-60 minutes. (See Appendices D, E, and F
for teacher educator interview protocols.) These interviews were also audio recorded and
transcribed.
Documents. Finally, I obtained numerous documents relevant to PSTs’ learning about
literacy teaching. For instance, I analyzed various TEP materials, such as the program mission
statement, website, and handbook. I also collected the syllabi, PowerPoint slides, class handouts,
and participants’ assignments – including weekly student teaching reflections – from the
Elementary Literacy Methods, Critical Media Literacy, and Student Teaching Seminar courses.
In addition, the TEP required PSTs to complete an electronic portfolio with a variety of materials
(e.g., papers from other classes) from their coursework and student teaching. These documents
provided the official record (Merriam, 2001) of the TEP’s learning goals for PSTs in terms of
teaching literacy to students from historically marginalized groups as well as information about
the extent to which the participants were meeting these learning goals.
I also collected and analyzed case study participants’ literacy lesson plans from student
teaching. These lesson plans documented what PSTs planned to teach, which may or may not
have reflected what actually occurred during a given lesson. When applicable, participants also
gave me copies of the written feedback they received on their literacy lessons, either from their
CT, FA, or both, thereby providing me with information about teacher educator mediation of
PSTs’ learning. Lastly, PSTs completed the edTPA toward the end of their first student teaching
placement. Case study participants sent me all of their written edTPA materials – lesson plans,
commentaries, student work samples, reflections – and their edTPA scores for analysis.
Participants’ edTPA materials provided additional information around PSTs’ learning about

81
literacy teaching, as these lesson plans – and the required accompanying written commentaries –
tended to be much more detailed than the other lesson plans they designed for student teaching.
The analysis of these documents, coupled with the observations and interviews, helped
me see where both alignment and discrepancies existed between ideas participants were exposed
to in the TEP and what PSTs actually taught in their student teaching classrooms. Observations,
interviews, and document analyses provided ample data for this instrumental nested case study of
preservice elementary literacy teachers. In addition to these formal data sources, I also had
countless informal conversations with participants and exchanged numerous emails, text
messages, and phone calls with each of them. These informal interactions also contributed to my
understanding of participants and their experiences. Triangulating analysis and findings from
across these various data sources allowed me to gain an in-depth, nuanced understanding of how
PSTs learn to teach literacy to students from historically marginalized groups in high-needs,
urban schools.
Data Analysis
Although data analysis is frequently seen as a distinct phase of the research process, it
“should not be seen as separate from everlasting efforts to make sense of things” (Stake, 1995, p.
72). Therefore, I utilized the “constant comparative method” (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), an
iterative process of ongoing data analysis, particularly since I aimed to comprehend a complex
learning process over time and across settings. Specifically, preliminary data analysis began after
the Fall Quarter, after conducting the initial interviews with participants, and continued
throughout the data collection process. However, the bulk of the analysis occurred after all data
were collected, after the end of the Spring Quarter. As “[t]he search for meaning often is a search
for patterns” (Stake, 1995, p. 78), I primarily looked for patterns within the data. However, case

82
study also benefits from direct interpretation of a single salient instance or event (Stake, 1995).
Since PSTs became individual cases nested within the larger group case, situations that were
unique to specific participants were also analyzed and interpreted. This allowed for the analysis
of the participants’ individual construction of knowledge about literacy teaching within their
specific contexts in conjunction with analysis of broader patterns across the group case.
I followed Creswell’s (2007) steps of data analysis: coding the data, combining the codes
into categories or themes, and making comparisons through tables and charts, because these
processes facilitate interpretation of the data. By first reducing the data into salient pieces (codes)
and then finding patterns (themes), the meaning embedded within the large corpus of data was
able to unfold. Before I began coding, I read through all of the data, highlighting potentially
salient instances, and making “preliminary jottings” (Saldaña, 2013) in the margins about
potential codes and what I was noticing. I also wrote memos throughout this phase of the
analysis process. Coding itself occurred in several cycles and consisted of Miles and Huberman’s
(1994) main types of codes: descriptive, interpretive, and pattern.
After the open-ended “pre-coding” reading of the data, I utilized the qualitative coding
software NVivo to code both deductively and inductively in accordance with Patton’s (2002)
notion of “analytic induction” (p. 454). First, I imported deductive codes from my theoretical
framework (Miles & Huberman, 1994). I drew on the triangular CHAT heuristic to guide these
broader, deductive, descriptive codes. For example, I coded for data related to the learners, or
PSTs and their personal backgrounds and experiences; data pertaining to mediating artifacts
encountered within the TEP and student teaching; data that addressed the student teaching
context; data relating to participants’ TEP; data that referred to the broader contexts of teaching
in today’s schools and classrooms, and so forth. Second, within these macro codes, I coded

83
inductively, engaging in “open coding” to allow for patterns and themes to emerge from the data
and participants’ experiences themselves (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). The initial codes from this
inductive phase of the analysis process became lengthy and unwieldy, as I was staying close to
the data and was often coding line-by-line and using participants’ own language. I then
combined, collapsed, eliminated, and reorganized the codes in order to achieve “internal
homogeneity” within a given code and “external heterogeneity” between codes (Patton, 2002).
For example, I noticed that considerable overlap existed between some of the initial codes
related to participants’ views on how learning happens: connections, funds of knowledge, prior
knowledge, and relevance. I then collapsed these codes, and the accompanying coded instances,
into one code I termed relevance-connections. Third, during “second-cycle” coding (Saldaña,
2013), I engaged in “pattern coding” (Miles & Huberman, 1994), as I was beginning to see
broader themes and patterns from the previous rounds of descriptive and interpretive coding.
Pattern codes included TEP-field disconnect and teacher educator mediation, among others. (See
Appendix G for a complete list of codes.)
I continued to memo throughout the entire coding process. I wrote memos specifically
about codes and coding to facilitate my subsequent steps in the coding process. I also wrote
analytic “sensemaking” memos where I reflected more broadly on what I thought I was seeing in
the data as a tool to aid my understanding and further my interpretation of the data (Miles &
Huberman, 1994). Coding and memo writing was an iterative process that involved moving back
and forth from the data multiple times, ultimately leading to the discovery of patterns across
participants as well as understanding individual participants’ experiences with depth. The
combination of deductive and inductive coding provided a particularly robust analysis of the
data, being guided both by theory and by the participants’ own voices.

84
Although rigorous data analysis lends credence to the ultimate findings and conclusions
of a study, incorporating additional techniques can strengthen the verification of qualitative
research results. While I do not claim to present “objective truths” regarding my findings,
researchers nonetheless “have ethical obligations to minimize misrepresentation and
misunderstanding” (Stake, 1995, p. 109). In the following section, I discuss how I attempted to
ensure the “trustworthiness” (as opposed to the validity) of the study’s findings.
Trustworthiness
I took several steps to ensure the trustworthiness and verification of my findings. First
and foremost, my findings are verifiable by the extensive time spent with participants, as
immersion in the context with participants allows for the researcher to gain a tacit understanding
of the meanings embedded in participants’ words and behavior (Altheide & Johnson, 1994).
Second, I utilized triangulation to ensure the robustness of my interpretations. Methodological
triangulation involves comparing data from different data sources (i.e., observations, interviews,
documents). By analyzing the extent to which themes occur across sources, it is possible to
corroborate and illuminate findings (Stake, 1995). The third way I addressed the verification of
my findings is through member checks. In member checking, participants review the data and
interpretations, confirming accuracy from their perspective (Creswell, 2007; Stake, 1995). In this
study, I sent participants transcripts of their interviews and the descriptive introduction about
them for review as well as presented participants with initial themes that emerged from the data
and asked for their feedback.
Fourth and finally, I aimed to provide a “rich, thick description” (Creswell, 2007, p. 209)
of the study’s participants – their background, their perspectives on literacy and how it is taught
and learned, their literacy practices, their experiences in high-needs schools, and so forth – and

85
the contexts surrounding them. By writing about my findings in a detailed, descriptive manner, I
aim to demonstrate that I have acquired a deep, thorough knowledge of the phenomenon that also
allows the reader to determine whether the findings from this study are transferable to another
context (Creswell, 2007). By spending extensive time with participants, triangulating data across
sources, conducting member checks, and providing a thick description of events, I aimed to
establish strong verification of my findings. In addition to presenting trustworthy findings, I was
also obligated to work ethically and felt compelled to provide reciprocity to study participants.
Ethics and Reciprocity
A key ethical issue in conducting research with human participants is that of reciprocity,
or what the researcher can offer participants who share their experiences and thoughts with her.
While reciprocity is always important, feminist methodology pays particular attention to
genuinely giving back to participants in ways that participants themselves deem worthwhile
(Wolf, 1996). When designing this study, I hoped that the interviews and conversations would
help PSTs process and reflect on their learning, thereby potentially helping them to resolve some
of the challenges they encountered. Each of the participants expressed to me, on multiple
occasions, that they did, in fact, find our time together worthwhile. For example, Emily and
Megan both said that our interviews were like “therapy” for them, and Molly texted me – in
texting parlance – after one of our interviews: “ … And thanks for taking the time! I enjoy our lil
convo seshes.” Megan also said, during our second interview, before I asked my final set of
questions, “I know – ‘what is literacy?’ I’ve been thinking about it all quarter because I knew
you were going to ask me [again].”
In addition, on more than one occasion, participants asked me for advice or help with
their lesson plans, particularly while they were preparing for the edTPA. I sat down with both

86
Esther and Molly to talk about their lessons, and I provided Emily with written feedback on her
preliminary plans. When Chloe asked me for writing resources for her transitional kindergarten
classroom, I loaned her three books on emergent literacy; I also loaned teaching trade books to
Molly. Molly even called me with questions the night before her first day as a full-time teacher, a
few months after the study officially ended, and Megan sent me photos when she was setting up
her new classroom. Molly and Megan have both called me on more than one occasion during
their first year teaching (the year following the study) to ask for advice – and also just to talk. I
have also spoken with Emily after the end of the study, but seeing as she took a position as a
“partner teacher” and does not have sole responsibility for a classroom, she thus far seems less
overwhelmed than Megan and Molly. These are small examples of how I hope I was able to be a
helpful resource to participants, as this study would not exist without them. I also hope that I will
continue my relationships with these teachers who so generously shared their time, thoughts, and
experiences with me.
Summary
Qualitative methodology was most appropriate for this study that aimed to capture PSTs’
literacy learning over time and across contexts. Specifically, I utilized an instrumental nested
case study design, where individual teachers were treated as cases nested within the larger group
case of PSTs enrolled in a social justice-oriented TEP. Cultural Historical Activity Theory
informed data collection in that I observed, interviewed, and analyzed documents from the entire
“learning-to-teach ecosystem” (Wideen et al., 1998); it also informed data analysis through the
use of imported codes. Although case study was the overarching methodology for the study, I
also incorporated ethnographic methods, specifically participant observation, and drew on
feminist methodology, particularly regarding the role of the researcher. In the following chapter,

87
I introduce study participants – the learners – and the sites of their learning – the contexts – that
constituted this study. Chapter Four thus provides the descriptive foundation of the subsequent
chapters, which report the study’s findings.

88
CHAPTER FOUR
INTRODUCTION OF LEARNERS AND CONTEXTS
Due to the importance Cultural Historical Activity Theory places on learners and the
contexts of their learning, this chapter introduces the people and places in this study. First, I
describe the TEP – its mission and its curriculum – as a primary context for PSTs’ learning.
Next, I introduce the two university-based teacher educators and their literacy courses in which I
observed. One of these teacher educators also was the case study participants’ Faculty Advisor
(FA), responsible for supervising their student teaching endeavors. Lastly, I introduce Molly,
Megan, and Emily, the three case study participants. I describe each of their two student teaching
placements, which served as important contexts for their literacy learning. These descriptions lay
the foundation for the two subsequent chapters, which present the study’s findings.
University of the West Coast’s Teacher Education Program
UWC is a prestigious public university located in a populous urban area in the western
United States. The TEP is a two-year program leading to a Master of Education and a state
credential certifying educators to teach multiple subjects in grades K-8. According to its website,
the TEP “strives to prepare teachers to have the commitment, capacity, and resilience to promote
social justice, caring, and instructional equity in low-income, urban schools and communities” in
promotion of its mission to “radically improve urban schooling.” Although a handful of TEPs in
the United States have programs with a social justice focus, UWC’s TEP is relatively unique in
the firmness of its commitment to prepare social justice educators to teach racially, culturally,
and linguistically diverse students in urban schools. The TEP’s mission, specialized coursework,
and student teaching placement practices, described below, evidence this commitment.
In addition to coursework found in many TEPs – such as Elementary Literacy Methods

89
and Psychological Foundations of Education – the TEP’s curriculum differs from more “typical”
TEPs in that it emphasizes the following across courses: “the structural dimensions of inequity;
the need for social and political activism; the centrality of multiculturalism; and the vital
importance of understanding competing notions of race, culture, and identity.” PSTs also take
specialized courses, such as Teaching in Urban Schools, a three-quarter course focusing on
Culture, Diverse Perspectives, and Community Action in each respective term. Key TEP texts
include Freire’s (1970; Freire & Macedo, 1987) critical literacy works, emphasizing being able
not only to literally decode texts but also to figuratively “read” the world in order to critically
analyze oppression and inequity, ultimately leading to the promotion of necessary social change.
During their first year in the TEP, PSTs student teach in underserved, underperforming schools
in urban areas serving low-income communities of color. In their second year, TEP students are
required to secure positions – as full-time, assistant, or volunteer teachers – in schools that also
meet these criteria.
TEP-aligned Literacy Pedagogy
The TEP’s curriculum is designed to prepare teachers to teach in particular ways. That is,
the TEP has a specific “object,” or goal, for PSTs’ learning around teaching. Throughout the
remaining chapters, I utilize the term “TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy” to refer to the TEP’s
espoused approach to teaching literacy. Specifically, TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy refers to
instruction that exemplifies the TEP’s vision of effective literacy instruction for diverse students.
According to the TEP’s website, “[W]e advocate approaches to teaching and learning that
recognize and value students’ assets, provide them multiple forms of participation, facilitate
critical thinking, motivate them to learn, reveal high academic and personal expectations, and
reflect culturally relevant pedagogies.” In addition, TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy is anchored in

90
sociocultural learning theory
8
(e.g., Vygotsky, 1978). As such, the TEP aims for PSTs to
understand the social, cultural, and historical factors that mediate literacy teaching and learning
in particular contexts (i.e., urban schools). Sociocultural theory provides the foundation for the
TEP to endorse literacy pedagogy that is “student centered” – where students are actively
engaged in co-constructing knowledge through interacting with others and with materials – as
opposed to “teacher centered” – where learners play a more passive role in receiving information
from the teacher. In TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy, students’ knowledge construction occurs in
various formats – pairs, small groups, whole class, and independently – that change depending
on the teacher’s goals and the students’ learning needs. For example, a teacher may design a
reading lesson for a homogeneous group of students based on the students’ reading level. At
other times, students may be grouped heterogeneously in order for native English speakers to
serve as language models for ELs in a small group setting. In addition, the TEP endorses
“differentiated” literacy instruction, or instruction that caters to individual students’ learning
needs, as opposed to a “one-size-fits-all” approach.
TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy includes “culturally relevant” or “culturally responsive”
pedagogy (e.g., Au, 2001; Ladson-Billings, 1995; Gay, 2000), as sociocultural theory considers
culture integral to learning. A tenet of culturally responsive pedagogy the TEP emphasizes
heavily is leveraging students’ strengths to facilitate new academic learning. Much talk that I
observed within TEP classes focused on pervasive “deficit” views of students from historically
marginalized groups. The TEP pressed PSTs to view students, families, and communities from
an “asset” perspective, noticing and building upon students’ “funds of knowledge” they have
simply from living and being in the world (Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzalez, 1992). Culturally

8
As discussed in Chapter Two, CHAT is a particular strand of sociocultural theory, so there is
alignment between this study’s theoretical framework and the TEP’s theoretical foundation.

91
responsive – and TEP-aligned – literacy instruction places meaning making at the center (e.g.,
Au, 1998, 2003). Lessons build off students’ prior knowledge and utilize authentic texts – such
as students’ writing, stories with characters that reflect students’ backgrounds, and so forth – to
teach new concepts. Specific literacy skill instruction (e.g., phonics, spelling) is embedded within
authentic texts and tasks; these skills are considered a “means to an end,” with the “end” being
comprehension and communication. This meaning-based literacy instruction differs from other,
code-based approaches (described in Chapter One), where discrete skills are often treated as an
entity separate from the meaning-making process and considered an “end” in and of themselves.
Table 4.1 provides a summary of the key guiding concepts and instructional characteristics of
TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy.
Table 4.1

Guiding Concepts and Instructional Characteristics of TEP-aligned Literacy Pedagogy

Guiding Concepts Instructional Characteristics
- Asset-based perspective
- Cultural responsiveness
- Social justice
- Sociocultural learning theory
- Active engagement
- Authentic texts and tasks
- Co-construction of knowledge
- Differentiation
- Focus on meaning-making
- Leveraging students’ strengths
- Multiple forms of participation
- Student-centered

I therefore utilize TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy as an overarching term that
encompasses “progressive” pedagogical practices (e.g., student-centered lessons, flexible
grouping, meaning-based instruction) grounded in sociocultural theory. TEP-aligned literacy
pedagogy stands in contrast to more “traditional” methods of teaching (e.g., teacher-centered
lessons, whole-class instruction, skills-based instruction) that tend to be rooted in behaviorist
conceptions of learning – and that tend to predominate in schools serving students from

92
historically marginalized groups (e.g., Gutiérrez, et al., 2002; Pacheco, 2010). As will be argued
in Chapter Five, PSTs realized the goal of understanding and engaging in TEP-aligned literacy
pedagogy to varying degrees.
University-based Teacher Educators and TEP Literacy Coursework
I introduce here the two teacher educators charged with facilitating PSTs’ TEP-based
learning around literacy, specifically. PSTs earning a multiple-subjects, elementary teaching
credential took two courses pertaining particularly to literacy: Elementary Literacy Methods,
taught by Jessica Darcy, and Critical Media Literacy, taught by Tim Stern. In addition, Tim, in
his role as FA, was responsible for supervising PSTs’ learning in the field, as he observed and
provided written and oral feedback on their lessons as well as facilitated the weekly Student
Teaching Seminar.
Jessica Darcy: Elementary literacy methods instructor. In her ninth year working in
the TEP, Jessica Darcy’s energy and enthusiasm remained palpable and “contagious,” according
to PSTs who “loved” her. Jessica taught one section of the Elementary Literacy Methods course,
which I observed weekly and in which the three case study participants were enrolled. Jessica
was also in charge of edTPA, the Teacher Performance Assessment required for PSTs’
credential, so PSTs interacted with her – and relied on her for advice and support – in the
quarters following the Literacy Methods course.
PSTs took the course in their first quarter in the TEP, before they started student
teaching, though they began observing in the field mid-way through the term. In Jessica’s course,
she advocated a “balanced, comprehensive literacy program for elementary students” that
incorporated the workshop model to teach reading and writing. These approaches involve using a
combination of many different forms of literacy instruction (e.g., read alouds, shared writing,

93
conferring, etc.) and center on students reading and writing about topics they choose at a
difficulty level appropriate for their stage of literacy development (e.g., Calkins, 1994; Fountas
& Pinnell, 2001). Jessica’s main goal was to provide a class with “maximum make and take,” so
PSTs would have practical strategies to implement in their classrooms.
As a means of teaching “high-utility” pedagogical strategies, Jessica often engaged PSTs
in experiencing these teaching practices as learners. For example, Jessica introduced word sorts
using terminology from the dense textbook chapter on assessment; PSTs worked in pairs to sort
the terms (e.g., evaluation, portfolios, running records, etc.) into categories. After walking
around the tables to see others’ organization of the terms, PSTs debriefed both the process and
the content of the word sort. Subsequently, Jessica showed a video of a sixth-grade classroom
engaging in a word sort with terms from a class novel and had PSTs discuss the video in pairs
and then as a whole class. Jessica closed this activity by promoting word sorts for K-12 students:
“There’s lots of student talk, it’s partner-driven, it’s great scaffolding for English language
learners.” This lesson demonstrates how Jessica “modeled” for PSTs certain “best practices” that
teachers of all ages can utilize, such as fostering active engagement, providing multiple access
points to curricular content, having students work in pairs, and facilitating class discussions – all
of which reflect TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy.
Jessica was acutely aware of the all-too-common disconnect between university methods
courses and the literacy instructional practices PSTs typically see in the field. In particular, she
wrestled with the tension between teaching PSTs about research-based approaches to literacy
teaching and the mandated, scripted curriculum – McGraw-Hill’s Treasures program – that was
used in many of their placements and tended not to reflect sociocultural theory. As she said,
I feel tremendous responsibility to talk to them about what they’re seeing in the field, but
then I feel like what I do is just tell them that what they’re seeing in the field is not good

94
for kids … I know that they have to do Treasures, but … I hope they have 10 minutes to
do a read aloud every day. I hope that they can find 20-25 minutes to do some silent
reading where kids have texts that they can read where teachers will sit next to them and
do some coaching and conferring. I hope that they can move the writing instruction … to
more of a workshop framework.

Jessica aimed to “bridge” the methods course and the field, and PSTs found her to be “super
supportive about … finding new ways to supplement the standard curriculum,” as Emily
commented. Indeed, and as I discuss in later chapters, Jessica was the only teacher educator
whom I observed provide explicit guidance around adapting mandated scripted curriculum.
Tim Stern: Critical media literacy instructor and faculty advisor. Tim, a former
photojournalist and bilingual elementary school teacher, was in his seventh year as an advisor
and instructor in the TEP. I observed in his Critical Media Literacy class and his Student
Teaching Seminar, the course he facilitated in his role as FA to his “team” of 22 PSTs, which
included the three case study participants. Tim was “very passionate” about media literacy, and
his enthusiasm was apparent to PSTs, who reported loving the course.
PSTs took Critical Media Literacy during their third quarter of coursework, while they
were completing their second student teaching placements. Critical Media Literacy is not
currently a “typical” course found in most TEPs, but it fits well within UWC’s TEP’s social
justice and critical orientation, which Tim ascribed to wholeheartedly: “I really enjoy working in
a program that’s so open and out about social justice … I get a lot of support in promoting a
progressive transformative agenda,” which he connected to his course: “[M]edia are not neutral
or objective. Nothing is neutral – education is a political act.” Tim’s primary goal was for PSTs
to develop literacy around their consumption of media (e.g., magazines, advertisements, etc.) by
learning how to critically ask questions, analyze, and decipher both implicit and explicit media

95
messages. Tim also wanted PSTs to learn about tools to utilize in the classroom, for “kids … [to]
learn how to think about [media and technology] through … [a] social justice critical lens …”
Tim’s class was highly interactive; PSTs often spent the majority of class time working in
small groups on various media-related projects. One assignment involved finding a racist media
image and making a “meme” that provided a counternarrative. One meme, for example, was a
Dove advertisement with three women – each with a different skin tone – standing next to a
product bottle that read, “For normal to dark skin.” The PSTs responded, “Will the normal
skinned person please stand up?” as a direct challenge to the notion of “normal” and the implicit
idea that “normal” often means “white.” As I will discuss in subsequent chapters, Critical Media
Literacy helped broaden PSTs’ conceptions of literacy and what it means to “read the world.”
As an FA, Tim observed PSTs during student teaching and facilitated the weekly Student
Teaching Seminar meetings with his team’s 22 PSTs. Although Seminar was a course taken for
credit, with readings and assignments, Tim did not consider his role to be one of teaching. As he
said, “[T]he seminar’s … more about helping them deal and meet with the requirements …
[because] it’s a credential program.” Indeed, logistical issues, such as how to upload edTPA
files, took up a fair amount of Seminar time. Seminar also included a community circle, where
Tim mediated PSTs’ discussions of student teaching experiences. Each week, 2-4 PSTs led the
team in debriefing the week’s readings and in a community building exercise.
One of Tim’s main responsibilities as an FA was observing PSTs in the field and
providing feedback on their lessons. Due to the large size of his team (in previous years he had
teams of 12 or 15 PSTs), he observed each PST 2-3 times in each 7- or 9-week student teaching
placement. A field supervisor also observed PSTs on Tim’s team, but she did not attend the

96
weekly Seminar meetings. Advising PSTs is not an easy undertaking, and Tim recognized many
of the complexities and challenges involved in his role as an FA. As he discussed,
[O]ne of the conflicts I have with this position is that it puts me in a role that’s not clearly
defined of being a gatekeeper, of not letting someone get their [sic] teaching credential if
they shouldn’t be a teacher in the public system. And the other part of my role is to be an
advisor, who’s supposed to be supporting and coddling and cleaning up the tears and
helping advise and mentor these new candidates.

His advisees, for their part, at times struggled with feedback they received from Tim. As Megan
said, “[H]e challenges [us] a lot to look at [our] own positionality,” but noted, “I don’t always
think that he’s accurate with what he’s saying … and I think that it offends a lot of people … ”
Indeed, some PSTs felt Tim’s feedback was too “harsh,” and a few cried after receiving his
feedback. Tim recognized, “I don’t have those type of people skills” to deliver critical feedback
delicately, but ultimately, he wanted PSTs to improve because of his commitment to K-12
students. He wondered, “[W]hen do we put the needs of the K-12 children that we’re serving
before the needs of our own students? … [T]here are times I’d like to take risks, and push [PSTs]
further,” yet he also recognized he needed to “[play] the game of making sure they’re happy.”
In “pushing” PSTs “further,” Tim was not only talking about pedagogy, but also – and
perhaps especially – he was talking about ideology, an arguably more difficult area to address.
Indeed, he felt that pushing PSTs to develop “ideological clarity” (Bartolomé & Trueba, 2000)
and unpack their privilege was immensely difficult, “especially [for] white students and students
from upper-middle class backgrounds” and claimed, “[T]hat’s probably the biggest challenge for
our whole program.” As will become apparent subsequently, Tim felt that the three white, upper-
middle class PSTs in this study were at different points on the critical ideological spectrum.

97

Case Study Participants and Student Teaching Contexts
In this section, I introduce the three primary case study participants: Molly, Megan, and
Emily. I describe each of their two student teaching placements, focusing specifically on the
literacy instruction offered in these classrooms. I also focus on the participants’ CTs, who the
TEP expected to serve as classroom-based teacher educators, responsible for mediating the
PSTs’ learning in the field, though some took up this role more fully and deliberately than others.
It is important to note that I do not focus on the K-12 students in these classrooms beyond
providing broad demographic characteristics of a school’s student population. While the students
are of course key community members within the context of participants’ student teaching
placements, my focus is on PSTs and the teacher educators charged with facilitating their
learning around literacy teaching. It is beyond the scope of this study to focus on K-12 students
and their literacy learning.
Molly Palazzo
Molly was in many ways representative of a “typical” teacher candidate: she was a
young, white, monolingual female from an affluent, predominantly white suburb. Molly
described her family as being between upper-middle and upper class; she attended a small
private school through eighth grade before attending a public high school and then UWC as an
undergraduate. Molly immediately came across as a talkative, bubbly, and positive person.
Although she was young – 22 when she started the TEP – Molly also seemed to be young at
heart; she collected pig figurines, enjoyed Disney movies, and had a high-pitched voice that
made her sound almost perpetually excited, upbeat, and maybe even a bit naïve. A few lines
from her “I Am From” poem, a TEP assignment, were telling: “I am from empathy, compassion,
and seeing the best in people/From naivety [sic] and having no filter/And from a constant

98
contradiction of maturity and immaturity/I am from the eternal optimist …” Molly reported
having “nothing but stellar” school experiences and was extremely close with her family.
Although I spent a considerable amount of time interacting with Molly, it was not until I
read her “positionality paper” that I learned that she considered herself “acutely disabled because
… I have cerebral palsy from a stroke upon birth” that affected the fine motor skills on the right
side of her body. She reported having “been underestimated, pitied, ridiculed” because of her
disability and went on to say how she believed her experiences would inform her teaching:
I think knowing what it feels like to be ridiculed and underestimated because of a
difference will help me relate to and empathize with my students. I never want any of my
students to be put down in a way that makes them feel lesser.

Molly had “always wanted to be a teacher,” reminiscing about times when, as a kindergartener,
she would pretend to teach her dolls. Her primary impetus for wanting to be a teacher seemed to
be her love of children. She enjoyed being around them, relished in their accomplishments, and
fed off of their excitement. Molly pursued an English major as an undergraduate in part because
she believed the critical thinking skills involved in attaining an English degree would serve her
well as a teacher. Molly also obtained a minor in education as an undergraduate in UWC’s TEP.
Molly applied to UWC for her master’s degree primarily due to her positive experience in
UWC’s TEP as an undergraduate and UWC’s highly regarded reputation. As an undergraduate,
the professors stood out to Molly as being at the “top of their field” and being “amazing
resources” for her while she served as a part-time teaching assistant. She also participated in
language and literacy research in an after-school program while taking an ethnography course as
an undergraduate. This course made a deep impression on Molly, particularly regarding her
perspectives on what it means to be literate. As will be elaborated upon in Chapter Five, Molly

99
entered the TEP with an “ever expanding” definition of literacy, which she attributed to this
ethnography class.
Despite Molly’s immersion into the TEP as an undergraduate and reporting being “all
about” the TEP’s social justice mission, Tim felt that Molly was not as “far along” ideologically
– particularly in terms of viewing her students from an asset-based perspective – as many of her
peers. In discussing Molly, Tim commented,
[S]he doesn’t have a deep understanding about ideology and the way power and
information are connected. And so [my goal is] to help her move, to be more skeptical,
… I think with Molly, we’re just starting to scratch the surface.

Tim’s concerns about Molly manifested most acutely during her first student teaching placement.
Molly’s first student teaching placement: First grade at William Sendak Elementary
School with Rosa Morales. William Sendak Elementary School, often referred to as “Sendak”
by PSTs, was part of Central City Unified School District (CCUSD), a large urban district near
UWC. Sendak was located near downtown, in a neighborhood with a large Mexican and
Salvadoran population. The neighborhood also bordered the city’s Koreatown, and many of the
store signs were written in Korean or Spanish, some with English translations. The signs within
Sendak (e.g., main office, bathroom) were written in English, Spanish, and Korean. The school’s
student population was approximately 96% Latino, and 100% of the student body was
categorized as “economically disadvantaged.” Approximately 60% of Sendak students were
classified as ELs, with 97% of them speaking Spanish as their primary language. The most
recent data available showed that 46% and 51% of students passed the ELA and Math state
standardized exams, respectively. (See Table 4.2 for summary demographic information of
PSTs’ placement schools.) Ten members of Tim’s team student taught at Sendak, including

100
Molly and Megan. An enthusiastic principal who was a graduate of UWC’s principal program
led Sendak; Tim also used to teach there.
During this study, Sendak was in compliance with an official CCUSD policy of creating
classes where “students are grouped with the fewest ELD [English Language Development]
levels together as possible.” Colloquially, this grouping practice or “tracking” was known as
“separation,” as ELs were separated from native English speakers and former ELs. Amongst the
CTs and PSTs, classes were often deemed the “low” or “high” class for a particular grade. At
Sendak, Molly was placed in Rosa Morales’s first-grade classroom. All of the students in the
class tested at ELD Level 1, demonstrating the least proficiency in English on the state English
proficiency exam. Most of Rosa’s students were also performing “below benchmark” on grade
level exams (which, considering these exams were administered in English, is perhaps not
surprising), and eight students were repeating first grade. The class was considered the “low”
first-grade class.
Rosa’s literacy instruction consisted of her following the mandated Treasures curriculum
with fidelity. In particular, she was careful to deliver lessons according to the script provided in
the program’s Teacher’s Edition. As Molly commented, “[T]hey put in blue what the teacher is
supposed to say, and [Rosa] says exactly … what it tells her to say.” The “script” of a typical
lesson involved having the students sit on the carpet and chorally read from their anthology
textbooks, with Rosa stopping at predetermined places to ask questions about the text. A great
deal of time in Treasures lessons was also spent having students work on phonics, primarily
“blending” words that included a particular vowel sound. Treasures, with its predetermined texts
and predominantly whole-class, teacher-centered, scripted lessons, was in many ways antithetical
to the sociocultural, culturally responsive pedagogy promoted by the TEP. However, Rosa, in her

101
fifteenth year teaching, seemed to view following the curriculum her responsibility as a teacher,
saying her instructional decisions were guided primarily by “the pacing that we have to do.”
Overall, Rosa was not particularly critical of the program.
Table 4.2

Summary of Demographic Information of PSTs’ Student Teaching Placements

School and
District
Racial/
Ethnic
Groups
English
Learners
“Economically
Disadvantaged”
Students
Standardized
State Exams
Passing Rates
PSTs’
Placements
William
Sendak
Elementary
School,
CCUSD
96% Latino
2% Asian
1% African
American
60% 100% 46% ELA
51% Math

Molly:
1
st
Grade

Megan:
4
th
Grade

Humboldt
Street
Elementary
School,
CCUSD

100% Latino 51% 100% 39% ELA
58% Math

Emily:
2
nd
Grade
Knox
Avenue
Elementary
School,
SCUSD

75% Latino
22% African
American
25% 81% 72% ELA
87% Math
Molly:
4
th
Grade

Emily:
5
th
Grade
La Ciudad
del Noreste
Middle
School,
CCUSD
92% Latino
5% Asian
1% African
American
30% 75% 41% ELA
46% Math
Megan:
6
th
Grade

Molly found it very frustrating to student teach in Rosa’s classroom. She was critical of
Rosa’s strict adherence to the Treasures script, the lack of “authentic, relevant” literacy lessons,
and the almost non-existent writing instruction and opportunities for the first graders. Molly also
found it hard to relate to Rosa, both personally and professionally, saying, “[T]here was always
this vacancy between us … I’m very warm and fuzzy and she’s … distant and very stern.” Rosa

102
also described herself as being “stern” in the classroom, because she felt students “need that
discipline.” In addition, Molly lamented the fact that Rosa gave her either minimal or no
feedback on her lesson plans or lesson execution, a broader theme across participants that I
address thoroughly in Chapter Six. While Molly felt like she was not getting the guidance she
needed from her CT, Tim was concerned about Molly’s progress and effort during this first
placement, saying she was at the “low end” of development in her cohort of PSTs and was letting
deficit views of students seep into her planning and instruction.
Molly’s second student teaching placement: Fourth grade at Knox Avenue
Elementary School with Miguel García. In many ways, Molly’s second student teaching
placement at Knox Avenue Elementary School was the opposite of her experience at Sendak.
Knox was located in a residential area – consisting of modest, well-maintained single-family
homes, many with bars on the windows and/or chain-link fences around the small front yards –
in Southern City Unified School District (SCUSD), a smaller urban district in the same county as
CCUSD. Despite Southern City’s history as a predominantly African American community,
Knox served a student population that was approximately 76% Latino and 22% African
American, with 81% classified as “socioeconomically disadvantaged” and 25% of the students
classified as ELs. Knox’s principal and teachers took great pride in their recognized
achievement, with 72% and 87% of students passing the previous year’s ELA and mathematics
exams, respectively. Although I was not aware of a particular, publically disclosed district policy
regarding class grouping, Knox tracked students based on test scores beginning in kindergarten.
Most often, students stayed in their same tracked class throughout elementary school. In this
context, Molly was placed in Miguel García’s “accelerated” fourth grade class.

103
Molly was thrilled to have Miguel – a 14-year veteran and the staff-elected “teacher of
the year” – as her CT. Molly particularly appreciated the amount of feedback that Miguel gave
on her lessons. Out of all the CTs in this study, Miguel’s ideology seemed the most aligned with
the TEP’s philosophy. His teaching philosophy centered on “equity,” believing, “every kid,
regardless of their [sic] religious, ethnic, or socioeconomic background, should receive a high
caliber education.” Miguel attempted to ensure his students received a quality education by
setting high expectations. In his words, “I strongly believe that kids will meet expectations if the
bar is set high. The minute you bring it lower no one rises to that.” He took his role as CT
seriously, modeling strategies for Molly, taking notes while she taught, and providing feedback
focused on student engagement – something he deemed a critical precondition for learning.
Notably, Miguel did not use the district’s mandated scripted literacy curriculum, but
rather created his own curriculum, relying heavily on Time for Kids as a source of informational
texts. Under Miguel’s guidance, Molly designed her own literacy lessons without the constraint
of a scripted program, which allowed her to incorporate elements of TEP-aligned literacy
pedagogy, such as having students work in small groups and providing students with more
choice over their literacy activities, a tendency I revisit in Chapter Five. Because of these
opportunities in Miguel’s classroom, Molly felt “reinvigorated” about teaching, especially after
the disappointments of her first placement. Although Tim remained somewhat worried about
Molly’s development, he was grateful she had such an ideologically and pedagogically strong
CT in her second placement and recognized the growth she made through student teaching.
Megan Grady
Megan, also a young white woman, spent most of her childhood and adolescence living
in a famously wealthy neighborhood in a large city. However, her father passed away when she

104
was 15, and life became significantly more financially difficult for her family. Megan’s mother
wanted her to continue attending the well-regarded local public high school, but it was a relative
struggle for them to remain living in the neighborhood. Because of this, Megan knew “it was up
to me to pay for college,” so she began working at a bakery while in high school. Megan
continued working at the bakery, moving from associate to assistant manager to general manager
to ultimately being in charge of training new employees and opening the new flagship store
across the country when she was 21. While working, Megan put herself through community
college and then transferred to UWC for her final undergraduate year, having saved enough
money to pay for that year of tuition without having to continue working. “I paid for it all myself
… It’s something I’m really proud of,” Megan told me in our first conversation. A stanza in her
“I Am From” poem echoed this sentiment: “I am from working full time to pay my tuition/and
realizing that working hard is a whole different education.” It was clear that Megan valued
working hard to meet a goal; she also spoke of working hard to get A’s in college, reflecting the
importance she placed on grades. Megan always – in my observations and interactions with her –
conducted herself very professionally. For example, whereas some PSTs would occasionally
appear as if they recently got out of bed for their Friday morning class, Megan’s wavy red hair
was always blow-dried just so; she often wore freshly-ironed, brightly colored dresses. Megan
was also extremely organized, often submitting assignments early.
Megan came to UWC’s TEP via anthropology. As an undergraduate, she took a course
focusing on war and conflict where she read “hard-core anthropologists,” such as Paul Farmer
and Philippe Bourgois, who spent time in marginalized, oppressed communities and showed, “a
different side that you never hear about or see.” Megan wondered how she could do something
similar to these anthropologists “in a field I’m good at.” She had “always liked the idea of

105
teaching,” and her favorite part of working at the bakery was training new employees. UWC was
the only TEP to which Megan applied, as she thought the social justice mission aligned with the
commitments this anthropology class sparked in her. Megan occasionally referred to her
anthropology background when speaking about teaching and learning, noting the importance of
having her “teaching style” be “culturally sensitive” to how students learn and interact at home.
More so than any other PST in this study, Megan voiced concerns about her identity and
positionality and teaching in a community where she had a very different background than her
students and their families. She confided in me during our first conversation:
I haven’t said this to anybody yet, but honestly I’m really nervous about being a white
person from [a wealthy area] going and teaching in these places … I don’t want to be that
person that comes in, and I say something that offends somebody or hurts somebody.

Megan was also cognizant of potential “burn out” as a teacher and tried to be “realistic” about
perhaps needing to take a break from teaching after several years in order to prevent becoming
“bitter,” something she had observed with other teachers who taught in high-needs schools.
Megan’s first student teaching placement: Fourth grade at William Sendak
Elementary School with Lisa Davis. Megan’s first placement was also at Sendak. Although the
context of the school was the same, Megan’s experience was drastically different from Molly’s.
As mentioned, Sendak’s classes were grouped according to CCUSD’s “separation” by ELD level
policy. Under this organization, Megan student taught in the fourth-grade class that consisted of
native English speakers and students who had been reclassified as fluent English proficient.
There were, however, two ELs who were “not supposed to be” in the class. In colloquial school
parlance, Megan student taught in the “high” or “English-only” fourth-grade class.
Lisa Davis, a 13-year veteran of CCUSD, taught the fourth-grade class. Mrs. Davis
(Megan always referred to her as Mrs. Davis) was impressed with Megan, and she could not

106
gush enough about her. “The stars aligned with Megan … She’s amazing. She’s a natural,” Mrs.
Davis told me. The admiration and respect was mutual, as Megan adored Mrs. Davis. Megan was
grateful for the amount of feedback she received, for Mrs. Davis took detailed notes while she
taught. Megan and Mrs. Davis also got along well personally and stayed in touch after the
placement ended. Out of all the pairs of student teachers and CTs, Megan and Mrs. Davis had the
closest relationship. As will be discussed in Chapter Six, the relationship between CT and PST
was a notable factor that seemed to mediate PSTs’ development. The fact that Sendak’s
principal, upon being assigned to a new school, sought out and offered Megan a position – which
he did not do for any of the other nine PSTs that student taught at Sendak – speaks volumes
about how highly regarded she was as a student teacher.
In terms of literacy instruction, Mrs. Davis closely followed the Treasures program, as
did all of the teachers at Sendak. Lessons I observed consisted of whole-class choral reading of a
text from an anthology textbook, followed by completion of workbook pages related to the text.
Megan complained that many of the text selections in the anthology were “boring,” but overall,
she reported not minding the program. Mrs. Davis was relatively uncritical of Treasures, and
Megan seemed to adopt this perspective: she thought it was nice to have a program to utilize and
base her instruction off of, even though she felt that supplemental activities were beneficial.
Tim was pleased that Megan and Mrs. Davis had such a positive relationship and
believed Megan was gaining valuable experience practicing teaching under Mrs. Davis’s
guidance. However, he felt that in Mrs. Davis’s classroom, Megan was learning “a lot about
good, solid teaching – but not so much about social justice teaching.” For instance, Mrs. Davis’s
teaching philosophy was rooted in her “see[ing] every child as an individual,” so she tried to
“diversify my instruction based on their needs …” While Mrs. Davis’s acknowledgement of

107
children’s individuality was aligned with the TEP’s core tenets in certain respects, she was not as
critical or as social-justice oriented as the TEP. For example, whereas the TEP emphasized the
systems and structures in education and the contexts in which students live and learn, Mrs. Davis
focused on the child as a discrete individual.
Megan’s second student teaching placement: Sixth grade at La Ciudad del Noreste
Middle School with Joyce Furnold. La Ciudad del Noreste Middle School, where Megan had
her second placement, constituted an enormous campus, as it was formerly the local high school.
Noreste was part of CCUSD, although I did not hear or read about classes being grouped
according to students’ ELD levels. However, based on Megan’s CT’s comments, the classes
seemed to be tracked, as there was one sixth-grade class referred to as the “gifted” class. Noreste
sat near the eastern border of CCUSD, in a community that was one of the area’s first
settlements. The area included first Native Americans, then Spanish settlers, followed by Italian-
Americans, and finally many Mexican-American families. Approximately 92% of Noreste’s
student body identified as Latino, and nearly 5% of students were categorized as Asian. Thirty
percent of the students were classified as ELs, and roughly 75% of students were considered
“economically disadvantaged.” Standardized test results showed 41% and 46% of students
passing the ELA and mathematics exams, respectively. Noreste’s principal was purportedly
trying to “turn the school around” by starting an International Baccalaureate (IB) program.
Despite the principal’s goals, Megan was extremely disappointed with her sixth-grade
placement at Noreste. First, she had requested an English/social studies class but was assigned to
a math/science class. Second, Megan described the overall culture at Noreste as “very negative,”
with “rude” teachers who resisted the principal’s changes. Third – and perhaps most importantly
– Megan’s new CT, Joyce Furnold, was no Mrs. Davis. Unfortunately, Ms. Furnold was dealing

108
with some personal issues, such as moving her parents into an assisted living home, so she was
perhaps more distracted than she might have been otherwise. Megan recalled times when Ms.
Furnold left the classroom to take phone calls while she was teaching. Once, when Ms. Furnold
was writing notes during Megan’s lesson, Megan was eagerly looking forward to the feedback.
When Megan peeked at the notes, however, she discovered a to-do list. Ms. Furnold even said, “I
probably shouldn’t have taken a student teacher” this year, her twenty-seventh year teaching.
Although Ms. Furnold raved about Megan, Megan “really resented” being placed with her.
Ms. Furnold often made negative comments to Megan – sometimes in front of students –
about the students. She referred to one class as “future criminals,” and to one student as a “ghetto
black boy,” for example. Ms. Furnold openly discussed how she felt like she was banging her
head against the wall when teaching the “regular” – i.e., not “gifted” – class. Megan reflected
one day in Seminar that she used to feel that they talked about “deficit ideologies” too much in
the TEP, that the phrase was just a “jargony buzzword,” but now she was seeing blatant deficit
perspectives reflected at Noreste. This negativity upset Megan, but as a student teacher, she felt
powerless to confront her CT, particularly given Ms. Furnold’s role as an evaluator of her
teaching.
Interestingly, although Ms. Furnold taught math and science, Megan was able to try out a
considerable amount of TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy in this placement. Part of Ms. Furnold’s
schedule was an elective period taught twice each day, “Technology Exploration.” Despite the
name, students did not utilize technology during this time, and when Megan took over, she had
free rein over these elective periods. Ironically, in this classroom led by a CT who displayed
deficit views of students and practically neglected her role as a mentor, Megan arguably enacted

109
the most TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy out of all of the PSTs, a phenomenon I discuss
subsequently.
Emily Scott
Emily’s appearance was striking in that she wore dark, thick eyebrow makeup and
intense – usually red – lipstick that stood out against her pale skin and typically black clothing.
She often played with her shoulder-length dark brown hair, flipping it from one side of her head
to another or sweeping it up into a messy bun only to release it a moment later. Emily also talked
in a very distinctive style, frequently speaking hyperbolically. For instance, her students and
teachers were “perfect,” “brilliant,” “amazing” – and she was “obsessed” with them. Emily’s
effusiveness did not mean she was not pointedly critical when she felt it was warranted, for she
would speak just as strongly when she found something “devastating” or “heartbreaking.”
Another notable characteristic about Emily was her love of literature. An English major –
with an emphasis in creative writing and a minor in Shakespearean literature – at a private
Catholic university, Emily loved reading from a young age. Her parents told her that at the age of
four, she used to read to her preschool peers during naptime, as she was the only one who
already knew how to read. Emily wrote and edited for magazines and was excited to get back
into academic writing. “I have three academic papers due for finals … I’m so stoked,” she said.
In fact, as a “very competitive” person who was “obsessed with grades,” Emily was disappointed
that the TEP was “less academic” than she anticipated.
Emily was also “big on the LGBTQ community. Big.” She was particularly committed to
issues of gender – including gender stereotypes and gender identity – and was determined to
address gender issues as a social justice educator. As she wrote in her “positionality paper,”
I’ve struggled with this concept [of gender] for most of my adult life, in that I deeply
identify with certain “masculine” characteristics, in spite of my visual appearance … I’m

110
outspoken when I want to be and can feign confidence, even when insecurities are
present. I’m ambitious and headstrong and fiercely independent. I’ve always excelled in
school and I can change my own oil and I’m resistant to receiving help …

Emily was appalled when some of her TEP peers claimed that bisexuality does not exist. When
recounting this incident to me, Emily exclaimed exasperatedly, “Oh my God, I’m bisexual!” She
was crushed that these conversations occurred in her social-justice oriented, purportedly “liberal”
TEP, “of all places.”
UWC was the only university to which Emily applied for her master’s degree. After
graduating from college, Emily freelanced for magazines and, at one point, completed an
application for a Ph.D. program in literature, but then threw out the application in what she
described as an “angsty moment.” She realized, “I’ve been happiest in my career when I’ve
worked with kids,” referring to her volunteer work with America Reads as an undergraduate. Out
of the three case study participants, Tim considered Emily the “furthest along” ideologically in
terms of having a critical perspective. He said, “I think because of her sexuality, she’s more
critical” and aware of issues such as systemic marginalization of particular groups of people.
Indeed, Emily was critical of her own deficit views, particularly surrounding language.
When she reflected on her learning during the Winter Quarter, she said,
I used to think that I had a pretty open idea of language … but I think I did have
admittedly narrow views … I don’t know that I previously would have said Ebonics was
a language. There’s elements [sic] where I think that I subconsciously … had certain
deficit views in certain things.

Emily went on to explain how her learning in her Language Acquisition course, coupled with her
experiences with ELs during student teaching, led her to recognize her deficit perspectives and
realize the importance of language in school learning. Not to say that other PSTs did not reflect
on their own deficit notions while in the TEP, but Emily was the only person who spoke with me
about this topic – in relation to herself – throughout all of my conversations.

111
Emily’s first student teaching placement: Second grade at Humboldt Street
Elementary School with Sonya Suarez. Emily began student teaching in a second-grade
classroom at Humboldt Street Elementary School, a school on the southeastern outskirts of
CCUSD in an unincorporated area. Humboldt was located near the intersection of three major
freeways and adjacent to a freeway overpass in a quiet residential area. A tall chain-link fence
surrounded the school, with locked gates on either side of the main courtyard. Humboldt’s
student population was nearly 100% Latino, with 51% of the students classifying as ELs. Almost
100% of the students were categorized as “economically disadvantaged.” Only 39% of students
passed the most recent ELA exam while 58% passed the mathematics exam. As part of CCUSD,
Humboldt abided by the policy of “separation,” or grouping students based on ELD levels.
From the beginning, Emily adored her students and delighted in their thoughts,
comments, and questions. Her students were “perfect … Not ‘perfect’ perfect, but perfect like
perfect for what they are and what they should be.” Emily thought her students were “the best”
from the get-go, and she did not learn that they were “all ELD” until she had to complete her
edTPA in March, which required her to list the number of ELs in her class. Before that, she “had
no idea” that “twenty-three of my twenty-four kids are ELD Level 1 and 2. Never has that
changed my perspective of them ever, and never has that lowered my expectations of them.” She
became committed to sharing how amazing her students were in order to make a point to her
TEP peers, whom she felt often displayed deficit views of ELs. Although Emily respected
Sonya, her CT, she wished she had received more feedback from Sonya on her lessons.
Emily was disappointed in the literacy instruction in her first placement. Sonya closely
followed the pre-packaged Treasures program, so Emily did as well. Emily felt it was important
in student teaching to imitate her CT first, master teaching the way she taught, and then deviate

112
from there. However, Emily never felt comfortable teaching the Treasures program. The
anthology texts particularly outraged her. “The stories are horrible. Horrible … [T]hey will not
inspire a love of literature …” The only time Emily deviated from the Treasures program was
during her edTPA lessons, which centered on the story Somebody Loves You, Mr. Hatch, by
Eileen Spinelli. In Chapter Six, I discuss in more detail the mediating factors that facilitated the
participants teaching outside of the mandated curriculum. Ultimately, Emily left her first
placement thinking she was not a “good” literacy teacher. She surmised that perhaps because
“reading and writing come so naturally to me, I’m not good at teaching it.”
Emily’s second student teaching placement: Fifth grade at Knox Avenue
Elementary School with Renee Marshall. Emily completed her second student teaching
placement at Knox, along with Molly. Her class, taught by Renee Marshall – a charismatic
educator in her eleventh year of teaching – was considered the “accelerated” fifth-grade class.
Like Molly’s fourth-grade class, Renee did not utilize the mandated scripted reading program but
rather proudly kept it “in the cupboards.” In Renee’s classroom, Emily was able to create her
own lessons from scratch. Perhaps especially because this placement occurred at the end of the
school year – which included spring break, standardized testing, and many special graduation
activities for the fifth graders – Renee was mostly “reviewing” skills and strategies taught
previously, giving Emily a great deal of freedom in her lessons.
Emily lamented not being able to observe Renee teach more reading and writing lessons
(due to time constraints), but she was thrilled to be able to design her own lessons and choose
which standards to address and what texts to read. Emily was pleased with and proud of the
literacy lessons she designed and delivered in Renee’s class, some of which included social
justice-related themes such as viewing a situation from multiple perspectives. I describe

113
examples of these lessons that included more elements of TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy in
Chapter Five. Teaching literacy in Renee’s class renewed Emily’s confidence. As she reflected,
It was really heartbreaking and hard for me to come into this program so excited to teach
literature and then … I felt like I was not good at it … So to have that change in
perspective was super vital … [N]ow I’m like, ‘Oh, no. I just don’t like Treasures.’ And I
knew that from the get-go, but I also didn’t know that that’s why I felt so stifled.

Emily’s second placement was not without her critiques, however. As mentioned, students at
Knox were tested before entering kindergarten and tracked for their elementary career, with very
little movement between classes. These organizational practices upset Emily deeply. She noticed
that her “accelerated” students received extra privileges and were always given the benefit of the
doubt. She shared about her friend’s placement at Knox, which contrasted starkly with her
experience: “Monica, who is in the third grade ‘underachieving’ class, had kids punching each
other in the face and a teacher who screamed and would throw things off of her desk, and like,
threw a book once.” Emily’s blood boiled at the injustice behind these tracking practices and the
unequal treatment students received:
[T]he way that grouping is done is devastating to me … It sucks that we are perpetuating
this idea of good kids and bad kids when it has nothing to do with the kids … [F]or the
first time I saw adults in education and how fucked up that is. It’s fucked up!

In short, Emily’s time at Knox left her discouraged by school-level practices but rejuvenated by
the classroom literacy instruction she experienced and enacted.
Conclusion
Emily, Megan, and Molly are the learners whose development of literacy perspectives
and instructional practice are at the heart of this study. Their individual identities, commitments,
and experiences influenced their field-based learning around literacy, as will become apparent in
subsequent chapters. UWC’s TEP, including Jessica and Tim, and participants’ student teaching
placements and CTs, are all part of the “learning to teach” activity system in which PSTs were

114
situated and which shaped their learning around literacy instruction. The people and places I
introduced in this chapter lay the foundation for my discussion of the study’s findings over the
next two chapters. In Chapter Five, I describe how PSTs’ perspectives on literacy and literacy
instructional practice developed in the context of the TEP and their student teaching placements.
In Chapter Six, I discuss the specific factors within the activity system that seemed to mediate
PSTs’ development in particular ways.

115

CHAPTER FIVE
THE DEVELOPMENT OF PRESERVICE TEACHERS’ PERSPECTIVES ON LITERACY
AND LITERACY INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICE
This chapter chronicles the development of Emily’s, Megan’s, and Molly’s literacy
perspectives and literacy instructional practice throughout the course of this study. Specifically, I
present findings addressing the study’s first two research questions:
1) How do PSTs’ perspectives on literacy teaching and learning develop over time and
across contexts (i.e., during methods courses, during student teaching)?
2) How does PSTs’ literacy instructional practice develop over time and across contexts
(i.e., during methods courses, during student teaching)?
The chapter is divided into three major sections. In the first, I briefly revisit CHAT, for as my
core theoretical framework, CHAT was essential in analyzing data, and I also turned to others’
uses of CHAT to inform my own. In particular, I present a set of conceptual tools from
Grossman and colleagues (1999) – a continuum of “degrees of appropriation” – that I utilized to
analyze, interpret, and explain PSTs’ learning around TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy across
contexts, or PSTs’ progress toward the TEP’s “ideal” goal for their literacy learning. In the
second section, I explain how PSTs’ perspectives on literacy teaching and learning developed
over time and across contexts. I argue that PSTs’ perspectives on literacy teaching and learning
mostly tended to develop toward greater coherence with TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy, though
PSTs’ views seemed to reflect the TEP “ideal” more closely in some areas than others. In the
third section, I present findings related to PSTs’ literacy instructional practice. Data suggest that
PSTs’ literacy lessons tended to most often not reflect the core tenets of the TEP’s ideal
approach to literacy instruction. However, PSTs incorporated elements of TEP-aligned literacy

116
pedagogy into some lessons, particularly in placements where PSTs were not beholden to a
scripted curriculum.
Revisiting CHAT and the Concept of Appropriation
As described in detail in Chapter Two, the primary theoretical framework that guided this
study was Cultural Historical Activity Theory, or CHAT, a strand of sociocultural learning
theory that emphasizes the importance of context and culture in learning (e.g., Cole &
Engeström, 1993; Engeström & Miettinen, 1999). Viewing PSTs’ learning as embedded within
an “activity system” allowed for the consideration of various factors in the “sociocultural milieu”
(Cole & Engeström, 1993, p. 3) that seemed to mediate their learning. The triangular heuristic of
a CHAT activity system is presented again in Figure 5.1, where I map my own project and data
across it to offer concrete examples of the abstract constructs at each point on the heuristic. I
utilize the labels of the CHAT activity system (included in Figure 5.1) in the discussion of PSTs’
development in the following chapters. For instance, Emily, Megan, and Molly were the
“subjects” – or learners – within the activity system, with primary “community” members
including their CTs, Tim, Jessica, other TEP instructors, their TEP peers, and their students. The
“object” or goal, in terms of the TEP, was to develop “social justice educators” who were able to
teach literacy in sociocultural and culturally responsive ways – or, for PSTs to develop both the
conceptual understandings of and the practical skills to instantiate TEP-aligned literacy
pedagogy.
In this chapter, I present patterns related to the “outcomes” – or the development of
PSTs’ perspectives on literacy teaching and learning and their actual literacy instruction – that
emerged in my analysis of study data. In particular, I frame these outcomes in terms of PSTs’

117
“degrees of appropriation” (Grossman et al., 1999) of the TEP “ideal”, which I explain in more
detail below.

Figure 5.1. CHAT activity system.
“Degrees of Appropriation”
From a CHAT perspective, deep learning is conceived of as appropriation, or the process
through which a subject – or learner – internalizes and adopts particular ways of thinking and
being in specific social and cultural environments, as described in Chapter Two (e.g., Grossman
et al., 1999; Tolman, 1999; Wertsch, 1991). Appropriation is viewed as “a developmental
process that comes about through socially formulated, goal-directed, and tool-mediated actions”
(Grossman et al., 1999, p. 15) through which a learner progresses toward the activity system’s
object, or goal. As will be argued, the TEP’s object of PSTs learning to teach literacy in social
justice-oriented, sociocultural, and culturally responsive ways was not fully realized during
PSTs’ student teaching placements. Instead, data suggest that PSTs demonstrated different
“degrees of appropriation” (Grossman et al., 1999) of – or various gradations of learning around

118
– the TEP’s learning goal. In Figure 5.2, I represent Grossman and colleagues’ (1999)
conception of “five degrees of appropriation” on a continuum, ranging from the lowest degree of
appropriation or “lack of appropriation” to the highest degree of appropriation or “achieving
mastery”. Despite this notion of appropriation, however, it is worth noting that CHAT scholars
maintain that the “object” – or learning goal – of an activity system is “never fully reached or
conquered” (Engeström, 1999b, p. 381) but instead is continually restructured and redefined
within the activity system. This suggests that the TEP’s goal of PSTs learning to enact TEP-
aligned literacy pedagogy is not static but rather is shaped and reshaped by individual learners,
other community members, specific settings (e.g., classrooms), and so forth. Additionally,
scholars have argued that, as novices, PSTs are unlikely to reach “mastery” of such a robust
learning goal as the TEP’s object of learning to teach literacy in social justice-oriented,
sociocultural, and culturally responsive ways during their time as student teachers (Feiman-
Nemser, 2001; Smagorinsky et al., 2003). Thus, I conceive of the TEP’s object of teaching
literacy in sociocultural and culturally responsive ways as an “ideal” outcome for PSTs’ learning
around literacy teaching, recognizing that this “ideal” is a “horizon” (Engeström, 1999b) toward
which the TEP is orienting PSTs. To that end, PSTs may continue to aspire to be “social justice
educators,” a term that will likely come to have different meanings for each of them as they
proceed on their journeys as teachers throughout their careers.

Figure 5.2. Five degrees of appropriation (Grossman et al., 1999).
Throughout this chapter, I utilize this continuum of “five degrees of appropriation”
(Grossman et al., 1999) as an analytic tool to help explain the extent to which PSTs’ perspectives

119
on literacy and literacy instructional practice evidenced PSTs’ learning around TEP-aligned
literacy pedagogy. As PSTs were exposed to both theoretical and applied knowledge related to
the TEP “ideal”, I consider two facets of TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy: conceptual tools and
practical tools. As Grossman et al. (1999) explain, “[c]onceptual tools are principles,
frameworks, and ideas about teaching [and] learning … that teachers use as heuristics to guide
decisions about teaching and learning”; meanwhile, “[p]ractical tools are classroom practices,
strategies, and resources that … have more local and immediate utility” (p. 14). For example,
cultural responsiveness represents a conceptual tool, an overarching perspective that can inform
a wide range of instructional decisions. On the other hand, a practical tool might involve
engaging students in a “think-pair-share” – or having students first “think” about an answer to a
question, then “pair” with a partner to discuss their thoughts, and finally “share” their answer
with the whole class – a strategy utilized by PSTs in this study.
Importantly, a deep understanding of a broader conceptual tool (e.g., cultural
responsiveness) can – and arguably should – undergird the use of a practical tool (e.g., think-
pair-share). Alternatively, PSTs may use a practical tool without evidencing a robust
understanding of the theoretical underpinnings of the particular strategy, suggesting that they do
not fully comprehend the strategy’s purpose. I utilize the “degrees of appropriation” to interpret
and communicate the degree to which PSTs internalized both conceptual and practical tools.
As I present data that pertains to each “degree” of appropriation, I will describe that level
of appropriation in more detail as it pertains specifically to the TEP’s object. However, I provide
a more general explanation of Grossman and colleagues’ (1999) “five degrees of appropriation”
here. “Lack of appropriation” is characterized by learners simply not taking up a particular
conceptual or practical tool of the activity system’s object, either intentionally – because they

120
may disagree with it – or unintentionally, perhaps because they are not yet developmentally
ready to internalize a particular concept or practice. “Appropriating a label” refers to learners
knowing only the “name” of a particular concept or practice but not understanding what it
entails. “Appropriating surface features” represents learners understanding – and/or engaging in
– some elements of the object but not comprehending the “true” purpose of a particular concept
or practice. On the other hand, learners fully grasping the theoretical foundation of a certain
concept or practice and being able to apply it across situations characterize “appropriating
conceptual underpinnings”. Lastly, “achieving mastery” refers to learners completely
internalizing the object, but, as mentioned previously, is not necessarily considered attainable
(Engeström, 1999b).
In what follows, I argue that study PSTs evidenced different degrees of appropriation of
TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy. I argue that PSTs’ perspectives on literacy teaching and learning
tended to evidence “appropriation of conceptual underpinnings” in some areas and
“appropriation of surface features” of other facets of TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy. PSTs’
literacy instructional practice, however, tended to most often reflect a “lack of appropriation” of
TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy, although data suggest that PSTs seemed to have appropriated
“surface features” of TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy in some instances. In short, PSTs’
perspectives on literacy tended to move toward increased appropriation of the rhetoric of TEP-
aligned literacy pedagogy, whereas their literacy instructional practice tended not to reflect TEP-
aligned literacy pedagogy. These findings are represented in Figure 5.3 along the continuum of
“degrees of appropriation” (Grossman et al., 1999). In the sections that follow, I first present
themes regarding the development of PSTs’ perspectives on literacy teaching and learning,
followed by patterns evidenced in the development of PSTs’ literacy instructional practice.

121

Figure 5.3. Demonstrated degrees of appropriation of PSTs’ perspectives on literacy and literacy
instructional practice.

Development of Preservice Teachers’ Perspectives on Literacy Teaching and Learning
Data suggest that PSTs’ perspectives on literacy teaching and learning developed in three
notable ways. First, data indicate PSTs’ conceptions of literacy, or how they defined literacy,
broadened from a narrow conception of “reading and writing” to a more expansive definition that
included “reading the world” and participating in society. Second, PSTs’ perspectives on
teaching literacy, or what they considered to be elements of “effective” literacy instruction for
students from historically marginalized groups, evolved from a curriculum-centered perspective
to a student-centered one. Third, PSTs also began to view varying instructional strategies to meet
students’ needs and “supplementing” the mandated curriculum as important components of
effective literacy instruction. I argue that these three developments in PSTs’ perspectives suggest
a movement toward a TEP-aligned stance on literacy teaching and learning. Most often, PSTs’
perspectives seemed to reflect a more robust appropriation of TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy,
Lack of
Appropriation
Appropriating
a label
Appropriating
surface
features
Appropriating
conceptual
underpinnings
Achieving
Mastery
Majority)of)PSTs’)
lessons)did)not)
reflect)TEP7
aligned)literacy)
pedagogy)
“Mixing)it)up”:)
Varying)pedagogy)
and)
“supplemenAng”)
mandated)
curriculum)
Lessons)with)
elements)of)TEP7
aligned)literacy)
pedagogy)fell)short)
of)TEP)ideal
Broadened)
concepAons)of)
literacy)
From)generaAng)
students’)interest)in)
curriculum)to)
leveraging)students’)
strengths)as%
curriculum))
Key
PSTs’
Perspectives
PSTs’
Instructional
Practice

122
demonstrating their robust understanding of foundational theoretical principles (i.e., “conceptual
underpinnings”). Other times, however, PSTs seemed to appropriate the TEP “ideal” more
superficially (i.e., “surface features”).
Broadened Conceptions of Literacy, to Varying Degrees
One of the most evident themes in the interview data was that participants’ conceptions
of literacy – what literacy is, what it consists of, what it includes, and so forth – broadened
considerably throughout the course of the study, albeit to varying degrees for each participant.
Typically, PSTs began the academic year with fairly one-dimensional understandings about
literacy, saying simply that literacy involved reading and writing. Throughout their time in the
TEP, however, their definitions expanded to include literacy in other subjects as well as more
abstract notions of being literate in interactions with people and the world. Often, participants
explicitly mentioned or alluded to a TEP course or text that had influenced their thinking about
what it means to be literate and what literacy includes. PSTs tended not to discuss their student
teaching placements when describing their conceptions of literacy. Overall, I argue that PSTs’
broadened conceptions of literacy reflect their appropriation of “conceptual underpinnings” of
TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy, which I illustrate below.
A change in PSTs’ conceptions of literacy was evidenced across each participant’s three
interviews. For example, in Megan’s first interview during the Fall Quarter, she said, “I still feel
like I have the cut and dry definition [of literacy], like being able to read and write and
comprehend text. I know there’s more to it than that, but I feel like I can’t exactly articulate what
exactly is more to it.” It seems as if here, Megan “knows” that the TEP expects her to have a
more expansive definition of literacy, yet she feels as if she has not yet learned what those
additional elements or understandings may be. She even joked after stating her “cut and dry

123
definition” of literacy: “Don’t tell Jessica [Darcy]!”, the Literacy Methods instructor. Similarly,
Emily described a fairly narrow definition of literacy during her first interview:
I think [literacy is] reading, writing, and … creation … and then as well as
comprehension … I honestly think literacy in the way I view it is having the self-starting
capacity, being taught how to figure out what topics you want to write about, ‘cause
that’s the hardest part sometimes.

While Emily’s initial conception of literacy was slightly broader than Megan’s, she still stuck
with “the basics” of “reading, writing, creation, and comprehension.” Perhaps due to her work as
an author – as a freelance magazine writer and editor and her creative writing emphasis within
her English major as an undergraduate – Emily discussed the “self-starting capacity” involved in
writing. Although Emily addressed some additional aspects of literacy that Megan did not, both
Megan and Emily confined literacy to the realm of reading and writing texts in their first
interviews.
By their third interviews at the end of the Spring Quarter, both participants’ conceptions
of what literacy included had broadened considerably, although to varying degrees. Megan
credited Tim’s Critical Media Literacy course with her new understanding of literacy:
You’re literate in more than just language, and Critical Media [Literacy] helps me see
that. That literacy isn’t limited to comprehension, reading, and writing time. But you can
be literate in science, or literate in math. Part of that is academic language that goes along
with that and the technical terms that go along with all of that. So, literacy obviously
spreads – it’s across all subjects.

Megan’s conception of literacy during her final interview expanded to include other subject
areas, but it remained rooted in and confined to school-based literacy. This was not the case with
Emily, who in her third interview, expressed an expansive view of literacy that was not
constrained to literacy in academic subjects:
I still think [literacy is] everything. I really do. Like, now more so than ever because of
the whole “reading the world” element. Literacy is so much about reading and writing,
but it’s also so much about everything … Literacy has come to be synonymous with

124
deeply understanding something. You could be emotionally literate, being able to, quote
unquote, “read” someone’s emotions, or “read” someone’s facial expressions … I think
you can read films. I think you can discuss and read art.

Emily’s reference to “reading the world” seemed mostly to stem from the TEP’s use of Freire’s
work (Freire, 1970; Freire & Macedo, 1987), which – as described in Chapter Four – addresses
the importance of both “reading the word and the world” as a means of promoting societal
change. Emily’s connection to Freire’s notion of “reading the world” supported her to view
literacy as meaning the ability to “deeply understanding something,” with the “something”
ranging from emotions to art.
Unlike the other participants, the broadening of Molly’s conceptions of literacy seemed
to begin before entering the TEP. As mentioned in Chapter Four, Molly earned a minor in
education from UWC, where she took several classes within the TEP. She attributed her more
expansive definition of literacy to a TEP course she took as an undergraduate, prior to enrolling
in the program. In her first interview during the Fall Quarter, she described literacy as follows:
[In my undergraduate TEP] ethnography class, we struggled with [defining literacy] so
much … I initially answered like, ‘Being able to read and write, that’s literacy.’ But then
we talked about how it’s so much broader, it’s also being able to participate in an activity,
like you can be literate at an activity, like you know how to partake in something, you
have mastered the skills to function in certain situations … So it gets really complicated
and broad, but it’s definitely not just reading and writing, there’s [sic] a lot of different
literacies that people have, and I probably wouldn’t have known to answer that question
that way had I not taken that class.

Molly acknowledged that before she took the undergraduate TEP ethnography class, she
considered literacy to be only “reading and writing,” similar to how Megan and Emily defined
literacy at the beginning of their experiences in the TEP.
Throughout Molly’s subsequent interviews, she stuck to a very similar description of
literacy, always referring to her undergraduate ethnography class as the place where her notions
of literacy changed. For example, in her second interview, Molly said,

125
You can be literate in skills, you can be literate in types of knowledge, you can be literate
in being able to do things … I mean, you can be literate at talking to people. You can be
literate at asking questions … [Y]ou’re literate in anything that you can do or you feel
capable and confident in doing …

Molly’s acknowledgement that a person can be literate in different “types of knowledge” or in
“anything that you can do” was perhaps the most expansive definition out of all the case study
participants. While Megan’s conception of literacy expanded to include being literate in
additional school subjects, and Emily discussed the more abstract “reading” of emotions, film,
and art, Molly’s notions of literacy went even further, in that she did not confine literacy to either
literal or metaphorical reading, but rather discussed being literate in various “activities” utilized
as one “participates” in daily life.
Based on Molly’s reporting, students in this undergraduate TEP ethnography course
engaged in a great deal of discussion around what it means to be literate. I did not observe such
discussions explicitly around the definition of literacy in either the Literacy Methods or the
Critical Media Literacy courses. However, all of the participants spoke, as Megan did, about how
the Critical Media Literacy course helped them to recognize that “literacy” included
understanding and interpreting both implicit and explicit messages from various environmental
sources that did not necessarily include written “text” (e.g., billboard advertisements, television,
etc.). PSTs also reported that in their Integrated Methods course – their science and social studies
methods course, which I did not observe – they talked about the cross-disciplinary nature of
literacy. Emily’s aforementioned reference to the Freirean notion of figuratively “reading the
world” reflected texts PSTs read in their Teaching in Urban Schools course. PSTs therefore
seemed to have appropriated a more inclusive and expansive definition of literacy cobbled
together from their experiences across multiple TEP courses.

126
As mentioned above, participants’ expanded conceptions of literacy reflect their
tendencies to appropriate “conceptual underpinnings” – the highest degree of appropriation
before mastery – of TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy related to what literacy includes. That is,
PSTs seemed to “[grasp] the theoretical basis that informs” (Grossman et al., 1999, p. 17) the
TEP’s more expansive, socially and culturally mediated conception of literacy. They seemed to
have internalized the notion that literacy does not just involve reading and writing but rather
encompasses a much broader range of skills utilized in everyday life. As I discuss next, PSTs’
perspectives also seemed to develop to reflect a thorough understanding of the TEP’s stance on
the relationship between students and curriculum, demonstrating aspects of their views on how to
teach literacy to students from historically marginalized groups, which I describe next.
From Generating Students’ Interest in Curriculum to Leveraging Students’ Strengths as
Curriculum
One of the ways participants’ ideas about teaching literacy evolved throughout the course
of this study concerned the relationship between students and curriculum, specifically the content
of the curriculum (e.g., topics covered). As described in Chapter Four, a key aspect of
sociocultural and culturally responsive literacy instruction emphasized in the TEP was the
importance of building curriculum off of students’ strengths and prior knowledge in order to
make literacy teaching relevant to students’ lives, thereby arguably leading to improved learning
outcomes for students (e.g., Ladson-Billings, 1995b; Moll et al., 1992). In this section, I argue
that PSTs gradually appropriated the deeper theoretical foundations of this facet of TEP-aligned
literacy pedagogy. Specifically, data suggest PSTs’ thinking evolved from considering it
important to generate students’ interest in literacy curriculum to maintaining the essentialness of

127
leveraging students’ strengths as literacy curriculum. I present evidence supporting this claim
below.
In their first interviews, PSTs stated that effective literacy instruction for students from
historically marginalized groups involved making sure that students were interested in the
content. PSTs talked both about connecting the curriculum to students’ interests and generating
students’ interest in the content. Megan, for example, said that “good” literacy teaching is about
“getting people excited about what they’re learning … it’s like, actually why is this [content]
personally interesting to you?” Additionally, she said that for literacy learning to occur, “[Y]ou
have to cultivate a certain amount of interest in it … I feel like that’s true for anything that you
want to learn, though.” Similarly, Emily talked about how “so much of [teaching literacy] is
trying to instill a love of all those things. I think instilling a love of reading and a love of writing
and a love of creating is something that inspires children to do it more.” In Molly’s first
interview, she also discussed the importance of students being able to make connections with
school and academic literacy content:
I feel like one of the issues with education now is it doesn’t make all kids feel like they
belong there, and what they have to say is valid, and important, and relevant to what
you’re talking about. And so often they miss the connection, and they need to be able to
connect it to be able to ever make deeper meaning and deeper understanding … In the
program they really focus on what a difference it makes when the material is something
that the kids can relate to their experiences, or feel like they understand, they can connect
to it.

Notably, Megan, Emily, and Molly framed their comments around how the teacher needs to
generate students’ interest in the given academic literacy content and find ways for students to
relate to that content. Throughout the course of the study, however, a subtle but powerful shift in
PSTs’ perspectives on the relationship between students and curriculum began to become
evident.

128
In participants’ second interviews, for example, PSTs continued underscoring the
importance of working with students’ interests in the curriculum. However, instead of stating
that the teacher needed to generate students’ interest in a particular topic, participants talked
about how the teacher needed to know about students’ interests and everyday life experiences
and incorporate them into the curriculum. As Megan said,
I think that, again, catering to individual needs, knowing where everybody is and trying
to meet that … [and] knowing the kids’ interests is so important … So, knowing what
their interests are and meeting those … So yeah, individualized interest [and] skill level,
all of that kind of stuff [should] be individualized.

Molly, on the other hand, discussed the importance of creating a “meaningful context” for
students’ literacy learning and using their language as a foundational element upon which to
build. She mentioned learning about taking “literacy walks” with students during her Language
Acquisition class, and waiting to see what the students noticed during these walks, as opposed to
the teacher pointing out what she assumed would be important to students. She continued,
[Creating] some type of thing where you can build a meaningful context, I feel like really
helps [students] learn really deeply … even just using their language as a base … I see
what kids bring with them is their language and their words and their ability to use those
words and form those words, so I think I would just be really mindful of that when
teaching literacy, like really incorporating, like, ‘I want your words, I want your
experiences and your stories to be part of our class.’

Meanwhile, Emily moved from saying teachers needed to “instill a love” of literacy to stating
during her second interview that teachers should “tap into” the knowledge students have:
I think [being a good literacy teacher is] understanding that your kids are coming to
school with vast knowledge that you need to tap into. You need to be creative. Instead of
being like, ‘You need to come meet me here where this curriculum is.’ I think it’s so
important to try and figure out how to bring the curriculum to the kids. So many of my
kids know stories, know how to read different things, know how to write, know how to
speak Spanish, know how to use money really well and know all these different things.
So it’s just tapping into what they know I think is really important.

129
Emily perhaps best characterized this development in PSTs’ thinking herself, when she made the
distinction between bringing the kids to the curriculum (e.g., generating interest) versus bringing
the curriculum to the kids (e.g., starting with students’ knowledge and interests).
In PSTs’ third and final interviews, all three participants went one step further in
discussing the relationship between students and curriculum. Instead of merely “tapping into”
students’ interests and knowledge, they discussed leveraging students’ strengths as a vehicle for
new academic learning. As Megan said,
I think a big part of [good literacy teaching] is trying … to initially look at the student
and figure out what they’re [sic] bringing to the table in terms of strengths, and seeing
how you can utilize that and work with that … So, maybe if you know stuff that
linguistically or culturally are important to them, or has influenced them, or [are] helpful,
or that they like, trying to incorporate that into what they’re doing … No matter what …
finding the strengths that they have and trying to not just cultivate them, but see how you
can help those things pick up the other stuff that’s more of a challenge for them …

Molly’s comments in her third interview reflected a similar notion of “not just cultivating”
students’ strengths but using their everyday experiences as a foundation upon which to build.
She claimed she intended to, “[Make] sure that I continually incorporate what [students are]
experiencing and what they’re seeing, and [use] that as a jumping off point” for her literacy
instruction. Emily, too, addressed the importance of starting with what students want to learn, as
opposed to what the teacher wants to teach, during her third interview. She reflected on her own
previous thoughts about teaching middle school literature (as, at this point in the year, she had
accepted a teaching assistant position in an eighth-grade classroom for the following academic
year):
[G]ood literacy instruction, I think, is … finding what your personal kids’ connections
are and really going with that … I never ever want any of my kids to feel like they hate
all aspects of literature or literacy … And that’s why you can’t be how I wanted to be and
just be like, ‘Today we are reading Steinbeck and tomorrow we are reading Hemingway,’
because that is, I think, how you lose kids. By not focusing on things that might be
special or important to them. Just being selfish.

130

These excerpts from PSTs’ third interviews demonstrate the expansion of an idea that
participants held in the beginning of their time in the TEP. Whereas in the beginning of the
academic year, PSTs’ comments tended to focus on teachers generating students’ interest in a
particular topic, their thinking evolved to encompass not just connecting the curriculum to
students’ lives but rather having students’ lives form the foundation of the curriculum, using
their strengths, interests, knowledge, and experiences as “jumping off points” to further their
academic learning. As mentioned in Chapter Four, leveraging students’ strengths and “funds of
knowledge” to facilitate new learning were aspects of sociocultural and culturally responsive
literacy instruction emphasized across TEP courses. PSTs therefore seemed to have grasped this
theoretical core tenet of TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy as they progressed through their first
year in the TEP. However, their appropriation of the importance of leveraging students’ strengths
to facilitate new learning was not necessarily reflected in their literacy instructional practice, as I
discuss subsequently.
It is important to note that PSTs’ early perspectives also sustained throughout the course
of the year. For example, in Megan’s third interview, she reiterated that she thought, “Finding
stuff that [students are] interested in and trying to make that relevant in the context of whatever
you’re teaching [is so important],” showing that she still felt it necessary to make “whatever
you’re teaching” interesting to students. However, while starting from and leveraging students’
strengths and funds of knowledge clearly reflect the TEP’s programmatic emphasis, generating
student interest in a particular topic is certainly not un-aligned with the TEP’s philosophy. In
fact, given the many constraints that often surround K-12 literacy instruction in this era of high-
stakes accountability (e.g., mandated scripted curriculum), being able to drum up student interest
in a predetermined, required topic might very well be a necessary skill for teachers to develop.

131
“Mixing it Up”: Varying Pedagogy and “Supplementing” Mandated Curriculum
In addition to thinking that the content of the curriculum should be built upon leveraging
students’ strengths, another theme that surfaced across PSTs’ perspectives on literacy teaching
involved participants’ belief in the need to vary both instructional techniques and materials
utilized in literacy lessons. PSTs spoke about “mixing it up” – a phrase used by Megan and
Molly – when referring to varying their pedagogical strategies as a way to make literacy
instruction engaging for students and to adapt their instruction to meet students’ individual
learning needs. This notion was prevalent in all three of Emily’s and Molly’s interviews and in
Megan’s second and third interviews. On a related note, PSTs also considered it important to
“mix it up” by “supplementing” the mandated curriculum with different instructional materials –
specifically, incorporating literature from outside the Treasures anthology – that they deemed
interesting and relevant to students. Overall, it seemed that PSTs’ perspective on flexibly
adapting their instructional strategies and materials was one that did not necessarily change but
rather was solidified through their experiences in the TEP and their student teaching placements.
In what follows, I argue that PSTs’ discussion of varying pedagogy and “supplementing”
the mandated curriculum seemed to reflect their appropriation of only “surface features” of TEP-
aligned literacy pedagogy in this area. As Grossman and colleagues (1999) explain,
“Appropriating surface features” is characterized by “the learner … making some effort to grasp
the official conception [of a TEP-aligned literacy perspective or practice], yet … succeeding in
doing so only at the surface level” (p. 17). For instance, all three PSTs were very critical about
the “boring” stories in the Treasures anthology. These critiques reflect some understanding of
TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy, as the TEP endorsed providing students with engaging,
culturally relevant, and developmentally appropriate texts. However, PSTs tended to be less

132
critical about Treasures’ instructional practices, such as the predominantly whole-class, “one-
size-fits-all” approach and the program’s emphasis – particularly in the primary grades – on skill
instruction (e.g., phonics, spelling) that was often decontextualized from authentic meaning-
making activities. These pedagogical aspects of the Treasures program are in tension with
literacy instruction endorsed by the TEP, which, as described in Chapter Four, includes utilizing
flexible grouping strategies to meet students’ needs and placing meaning making at the center of
literacy instruction. That PSTs tended not to critique the Treasures program on these – arguably
more sophisticated – pedagogical grounds provides evidence that they may not have developed a
deep understanding about the potential instructional drawbacks for students from historically
marginalized groups, well documented in existing research of using a scripted program (e.g.,
Gutiérrez, 2006; MacGillivray et al., 2004; Pacheco, 2010; Pease-Alvarez et al., 2010).
Additionally, PSTs claimed to be unsure about how to actually go about “supplementing”
Treasures, evidencing that they “knew” – on a surface level – that they “should” teach outside
the Treasures program but did not yet understand how to do so effectively and in ways that
would be coherent with TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy. I illustrate these points with data below.
In Molly’s first interview, for example, she spoke passionately about how good literacy
teachers know their students well and then adjust their instruction accordingly:
[Good teachers] get really good at making adjustments and catering to their kids … They
diversify their style so they’re not just catering to one group or a certain skill that certain
children have. They’re really good at mixing it up and also being able to adapt their style
and kind of continuously rework what they’re doing … [They’re] able to be flexible
when [their] kids need [them to be] – really worrying about what [their] kids need and
making that a priority, even though I know realistically you have all these pressures to
follow certain days and certain things.

What comes across clearly in this quote is that there are these teacher skills of adaptability,
adjustment, flexibility, and continuous reworking, all of which Molly says should be rooted in

133
knowledge of students, yet Molly also acknowledges that it is oftentimes tricky for teachers to
design and enact literacy instruction in these ways. Like Molly, Megan used the language of
“catering to kids” multiple times when referring to what she deemed to be effective literacy
instruction for students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. As she said in her
third interview, for example,
Catering to more differentiation among students, or more – finding something that people
are good at and sort of catering to that … I think that using different learning techniques
[is important], too. You know those activities you do where [students are] like, ‘Oh, I
didn’t even realize I was learning something.’ Like doing kinesthetic stuff or making
stuff into games and … trying to make things lower stakes, less pressure, more fun. Stuff
like that could be really effective. Differentiation. You’re not just going to be reading and
writing stuff, [you’re] trying to make it come alive, and maybe incorporating arts with it
and stuff. Trying to mix it up.

PSTs discussed varying pedagogical strategies to meet students’ learning needs as a general
principle of quality literacy instruction. In the next section, I discuss how PSTs also spoke about
the need to “supplement” the mandated Treasures program with additional materials in order to
provide students with more interesting texts.
Dissatisfaction with Treasures and the need to “supplement” the program. PSTs
often spoke about their dissatisfaction with the mandated scripted curriculum, which, in their
experience, was the McGraw-Hill Treasures reading program. All three participants expressed
discontent with being required to teach the Treasures script, primarily because they found the
anthology texts “boring”. However, the degree of their frustration ranged, with Megan being the
least critical of the program to Emily being the most. For instance, in an email Megan sent me
after her second interview, she wrote,
One issue with Treasures is that it can sometimes just be so boring. It is really cool when
stories are about [Central City], or when they talk about something with which the
students can relate, but that doesn’t happen every week.

134
Emily was even more emphatic about the “horrible” stories included in the Treasures anthology,
something she spoke about during all three of her interviews. For instance, in her first interview,
which occurred after she had done some observing in her first student teaching placement but
before she taught any lessons, she commented, “Honestly, quite frankly, some of them are
ridiculous, some of the stories are silly, and boring, and the kids hate them.” During her second
interview, after she had taught with Treasures during her first student teaching placement, Emily
was even more outraged about what Treasures required her to do: “It drives me crazy … I don’t
think this …supports a passion for literature, and I honestly think it’s Treasures’ fault.”
Given PSTs’ opinions about the Treasures anthology texts being “boring” and not
engaging for students, it is not surprising that they all also spoke about the need to “supplement”
the program with additional materials. Specifically, they all mentioned using different literature
to teach the same concepts, skills, and strategies that the Treasures program required. As Megan
stated, “I really like Treasures when you can supplement it with fun activities … I think it would
be easy to look at those lessons on teaching certain concepts and use an outside reading book
instead of the stories in Treasures.” Emily agreed, saying, “[Y]ou want your kids to be where
they need to be, but you can do all of those things with supplements as well … [You can] hit
every single standard … [using] a different book.” Molly also echoed similar sentiments during
her second interview:
I don’t want to just read the script … I want to, ideally, find really cool books that
[students will] find interesting and engaging and can relate to other subjects, and I want
to use that to teach the same standards. I’m totally fine using the standards that they need
to complete, but I want to change the way we do the activities and read those anthology
stories. They hate those anthology stories, they’re miserable … I feel like I just want to
mix it up a little and kind of make it more engaging …

Despite the different degrees of frustration with the Treasures program, all three PSTs spoke
multiple times about the importance of “supplementing” it with different texts and activities. All

135
of the participants were committed to supplementing the Treasures program and not following
its script – yet, they simultaneously expressed a lack of knowledge about how to do so.
That is, while PSTs all felt supplementing the mandated curriculum was important, they
did not necessarily have a firm grasp on what that meant or looked like in practice. Recognizing
that they likely would not be able to simply abandon the mandated curriculum if their
administrators expected them to utilize it, the PSTs reported wanting to learn how to use
Treasures but not rely exclusively on the program for their literacy instruction. For example,
Emily wondered during her second interview, “If your principal does want you to stick to
Treasures, how can you build out of that and bring in other things?” She thought it was “really
important for me to learn” how to “[use] Treasures as a tool … instead of being negative about
it.” This idea of using Treasures as a tool – as one instructional resource among many – was a
sentiment expressed by all of the participants, particularly as they voiced concerns about
potentially needing to navigate their pedagogical decisions with administrators. As Molly said,
I feel like for me, [I want to learn how to] navigat[e] between what I need to do for my
kids and what I need to do for administrators that aren’t as socially justice oriented. I
really want to learn how to navigate that smoothly because I can already see myself
getting in trouble. Like when Darcy’s talking about how sometimes you have to close the
door and teach your kids, I foresee that happening for me … [T]here’s gonna have to be
more adaptation in how to meet [students] where they are and bring them to where they
need to be, and I’m not gonna be able to just follow the Treasures workbook, and so just
learning how to navigate that.

Molly’s and Emily’ quotes seem to reflect that they want to learn, specifically, how to bring
knowledge they have learned in the TEP into their K-12 classrooms. That is, they desire to
actually utilize the “formal”, “knowledge-for-practice” (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999)
explained in their TEP coursework for their literacy instruction with elementary students.
Similarly, Emily’s notion of using Treasures as a tool could be conceived of as her wanting to
learn how to marry the “knowledge-for-practice” presented in the TEP with the “knowledge-in-

136
practice” she is observing in her student teaching placement. Yet, PSTs struggled to see how
“knowledge-for-practice” could actually translate into their literacy instruction in deep, authentic
ways and wanted more explicit guidance about how to go about doing so.
PSTs were appreciative of some of the “little things” they did learn about in both their
Literacy Methods and their Seminar courses that they could draw on to supplement or modify the
Treasures program. For instance, Molly suggested having students create word webs and take
pictures of themselves acting out vocabulary words, “instead of just generically saying, ‘These
are your words for the week, we’re gonna be tested on them.’” However, despite PSTs being
committed to teaching outside of Treasures and the fact that Treasures – being a prepackaged
program created far outside of the classroom – tended not to reflect TEP-aligned literacy
pedagogy, PSTs received limited explicit instruction from university-based teacher educators
regarding how to work with and without Treasures. While Jessica presented PSTs with a sample
week’s schedule that included Treasures components as well as supplemental activities during
the Literacy Methods course, PSTs did not receive any field-based guidance around, for
example, how to adapt the Treasures script to design literacy lessons that reflected TEP-aligned
literacy pedagogy. A further discussion of this limited teacher educator support is discussed in
detail in Chapter Six.
In summary, PSTs’ perspectives on the need to “mix it up” – both in terms of
pedagogical strategies and instructional materials – seemed to reflect PSTs’ appropriation of
more superficial aspects of TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy. On the one hand, considering it
necessary to vary pedagogical strategies resonated with the TEP’s endorsement of differentiating
instruction, or not utilizing a “one-size-fits-all” approach to literacy teaching, that recognizes
individual learners’ differences. On the other hand, PSTs critiqued the Treasures program

137
primarily on the basis of its “boring” texts and seemed to think that “supplementing” the
curriculum with more interesting literature would “solve” what they viewed as the problem with
the mandated program, thereby demonstrating an arguably superficial understanding of how the
Treasures program pushes up against TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy.
Summary
Overall, PSTs’ perspectives on literacy teaching and learning tended to reflect a robust
appropriation of the theoretical foundation, or “conceptual underpinnings”, of TEP-aligned
literacy pedagogy. However, there was also evidence that pointed to PSTs only superficially
appropriating some elements of the TEP ideal. In the next section, I describe the development of
PSTs’ literacy instructional practice and argue that PSTs tended to demonstrate lower “degrees
of appropriation” of TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy regarding their actual teaching practice than
was evidenced in the development of their perspectives.
Development of Preservice Teachers’ Literacy Instructional Practice within
Student Teaching Placements
As prior research has indicated, PSTs’ beliefs do not necessarily seamlessly – or
automatically – translate into their classroom practice (e.g., Buehler et al., 2009; Smagorinsky,
Cook, et al., 2004), and similar findings emerged in this study as well. In this section, I present
findings related to the development of PSTs’ literacy instructional practice during their student
teaching placements. First, I argue that the majority of PSTs’ literacy lessons consisted of whole-
class, undifferentiated, teacher-centered instruction, thereby demonstrating that PSTs seemed to
not have appropriated TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy in terms of their practice. Second, I argue
that even when PSTs incorporated elements of TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy into their lessons,

138
their instruction still fell short of the TEP’s “ideal” in notable ways, reflecting the tendency for
PSTs to appropriate only “surface features” of TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy.
Majority of PSTs’ Lessons Reflect Lack of Appropriation of TEP-aligned Literacy
Pedagogy
A primary goal of student teaching is to give PSTs an opportunity to practice their TEP
learning in the field. As discussed in Chapter Four, sociocultural learning theory and culturally
responsive pedagogy characterized TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy within the context of UWC’s
social justice-oriented TEP. Despite this goal, data suggest that Emily, Megan, and Molly all
struggled to enact TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy throughout their time student teaching,
reflecting they had not appropriated the TEP’s goal of teaching literacy in sociocultural,
culturally responsive ways. This was particularly the case in their first student teaching
placements where PSTs were expected to follow the Treasures program with fidelity. During
participants’ first student teaching placements, all of the literacy lessons I observed (with one
exception) consisted of a lesson from the Treasures program or a lesson meant to prepare
students for a Treasures assessment. My conversations and interviews with Emily, Megan, and
Molly confirmed what I observed: sticking to Treasures with no or minimal modifications was
representative of the literacy lessons they taught during these placements.
Often, PSTs felt conflicted about and disappointed by teaching these literacy lessons,
claiming that they would have preferred to design the lessons differently if they felt they had the
freedom to do so. For example, participants talked about wanting to bring in what they
considered to be “authentic” children’s literature instead of relying on the anthology stories; they
also discussed wanting to incorporate more writing instruction and opportunities to write, which
they felt Treasures lacked. Overall, however, PSTs tended not to modify Treasures lessons to

139
include these components. In order to illustrate the majority of PSTs’ literacy lessons I observed,
I now share three extended examples – one from each participant – of fairly “typical” Treasures-
based literacy lessons that PSTs taught during their first student teaching placements in
classrooms where Treasures was utilized. As I explain, these lessons, with their predetermined
texts and whole class, undifferentiated instructional approach, reflected PSTs’ tendency not to
appropriate TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy in terms of their instructional practice. I begin by
describing one of Emily’s literacy lessons.
The first literacy lesson I observed Emily teach her second-grade students was a grammar
and writing conventions review. She taught this lesson immediately prior to students taking a
Treasures unit assessment that tested similar knowledge and skills. Emily had all of the students
sit on the rug at the front of the classroom, where she gave each of them a small white board and
a dry erase marker. She then proceeded to lead the whole class in an hour-long activity where she
displayed – on neon poster board – various multiple-choice questions. Emily read each question
aloud, and students wrote their answers on their individual white boards. Emily then had a few
students share their answers aloud before she explained the correct answer to the whole class.
Some of the multiple-choice questions Emily posed to the class were as follows:
1. Which sentence is written correctly?
a. I bought apples bananas and oranges.
b. I bought apples, bananas, and oranges.
c. I bought apples, bananas and, oranges.
d. I bought, apples bananas and oranges.
2. Which word belongs in the blank?
Miguel _____ three apples.
a. haves
b. have
c. having
d. has
3. Which word is misspelled?
a. store
b. stare

140
c. stair
d. stur
4. The word “creating” comes form the root “creat,” meaning “create.” Which word
does NOT have the same root as “creating”?
a. creation
b. creator
c. crate
d. create

As written, the Treasures lesson required that the class use the same procedure to answer and
review 15 questions focused primarily on grammar and spelling.
Considering that an hour was an arguably developmentally inappropriate length of time
for second graders to sit on the rug and review multiple-choice questions – a practice that
departed from the TEP’s emphasis on interactive student engagement – the students became
increasingly more restless as the lesson progressed. For instance, in the beginning of the lesson,
most students wrote their answers on their white boards and eagerly raised their hands to share
their responses to the questions with the whole class. As the lesson continued, however, students
began to demonstrate increasingly more off-task behavior, such as whispering to each other,
picking at the rug, not writing answers on the white boards, and not volunteering to contribute
their responses. Despite these indicators that students may not be attending to the lesson, Emily
continued through all 15 questions, needing to give students a lot of redirection as they became
increasingly antsy. As soon as Emily finished this review, students returned to their desks to
continue taking the Treasures assessment, which they had started previously and completed over
several days. Students’ increasing restlessness and decreasing focus during the lesson were
perhaps signs of boredom and/or fatigue, and their behavior likely indicated that they were
paying less attention as the lesson wore on. As Emily had to spend progressively more time
redirecting students’ behavior – asking students to stop talking, prodding them to write their

141
answers on the white boards, and so forth – it seemed that students were likely not getting very
much out of Emily’s instruction, especially during the last third of the lesson.
There was also a stark contrast between the literacy instruction promoted by the TEP in
the Literacy Methods course and the lesson Emily was teaching. The Literacy Methods course
centered on creating meaningful, engaging, authentic, and interactive lessons for students. This
lesson had none of these elements, except that in the beginning, students were noticeably excited
about writing on the white boards. It was a very teacher-centered lesson, with Emily sitting at the
front of the room and walking students through each question, and there were not opportunities
for students to work in groups or to engage with the content in more interactive ways. At the
same time, it was clear that Emily spent a great deal of time preparing this lesson, as all of the
questions were written out ahead of time and were thoughtfully sequenced to mirror what the
students would see on the test.
Emily – who tended to be reflective and self-critical – was conflicted about this lesson.
On the one hand, she thought the Treasures assessment was too hard, consisting of complex
grammatical questions for which she felt her students were unprepared. She attributed students’
perceived lack of preparedness to both the questions’ inherent difficulty and students not having
enough opportunities to practice with this material. She therefore wanted to make sure to review
everything the students needed to know for the test, as she greatly wanted them to be successful.
On the other hand, she hated “having” to spend an hour reviewing multiple-choice questions. She
shared in Seminar later that afternoon that the Treasures unit test was “big – horrible.” She also
told her TEP peers that the review lesson she did was “too long” and “now [the students are] not
even doing that part of the assessment until Friday,” which, if she had known, would have led
her to break the review lesson into smaller chunks. However, Emily still thought that conducting

142
a whole-class review of multiple-choice questions was the best way to prepare them for the
Treasures assessment. This was somewhat surprising, particularly given that this form of literacy
instruction (i.e., whole class review of multiple-choice questions) departs from the TEP’s
approach that emphasizes small group work, differentiated instruction, and authentic meaning-
making opportunities for students. Emily’s lesson thereby evidenced that she seemed to not have
appropriated TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy for her practice, as she did not utilize literacy
instructional strategies presented in the TEP. Similar tendencies were present in many of Molly’s
literacy lessons, one of which I describe next.
Molly also felt obligated to follow the Treasures program’s literacy lessons while student
teaching in Rosa’s classroom, despite considering the Treasures lessons inadequate. One of the
first times I observed Molly was when she taught an ELD lesson on “The Golden Rule.” This
lesson was drawn from a sub-program of Treasures called Wonders, which her CT regularly
used. The lesson began with students sitting on the rug, with Molly sitting in a chair in front of
the board. Molly asked the class, “What’s a rule?” and drew a circle map on the board with
students’ responses, which included the following: “Rules mean that doing stuff – doing good
things,” “paying attention,” and “be safe.” Molly asked follow-up questions, such as, “Why is it
important to be safe?” and “Why is it important to follow rules?” when students shared. I noted
that there was a lot of talking amongst students and Molly had to redirect their attention and
behavior often. She also had students engage in a think-pair-share exercise where they told a
partner, “One rule I follow is ______.” Most students began talking with a partner, but Molly
had to repeat the prompt to several pairs on the rug. After students talked with a partner, Molly
called on a few students to share their responses with the whole class. Students’ responses

143
included, “Be careful with cars” and “Don’t walk alone.” Molly verbally affirmed these
responses and transitioned to the next part of the lesson.
After this opening discussion, Molly took out the Wonders big book and opened to the
lesson’s accompanying text, “Goldilocks Learns the Golden Rule.” Before she began reading,
she asked the class what the golden rule is, and a few students responded: “The golden rule is
follow all the rules.” “Someone has to find the gold.” Molly nodded when students gave these
responses and asked, seemingly rhetorically, “Is that the golden rule?” before asking students to
make a prediction about the story, titled, “Goldilocks Learns the Golden Rule.” One student
predicted, “They’re going to learn about rules.” Molly replied, “Good guess,” and continued with
the lesson. The text was written as a “Reader’s Theater” play, so before she began reading,
Molly pointed out that people were “playing the roles” of Goldilocks, the three bears, and the
narrator. She also drew students’ attention to the fact that dialogue in a play is denoted using
colons. Molly then read the play aloud, the first sentence of which said directly, “The golden rule
is treating others how you want to be treated,” and the rest of the play was about the various rules
in the bears’ home, such as washing dishes and making the beds. When Molly finished reading,
she asked students what the golden rule was, and no one was able to state the golden rule. Molly
then reread the opening sentence of the play that stated the golden rule.
The next part of the lesson involved Molly modeling for students writing with the
sentence starter: “[Name]: The Golden Rule is happening when _____.” For her demonstration,
she wrote, “Ms. Palazzo: The Golden Rule is happening when I am nice to my friends.” She
reiterated that this showed the golden rule because, “I want friends to be nice to me, so I’m
treating them how I want to be treated.” Molly also pointed out that she wrote the sentence as if
she were speaking in a play, so she started with her name and then a colon, which students were

144
also expected to do. The students then returned to their seats to write their own sentences, and
the lesson ended with a few students sharing what they wrote, which included, “The golden rule
is happening when you are being safe,” and “The golden rule is happening when I watch out for
cars.”
Students appeared very confused throughout this lesson, evidenced in part by the fact that
they did not seem to grasp the concept of the golden rule by the lesson’s end. Additionally, it
seemed that Molly – in her incorporation of starting with an open-ended question (e.g., “What’s
a rule?”) and then having students share their own experiences with rules – was attempting to
activate students’ prior knowledge about rules to start the lesson. Indeed, in her lesson plan, she
wrote that these questions were meant as a way “to connect school learning with prior
experiential knowledge and/or cultural background,” a TEP-endorsed strategy. However, Molly
seemed to struggle to then use students’ knowledge about and experience with rules to actually
“connect” to the “school learning” about the golden rule. She did not, for example, engage
students in a discussion around the golden rule once it had been stated. The additional focus on
the text being a play and using colons to denote dialogue seemed to further distract students from
focusing on the golden rule. Importantly, Molly alone was not responsible for students’ apparent
confusion and misunderstanding. Rather, some elements of this lesson that seemed to lead to
confusion among students, such as the focus on many different components (e.g., golden rule,
play, colon, dialogue, etc.), were taken directly from the Treasures program and its script. At the
same time, other elements of this lesson that contributed to students’ confusion seemed to stem
from Molly’s limited facilitation skills and/or understanding. For example, Molly had difficulty
connecting students’ comments about rules they follow to the lesson goal of learning the golden
rule.

145
After the lesson, I spoke with Molly and learned that she also thought the lesson was
confusing. She told me,
The sentence frame was supposed to be ‘I like ____’ – that’s not about the golden
rule at all! I felt like it was trying to do too much in one lesson – colon, label, golden rule,
characters, play … It was a really fractured lesson … [but] I’m proud of the work the
students did – they put in a lot of effort.

Molly’s comment that the lesson was “fractured” and her recognition that the numerous
components did not relate to each other reflected her frustration with being required to teach
lessons that she felt went against her understanding about what constituted an effective literacy
lesson. Implicit in these – and other – statements was that she would have designed the lesson
differently if she were not expected to utilize the Treasures program. Creating coherent lessons
with a clear and focused objective was also a practice endorsed by the TEP, so that the lesson
was “fractured” presented yet another way in which using Treasures seemed to pull PSTs away
from appropriating more TEP-aligned approaches.
In this conversation with Molly, I also learned that she made at least one minor change –
the sentence frame – to the Treasures lesson. This small modification shows that Molly felt
comfortable diverging from Treasures’ predetermined script, but only ever so slightly. As she
reflected later, “I made some adaptations … I tried to deviate from [the script] a little bit,” but
her CT expected her to faithfully implement the Treasures lessons, so she did not feel like she
had the freedom to make larger changes. In this lesson, the alteration of the sentence frame
possibly made the lesson somewhat less fractured, but it seems that a more major transformation
of the lesson would have been necessary in order for it to align with both the TEP’s and Molly’s
understanding of quality instruction. Molly’s minor change to this lesson was representative of
other small modifications or additions the PSTs were able to make, but these were few and far
between in classrooms that utilized the Treasures program. Overall, Molly’s literacy instruction

146
– that this lesson exemplified – demonstrated her seeming “lack of appropriation” of the core
tenets of TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy, as she conducted the lesson in a whole-class format and
did not authentically build on students’ prior knowledge to facilitate new academic learning
about a topic that was relevant to students’ lives. Many of Megan’s literacy lessons reflected
similar tendencies, and I turn now to describing one lesson from her placement classroom.
As a student teacher in Mrs. Davis’s fourth-grade classroom, Megan closely followed the
Treasures program for every literacy lesson she taught. Despite thinking that the Treasures
lessons “can sometimes just be so boring,” she tended not to deviate from them, with the
exception of occasionally inserting a small, “fun” supplemental activity, such as showing a short
video clip on a topic related to the lesson’s focal text. A typical Treasures lesson in Megan’s
fourth-grade placement involved, for example, the class listening to an audio recording of an
historical fiction text set in San Francisco’s Chinatown during the 1906 earthquake, with Megan
pausing the audio to ask predetermined questions such as, “How do you think he feels? What
conclusions can you draw?” Individual students answered these questions, with Megan usually
affirming their responses before asking for another student’s thoughts. While the text was being
read, I noticed many of the students seemed to be following along in their anthology textbooks,
as they were supposed to, but some students appeared to be paying less close attention. I noticed
a few students had their heads on their desks, a couple of students were doodling, and a few
would occasionally whisper to one another and giggle. Others seemed to be staring off in the
distance, eyes glazed over. These students also did not turn the pages in their anthologies on cue
with the rest of the class. It is possible these students were still listening to the story being read,
but their behavior seemed to indicate otherwise.

147
Afterwards, students were expected to complete a t-chart in their Treasures workbooks
that had one column for “text clue” and another column for “conclusion drawn from the text
clue.” To complete this t-chart, Megan called on individual students to choose a text clue and
share it with the whole class and then asked the class what conclusion could be drawn from the
given text clue. Students then all wrote their responses in their workbooks. One text clue that a
student shared was, “His father pounds. ‘Henry, are you alright?’” When Megan asked what
conclusion could be drawn from that text clue, a female student offered, “That his father is
worried about Henry.” Another female student said, “His father is worried to lose [sic] his son.”
Megan affirmed these responses and told the class, “Write this [in your workbook] … We’re
going to do a 10-minute write later and you will need this … Make sure you’re putting this [text
clue] in and writing your conclusion.” At the end of the lesson, students had 10 minutes to write
two paragraphs: one stating – with correct citations – their text clues and a second stating the
conclusions they drew from the text clues, essentially transferring the information from the t-
chart into paragraph form.
This lesson, like most of the Treasures lessons I observed, had potential to provide an
opportunity for robust literacy instruction but, in practice, fell short of reflecting TEP-aligned
literacy pedagogy. For example, the anthology text was an historical fiction piece set in an
immigrant community during a natural disaster. The genre of historical fiction provides a natural
connection to social studies (and also, in this case, science) as well as potentially to students’
lives, seeing as they lived in a community that included many Salvadoran and Mexican
immigrants. Making connections between the students’ community and the characters’
experiences could potentially have provided opportunities for literacy instruction that was more
relevant to students’ lives. However, during this lesson, Megan did not give students the

148
opportunity to engage with the academic content or other texts that were of particular interest to
them or that leveraged their funds of knowledge, something the TEP advocated and Megan
purportedly valued. In addition, the lesson was teacher-centered and conducted in a whole-class
format for the duration, with limited opportunities for students to interact with one another in
meaningful ways. For instance, all of the students completed their workbook page in the same
way, utilizing the same text clues and drawing almost identical conclusions from these clues, as
Megan prompted students to write down what their classmates had shared. For these reasons, this
lesson – and other similar ones – seemed to evidence that Megan had not taken up the practical
literacy instructional tools promoted by the TEP.
These lessons that Emily, Molly, and Megan taught while student teaching exemplify
other observed lessons and show how – especially when beholden to the Treasures program –
PSTs’ lessons were not as TEP-aligned as one might expect them to be, particularly given PSTs’
perspectives, which reflected at least some aspects of the approaches advocated by the TEP.
These lessons tended to reflect PSTs’ struggles to appropriate TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy for
their literacy instruction. First, PSTs utilized predetermined, prepackaged material, as opposed to
starting with students’ interests and strengths as the TEP endorsed. Second, they also taught the
lessons in a whole class, “one-size-fits-all” format, which did not reflect the TEP’s emphasis on
flexibly grouping students and providing differentiated instruction to meet individuals’ needs.
Third, PSTs provided students with limited opportunities to meaningfully engage with their peers
around authentic literacy tasks in these lessons, a hallmark of TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy. In
addition to data suggesting PSTs’ tendency not to take up TEP-aligned pedagogy, there were
some instances where PSTs did incorporate some elements of TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy
into their instruction. However, these lessons still fell short of fully exemplifying the pedagogical

149
perspective of the TEP, thereby evidencing PSTs’ superficial appropriation of TEP-aligned
literacy pedagogy, a tendency I describe in some depth below.
Lessons with Elements of TEP-aligned Literacy Pedagogy Still Fell Short of TEP “Ideal”
In this section, I argue that even when PSTs had opportunities to engage in literacy
instructional practice that was (more) coherent with the TEP’s sociocultural and culturally
responsive approach, their lessons still fell short of the TEP “ideal” in a variety of ways. Data
suggest that participants put into practice some elements of TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy
during their student teaching placements. Most of these opportunities occurred during their
second placements where they were not confined to utilizing a scripted program and therefore
had more pedagogical freedom to design their own literacy lessons. Overall, these lessons tended
to involve more student-to-student interaction, either in pairs or in small groups, something the
TEP greatly emphasized. In addition, the lesson content tended to either be potentially relevant
for students or focus on social-justice oriented themes, also reflecting features of TEP-aligned
literacy pedagogy. However, the lessons also tended to be predominantly “teacher centered” (as
opposed to “student centered”) and mostly focused on topics that participants wanted to teach, as
opposed to those about which students were interested in learning. I therefore argue that these
lessons represented PSTs tendency to appropriate only “surface features” of TEP-aligned literacy
pedagogy. In order to illustrate this point, I again provide three extended examples of PSTs’
literacy lessons, starting with one from Emily’s classroom.
One literacy lesson that Emily taught during her second student teaching placement
exemplifies how she incorporated some elements of TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy into her
instruction. The lesson involved her fifth-grade students working with a partner to create three-
panel comic strips about “the importance of multiple perspectives.” This lesson followed

150
previous days’ reading and discussion of The Three Little Pigs and The True Story of the Three
Little Pigs, by Jon Scieszka and Lane Smith, which tells the classic tale from the wolf’s
perspective (he was simply sick with a bad cold and needed a cup of sugar for a cake he was
baking). Emily began the lesson by asking the class what was different about the two versions of
the story, and students replied, “The pigs were mean,” and “The wolf was nice.” Emily reminded
students that they had been talking about how perspectives change throughout stories and
explained that they would be creating comic strips “about why perspective or point of view is
important.” She then modeled creating her own comic strip. She wrote, “Point of view is
important … because … things aren’t always what they seem” on the three panels of the comic
strip projected on the board. Emily then drew a comic strip that began with a girl who looked
really nice but then stole a lollipop from a baby and was actually mean. Students then worked in
pairs to create their own comic strip about the importance of multiple perspectives or point of
view, which they completed with varying degrees of success and understanding.
The importance of multiple perspectives, along with audience and purpose, were critical
topics Emily took away from her TEP courses. She spoke with me – and in classes I observed –
about them often, and she connected presenting students with multiple perspectives with social
justice teaching and not only exposing students to the dominant narrative that often fails to
include the voices and stories of marginalized groups. Emily was pleased that she was able to
conduct lessons focused on multiple perspectives using partner-created comic strips as a medium
(the class later used a computer program to ‘publish’ their comic strips), something she credited
Tim’s Critical Media Literacy course as inspiring. These elements of the lesson – multiple
perspectives, partner work, and comic strips – reflect Emily’s appropriation of TEP-aligned

151
literacy pedagogy because of the focus on different points of view, student engagement with
peers, and the use of an alternative medium for demonstrating understanding.
However, Emily still led the class in a relatively teacher-centered, rigid manner, which
tended to counter the TEP’s emphasis on “student-centered” literacy instruction. For instance,
Emily decided that students’ comic strips all had to have three panels and color-coded each panel
to correspond with which partner should complete which panel (i.e., partner one was responsible
for the first panel, partner two was responsible for the second panel, and partners were both
supposed to work together on the third panel). These rigid restrictions diverged from TEP-
aligned literacy pedagogy in that they potentially limited students’ authentic engagement and co-
construction of the comic strip by depriving them of key choices in the comic strip’s creation. In
addition, students were confined to a fairly simplistic rendering of multiple perspectives – that
sometimes a person appears “bad” (or “good”) but in fact is actually “good” (or “bad”). This
departed from TEP notions of multiple perspectives, which would not have merely dichotomized
“good” or “bad” but rather conceived of multiple perspectives as the potential for people to
interpret the same situation differently depending on their positionalities. In order for Emily to
more fully bring to life TEP-aligned literacy practices, it likely would have required her
engaging students in a deeper exploration of multiple perspectives and giving students more
discretion as to how they chose to depict their understanding of the importance of multiple
perspectives. This lesson therefore demonstrates that Emily seemed to have appropriated some
aspects of the TEP’s approach to literacy instruction in relatively cursory ways. While some
elements of the lesson (e.g., partner work, focus on different points of view) reflected TEP-
aligned literacy pedagogy, other aspects of the lesson (e.g., teacher restrictions, simplistic
rendering of multiple perspectives) departed in clear ways from the TEP “ideal”. One of

152
Megan’s lessons, which I describe next, also reflected some alignment with – but notable
departure from – TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy.
As discussed in Chapter Four, Megan’s second student teaching placement at Noreste in
Ms. Furnold’s sixth-grade classroom was disappointing and frustrating for Megan for a variety of
reasons, but particularly due to Ms. Furnold’s blatant deficit perspectives of students and the lack
of feedback she provided Megan. However, despite the challenges of this placement – including
the fact that it was a math and science class – a considerable number of Megan’s literacy lessons
seemed to evidence that she had at least superficially appropriated some features of TEP-aligned
literacy pedagogy. Megan taught these literacy lessons during the two “elective” periods of the
day, where Ms. Furnold basically gave her no restrictions or guidance around what to teach at
these times. As mentioned previously, this elective was called “Technology Exploration,” but
Megan never observed Ms. Furnold teach anything related to technology. On most days, Ms.
Furnold read aloud from a class novel during this time.
Tim’s Critical Media Literacy class seemed to inspire several of the literacy lessons I
observed Megan teach during this elective period. In at least one instance, Megan’s lesson was
taken directly from Tim’s class; the PSTs engaged in this lesson during Tim’s class, and Megan
borrowed Tim’s materials to teach the same lesson to her sixth graders. This lesson began with
Megan hanging a “traditional” Mercator map on the board and giving students a “World Map
Quiz” with three questions comparing land masses of different countries. As the Mercator map
distorts relative size of countries, students generally answered all of the questions incorrectly.
After Megan finished reviewing the correct answers, students called out, “I’m outraged – the
map is all wrong!”; “Miss, that’s not true! India’s tiny!”; and, “Does this count as part of our
grade?” Following the quiz, Megan displayed a second map on the board, one that had a more

153
accurate depiction of relative size. In this map, Africa was in the center and was much longer and
larger than it appears on a Mercator map. When Megan hung up this map, a student said, “This
map is deformed.” Megan finally put up a third map, which had the South direction facing up.
She explained, “This is an accurate map as well … They could have just as easily chosen to put
either side on top … There’s no up and down in space …” Students appeared baffled, as they
alternated calling out questions of disbelief and getting very quiet.
The last part of the lesson involved Megan showing a clip from the television show The
West Wing, where a character was presented with different maps (similar to the ones Megan had
just shown the class). An accompanying discussion ensued among the characters, centering on
how maps may produce and perpetuate social inequality by what is depicted in the center, what
is on top, what is largest, and so forth. After a brief think-pair-share about the video, Megan
closed the lesson by saying, “I want you to take away from this lesson that people are creating –
people are constructing these maps … This is true for the TV you watch, the news you read …”
and having students write a reflection about the day’s lesson. Students’ reflections that I saw
included the following: “ … the cartography people to talk about the map since its racist to
Africans [sic] …” “Cartography is people how [sic] draw the map of the world their own way.”
“Everything I learned is a lie.” “I learned that when you look at a map it’s not always what it
seems.” Megan was pleased with this lesson, she told me afterwards, and she was glad that it
“made [students] think” and begin to critically question what is so often neutrally presented to
them. This lesson was a first attempt to teach students one of the core concepts from the Critical
Media Literacy course: “All media messages are constructed.” To my knowledge, this map
lesson was a stand-alone, isolated lesson in that Megan did not teach any other lessons on the
same or similar topics.

154
In this lesson, Megan demonstrated her appropriation of some features of TEP-aligned
literacy pedagogy. Most notably, the lesson involved a social justice-focused theme: even
artifacts typically construed as “objective,” such as maps, are constructed by people for different
purposes and may reflect – and/or lead to – bias and social inequality. However, although Megan
gave students the opportunity to engage in a think-pair-share, she conducted the lesson in a
whole-class, undifferentiated format, thereby falling short of the TEP’s sociocultural ideals. In
addition, while students seemed engaged in the map lesson, Megan reported to have decided to
teach this lesson because she thought it would be “cool” to teach. She did not base her
instructional decision-making on students’ lives and interests, also departing from the TEP’s
emphasis on cultural responsiveness. Out of the three case study participants, Megan seemed to
teach the most social justice-focused literacy instruction in her second placement, which is
somewhat ironic given the disconnect between the TEP’s philosophy and Ms. Furnold’s ideology
and the fact that she was in a math/science class. In Chapter Six, I discuss in more detail the
mediating factors that likely allowed Megan to teach in relatively TEP-aligned ways in Ms.
Furnold’s classroom. First, I turn to describing a lesson Molly taught during her second student
teaching placement.
Molly’s lessons I observed during her second student teaching placement also
demonstrated that she incorporated some features of TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy into her
lessons, as she had students work in small groups and provided students with considerable choice
over their tasks in some lessons. One lesson revolved around students selecting a “debatable
issue” from a Time for Kids magazine article. To begin the lesson, Molly modeled selecting the
debatable issue, “Should older actors/actresses be able to play preteens?” which was a topic in a
Time for Kids article about the Disney Channel. She then demonstrated making a list of pros and

155
cons for each side of the argument and ultimately restating her position using a rhetorical device.
She chose “simile” from a premade list of rhetorical devices/figurative language and wrote, “I
think older actors/actresses should not be able to play preteens because it is like toddlers wearing
high heels.” After Molly’s modeling, students worked in groups of four to choose their own
debatable issue, make a list of pros and cons, and then restate a position using a rhetorical device.
In previous lessons (that I did not observe), students had listed potential debatable issue topics –
phrased as questions – from Time for Kids articles into a chart with columns for each subject
area, such as science, social studies, language arts, and math.
Students animatedly conversed with their peers as they chose their debatable issue and
made their lists of pros and cons. Some of the questions students chose to debate included the
following:
• Should kids have minimal time to play video games?
• Should girls play football?
• Should dogs spend most of their time at school?
• Should the government make a law if people waste water?

As I walked around the room, I noticed that students seemed very engaged and appeared to be
having rich discussions with one another about their issues. Molly circulated the classroom and
listened and talked with individual groups of students. After students had worked together to
create their lists and position statements using rhetorical devices, Molly called the class back
together to share. One female student stated, “[There should be a time limit on playing video
games because] … they won’t wake up bright eyed and bushy-tailed from staying up late playing
… Idiom.” Molly affirmed this statement and rhetorical device. Other students seemed to
struggle a bit with incorporating a rhetorical device into their position statements, which is
arguably a fairly challenging task. For example, a male student shared, “We used hyperbole.
Girls should not play football because they will get so hurt they won’t want to play football again

156
and might get a concussion.” Molly responded to him by saying, “Okay … The only challenge to
that is that people do get concussions in football – and a hyperbole is an extreme exaggeration
that could never really happen …” She offers, “They will get so scared they won’t be able to
sleep at night” as an example of a hyperbole that would work in that situation.
Molly’s lesson on debatable issues reflected that she seemed to have appropriated several
elements of the TEP’s “ideal” approach to literacy instruction. For instance, Molly modeled the
task students were supposed to complete, students worked in groups with peers for the majority
of the lesson, students were given the freedom to choose what issue they wanted to debate, and
many of the topics seemed potentially relevant to students’ lives (e.g., playing video games). In
many ways, this was one of the most student-centered – and least teacher-centered – lessons I
observed any of the PSTs teach. However, the lesson did not have a particular social justice
focus, nor was it necessarily culturally responsive, nor did it seem to leverage students’ funds of
knowledge. In other words, the lesson – as was the case with all of the lessons I observed – did
not fully exemplify TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy, evidencing Molly’s tendency to appropriate
only some elements of the TEP’s “ideal”.
Literacy lessons such as these, which occurred less regularly than those demonstrating
that PSTs had not taken up pedagogical approaches promoted by the TEP, suggest that PSTs
mostly appropriated “surface features” of TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy. In other words,
evidence demonstrated that PSTs seemed to have “learn[ed] some … of the features” of TEP-
aligned literacy pedagogy, although they did not seem to “understand how those features
contribute to the conceptual whole” (Grossman, et al., 1999, p. 17). For example, although PSTs
often implemented the technique of “think-pair-share,” where students talked about an answer to
a question briefly with a partner, there were limited opportunities for students to deeply engage

157
in small-group work where they co-constructed knowledge with peers, something the TEP
greatly emphasized. Similarly, while some of the lessons were likely engaging and potentially
relevant for students (e.g., discussions around video games), PSTs designed these lessons around
content and topics that they wanted to teach – or that they were required to teach – as opposed to
those that students wanted to learn or that reflected students’ familiar cultural or linguistic
practices or salient experiences, also hallmarks of TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy. Additionally,
although I did not see any particular instances of culturally responsive instruction, PSTs did
intentionally try to create “engaging” lessons – or lessons with engaging components – for
students, again somewhat, but not fully, reflecting the TEP’s “ideal”.
Overall, the majority of the literacy lessons I observed PSTs teach – across both
placements – reflected largely “traditional” pedagogy that tended not to cohere with the TEP’s
approach to literacy instruction. That is, with a few exceptions, most of the lessons I observed
were conducted in a whole-class, undifferentiated format, with all students engaging with the
same material in the same way at the same time. Typically, PSTs stood at the front of the room
and led the class through entire lessons and activities, demonstrating a more “teacher-centered”
than “student-centered” approach. These practices reflected PSTs’ tendency to not internalize
and adopt the TEP’s sociocultural and culturally responsive approaches to literacy instruction
described in Chapter Four. Instances where PSTs seemed to have appropriated some elements of
the TEP ideal tended to consist of relatively isolated elements of literacy instructional practices
the TEP endorsed (e.g., having students answer a question with a partner). In short, there was
limited evidence that PSTs had appropriated TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy in robust ways in
their literacy instructional practice. It therefore seemed that the norms and rules of CTs’ more
traditional classrooms dominated PSTs’ literacy instruction while student teaching. In other

158
words, the TEP’s more progressive principles seemed to have a relatively small amount of
influence on PSTs’ literacy instruction, something I address in more detail in Chapter Six.
In summary, PSTs seemed to demonstrate fairly sophisticated understandings about TEP-
aligned literacy pedagogy, which contributed to their perspectives on literacy and learning
tending to become more coherent with the TEP’s principles and pedagogical approach. Yet, their
literacy instructional practice tended not to reflect the TEP “ideal”, evidencing that PSTs seemed
to not appropriate TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy in robust ways. This demonstrates that the TEP
seemed to have shaped PSTs’ perspectives on literacy teaching and learning but was less
impactful in terms of influencing their literacy instructional practice.
Utilizing Cochran-Smith and Lytle’s (1999) conceptual framework of the relationships
between knowledge and practice sheds additional light on these findings. As described in
Chapter Two, Cochran-Smith and Lytle discuss knowledge-for-practice as the “formal”,
research-based knowledge learned in TEPs that effective teachers apply to their classroom
practice. For the PSTs in this study, the “knowledge” they learned in the TEP seemed to be “for-
perspectives” only, as it translated into practice in such limited ways. For instance, despite
seeming to appropriate the importance of leveraging students’ strengths as curriculum, PSTs’
literacy lessons tended to not build on students’ strengths, prior knowledge, or familiar cultural
and linguistic practice. That is, PSTs seemed to struggle to “implement, translate, use, adapt,
and/or put into practice” (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999, p. 257) the knowledge and perspectives
cultivated through their TEP coursework.
Conclusion
Throughout the course of this study, PSTs’ perspectives on literacy teaching and learning
and their literacy instructional practice developed markedly. Their perspectives tended to move

159
toward their appropriation of robust notions of TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy. First, their
perspectives on literacy teaching evolved to include more expansive definitions of literacy.
Second, they came to believe that it was important to teach literacy starting from students’
strengths as the foundation of the curriculum. Third, PSTs considered varying pedagogical
strategies and “supplementing” the mandated curriculum with additional materials to be elements
of effective literacy instruction for students from historically marginalized groups, but they
tended not to have the requisite knowledge or skills to do this on their own.
However, PSTs’ literacy instructional practice most often demonstrated that PSTs had not
appropriated TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy. PSTs were at times able to incorporate some
elements of pedagogical practices promoted by the TEP into their lessons, particularly in
placements where they had more pedagogical freedom, but their literacy instructional practice
still fell short of the TEP “ideal”. In the next chapter, I discuss the various factors that seemed to
mediate the development of PSTs’ perspectives on literacy teaching and learning and the
development of the PSTs’ literacy instructional practice in these ways.

160

CHAPTER SIX
FACTORS THAT MEDIATED THE DEVELOPMENT OF PRESERVICE TEACHERS’
PERSPECTIVES ON LITERACY AND LITERACY INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICE
This chapter addresses the various factors that seemed to mediate the development of
PSTs’ literacy perspectives and literacy instructional practice over time and across contexts.
Specifically, the present chapter centers on the study’s third and final research question:
3) What factors mediate the development of PSTs’ perspectives on literacy teaching and
learning and PSTs’ literacy instructional practice and in what ways (e.g., course
assignments, TEP context, teacher educator mediation, field placements, policy
climate, etc.)?
Three overarching themes related to factors that mediated PSTs’ development of literacy
perspectives and literacy instructional practice were identified and are discussed in this chapter.
First, findings show that the current policy climate seemed to exacerbate the TEP-field
disconnect, amplifying the long-standing “two-worlds pitfall” (Feiman-Nemser & Buchman,
1985) between the university and K-12 classrooms. This often resulted in PSTs having few
opportunities to observe and put into practice TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy. Second, evidence
pointed to the influential nature of field experiences – at times over TEP coursework – in the
development of PSTs’ perspectives and practice. Third, data suggest that teacher educator
mediation – or their targeted facilitation of PSTs’ field-based learning – was limited in both
amount and scope, as teacher educators tended not to provide substantive pedagogical feedback
on PSTs’ lessons. At times, teacher educators reported to purposefully provide minor feedback to
PSTs, but other times teacher educators’ superficial (or nonexistent) feedback seemed less

161
intentional. Overall, these themes help to explain how and why participants’ perspectives and
practice developed as they did, with varying degrees of appropriation of the TEP’s ideal goal.
In what follows, I provide a short summary of the findings presented in Chapter Five. I
then unpack the three themes described above.
Summary of Previous Findings
As described in Chapter Five, PSTs’ perspectives on literacy teaching and learning
tended to mostly evolve toward reflecting TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy. PSTs’ perspectives
demonstrated that they had grasped the theoretical underpinnings of some TEP-aligned concepts
in relatively robust ways (i.e., broadened conceptions of literacy; leveraging students’ strengths
as curriculum), while they seemed to have appropriated other aspects of the TEP “ideal” more
superficially (i.e., varying pedagogical strategies and “supplementing” mandated curriculum).
PSTs’ literacy instructional practice, however, tended not to reflect the principles and practices
promoted by the TEP, in that the majority of PSTs’ literacy lessons were teacher centered and
taught in a whole-class format utilizing textbook- or teacher-determined topics and texts. Even
when PSTs incorporated some elements of TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy into their lessons,
these aspects of their lessons (e.g., having students talk with a partner) seemed to demonstrate
that they had appropriated these instructional practices in only surface ways. In short, the TEP’s
object – or goal – of PSTs learning to teach literacy in sociocultural and culturally responsive
ways was not fully realized during PSTs’ student teaching placements. In the remainder of this
chapter, I discuss how various factors within the activity system – such as particular mediating
artifacts and rules of CTs’ classrooms – interacted with one another to shape these outcomes of
PSTs’ development of literacy perspectives and practice. I focus in particular on factors that

162
seemed to mediate the development of PSTs’ literacy instructional practice, as PSTs’ instruction
more often than not departed from the TEP’s “ideal”.
Dimensions of the Current Current Policy Climate Exacerbate the TEP-Field Disconnect
As described in Chapter Five, there was often misalignment between the literacy
instruction PSTs learned about in the TEP and the literacy instruction PSTs observed and taught
in their student teaching placements. However, that PSTs experienced disconnect between the
TEP and the field is nothing new; rather it reflects a long-standing issue in teacher education.
Thirty years ago, in their now classic essay, Feiman-Nemser and Buchman (1985) described this
common TEP-field disconnect, what they termed the “two-worlds pitfall”, as follows: “The two-
worlds pitfall arises from the fact that teacher education goes on in two distinct settings and the
fallacious assumption that making connections between these two worlds is straightforward and
can be left to the novice” (p. 63). They go on to discuss that, without intentional teacher educator
mediation, what PSTs learn (or do not learn) from their field experiences remains uncertain.
Many studies centered on PST learning around literacy document evidence of the “two-worlds
pitfall.” These studies tend to be situated in TEPs that espouse constructivist views on literacy
teaching and learning yet place student teachers in classrooms where literacy instruction does not
reflect constructivist practices (e.g., Grossman et al., 2000; Smagorinsky, 1999; Smagorinsky,
Cook, et al., 2004; Smagorinsky, Gibson, et al., 2004; Smagorinsky et al., 2002; Valencia et al.,
2009). Yet, these classrooms are oftentimes not subjected to similar policy constraints frequently
found in urban, high-needs schools and that were experienced by the PSTs in this study, such as
mandated scripted curriculum, a nearly exclusive focus on academic subjects tested on high-
stakes exams, and so forth.

163
In this study, UWC’s TEP’s commitments to social justice, sociocultural learning theory,
and culturally responsive literacy pedagogy notably build on but also depart from constructivism
– which tends to highlight learners as individuals – by emphasizing learners’ family and
community social, cultural, and historical practices and funds of knowledge. Additionally, as
discussed in detail in Chapter One, urban, high-needs schools are contexts where K-12 teachers –
and their literacy instruction, especially – are currently under a great deal of policy pressure that
teachers who work in other contexts often are not (e.g., Diamond & Spillane, 2004; Gutiérrez,
2006). In short, there was an even larger chasm between UWC’s TEP and the urban, high-needs
schools where it placed student teachers than between more “typical” TEPs and K-12
classrooms. Figure 6.1 depicts the range of disconnect across TEPs and classrooms, showing this
amplified “two-worlds pitfall” between UWC’s social-justice oriented TEP and many K-12
classrooms in urban, high-needs schools. Data indicate that this exacerbated TEP-field
disconnect often led to limited opportunities for PSTs to teach literacy in TEP-aligned ways.

Figure 6.1. Spectrum of approaches to literacy instruction and range of disconnect between TEPs
and K-12 classrooms.

In the urban, high-needs schools in this study, three particular dimensions of the policy
climate seemed to shape the context of PSTs’ student teaching classrooms most consequentially
and appeared to make it difficult for PSTs to deeply appropriate TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy.
First, as established in Chapter Five, the Treasures program was a dominating mediating artifact
in terms of shaping PSTs’ literacy instruction in the placements that utilized it. As I illustrate in
UWC’s
TEP
“Typical”
TEPs
“Typical”
K-12
Schools
Urban,
High-needs
Schools
Two-worlds
Pitfall

164
this chapter, the only mediating artifact that seemed to “trump” Treasures was, in fact, another
policy artifact: a preservice teacher performance assessment and state credential requirement –
edTPA. Second, the policy climate mediated the TEP’s selection of CTs, with recent budget cuts
making it difficult for the TEP to find quality CTs that would serve as effective mentors to PSTs.
Third, the policy climate also influenced school and classroom organization – specifically,
tracking practices – which also often, but not always, resulted in limited opportunities for PSTs
to practice instructional strategies introduced in the TEP. I discuss each of these factors below.
Treasures and edTPA Requirements Shape Instructional Practice
Perhaps most salient for PSTs’ development of literacy instructional practice was the
preponderance of the Treasures reading program, which tended to push up against the TEP’s
approach to literacy instruction, in the student teaching placements where PSTs spent the most
time. As established in Chapter Five, it was difficult for PSTs to teach outside of the mandated
curriculum their CTs’ used, in part because they were guests in someone else’s classroom. Emily
reflected on this tricky dynamic of learning how to teach literacy during student teaching:
Student teaching is such a weird beast. You’re in someone else’s class. You’re following
someone else’s rules. [You’re] trying to find your own way to do things, but also be
respectful of someone else’s situation. And teaching literacy in that environment is
horrible … It’s not a fun experience.

Emily’s statement echoed well-documented difficulties surrounding the student teaching
experience in general (e.g., Anderson & Stillman, 2011; Bullough & Draper, 2004; Valencia et
al., 2009). However, the mandated rigid implementation of Treasures added another layer of
“someone else’s rules” to follow while student teaching, particularly since these rules came from
the district and were strictly enforced. That is, PSTs did not only have to navigate the norms and
rules in an individual CT’s classroom but also had to contend with the fact that following

165
Treasures was a district requirement enforced by the school principal, thereby making it
potentially more difficult to negotiate teaching outside of the mandated curriculum.
In other words, the predominant literacy instruction norms or rules in these classrooms
involved the strict implementation of the Treasures program. Specifically, these rules included
utilizing the anthology texts instead of basing literacy instruction off of texts that were arguably
more authentic and relevant to students’ lives and targeted for individual student’s reading levels.
They also involved teachers having to follow the predetermined script for a given lesson, asking
questions about and providing commentary on the text only in ways the program stipulated – as
opposed to, for example, basing questions around students’ interests, prior knowledge, and
wonderings. In addition to scripting teachers’ language, the program also restricted other
pedagogical decisions, such as when and how to group students (if at all) for various learning
activities. In short, the Treasures program more often than not constrained teachers’ decisions
about materials, language, and pedagogical approaches.
As previously discussed, Emily, Megan, and Molly were all critical of Treasures,
primarily due to what they considered to be “boring” texts that students could not “relate to” or
“identify with.” Often, they talked about wanting to teach outside of Treasures but not feeling
like they had the agency to do so – except under one condition: when they were teaching edTPA
lessons. As such, the edTPA, the Teacher Performance Assessment required for their teaching
credentials, proved to be another important mediating artifact in that it provided a window of
opportunity for PSTs to teach outside of the Treasures script. The edTPA consisted of PSTs
planning, teaching, and reflecting on a set of three consecutive literacy lessons. Emily and Molly
both based their edTPA lessons on what they considered to be authentic children’s literature –
Eileen Spinelli’s Somebody Loves You, Mr. Hatch and Don Freeman’s Corduroy – that they felt

166
was relevant to and engaging for students. They coupled these stories with tasks and activities
they designed to facilitate students’ comprehension (e.g., sequencing events, discussing character
development, etc.), drawing learning goals from the Common Core State Standards.
For example, Emily decided to read Somebody Loves You, Mr. Hatch for her edTPA
lessons for three purported reasons: it was a “quality” children’s book, it lent itself particularly
well to practice retelling the story using sequence of events, and it related to a seasonally
appropriate holiday – Valentine’s Day. In short, Emily thought students would enjoy the book
and that the book was well suited to teach her learning objective. In describing her purpose for
these lessons, Emily wrote the following in her edTPA commentary:
Too often, there’s an emphasis placed only on fluency and the speed at which children
read … [I]t’s my hope with this lesson to focus primarily on comprehension skills and
my students’ ability to retain the information presented in the story and then to
summarize the events and retell with sequential accuracy.

In observing Emily’s second edTPA lesson, students appeared noticeably interested and engaged
in the story. For instance, when Emily was reading aloud, all of the (oftentimes chatty) students
were silent, their eyes seemingly glued to Emily. When she asked a question, most students
eagerly raised their hands or animatedly talked with a peer. Students I observed were also able to
verbally retell the story in proper sequence utilizing specific “sequencing” words that Emily had
introduced (e.g., first, afterward, finally, etc.). Overall, students seemed excited about the story
and seemed as if they had met the learning objective Emily set for them.
Although I was not able to observe Molly’s edTPA lessons, I spoke with her about them
at length. She, too, chose a book – Corduroy – because she loved the story, thought students
would enjoy it, and believed it lent itself well to teaching sequence of events (also Molly’s
learning goal for students). She reflected after teaching her edTPA lessons,

167
Corduroy, which is such a great book, like the kids really loved it and took to it … [The
lessons were] fun and [they] went really well, like the student work showed that they
understood, which was awesome.

From Molly’s reporting, it seems that students were able to successfully sequence the events in
Corduroy, a story she claimed they loved.
As these examples illustrate, when teaching their edTPA lessons, Emily and Megan
incorporated some elements of TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy (e.g., selecting engaging
children’s literature) and were able to teach in ways that – at least somewhat – reflected their
own perspectives on what constitutes effective literacy instruction (e.g., teaching standards
without using standardized curriculum). In other words, the introduction of edTPA into the
activity system modified the rules of the classroom, or perhaps more accurately, provided the
impetus for CTs to allow PSTs to “break” the established rules of following the Treasures
program in this instance. The edTPA also seemed to alter the division of labor in that the
credential requirement of passing the edTPA seemed to give PSTs more autonomy over their
instruction than CTs typically gave them. This disruption of the placement classroom’s rules and
division of labor then contributed to a different outcome in terms of PSTs’ literacy instructional
practice than when this mediating artifact was not present. I expand on reasons why the
particular mediating artifact of the edTPA seemed capable of “overruling” Treasures below.
Since passing the edTPA was required for PSTs’ teaching credential, it was a high-stakes
assessment for participants. Other “requirements,” such as those from and within the TEP (e.g.,
teaching a certain number of lessons each week), did not have the same kinds of stakes attached
to them. Thus, it seemed as though PSTs only felt comfortable “standing up” against their CT
and the Treasures requirement – an official district policy – when they had the weight of the
edTPA – an official state policy – on their side. As Emily commented,

168
The only reason I taught [literature] last [quarter] was because of edTPA. I had to. And
that’s really the only reason [my CT] let me deviate [from Treasures]. I was like, ‘I’m
not doing a Treasures unit. I cannot passionately teach a Treasures unit, honestly. I can’t
do it.’

Emily’s estimation that edTPA was the “only reason” she was allowed to teach outside of
Treasures reflects the power of “official knowledge” (Apple, 2014) within the discourse of the
current policy climate. More specifically, the only way that one source of policy-sanctioned
“official knowledge” – rigid implementation of Treasures – could seemingly be trumped was by
invoking another form of “official knowledge” – the credentialing requirement of edTPA.
Yet, this trend of the edTPA requirement providing an opportunity for PSTs to teach
literacy outside of Treasures did not play out for all of the participants. For example, Megan
stuck to the Treasures script for her edTPA lessons. In Megan’s case, individual factors seemed
to interact with these mediating artifacts, leading to a different outcome than Emily’s or Molly’s
experience. For Megan, her strong relationship with Mrs. Davis, her CT, seemed to lead her to
maintain adherence to Treasures when she presumably could have capitalized on an opportunity
not to do so during her edTPA lessons, as Emily and Molly did. Megan was likely reluctant to
challenge the established norms in Mrs. Davis’s classroom due to her reverence for her CT,
thereby potentially leading her to miss an opportunity to teach outside the Treasures program. I
address the relationship between CT and PST as a mediating factor in PSTs’ development more
fully in an upcoming section.
Teacher Lay-offs Make it Difficult to Find CTs with TEP-aligned Literacy Perspectives
and Practices
The second policy factor that shaped PSTs’ student teaching placements related to the
TEP’s selection of CTs. CTs are integral members of the community within the student-teaching
activity system, as the TEP intends for them to serve both as models of effective teaching and as

169
facilitators of PSTs’ field-based learning, though these ideals are not always realized (e.g.,
Anderson & Stillman, 2011; Bullough, 2005; Bullough & Draper, 2004; Feiman-Nemser &
Buchman, 1985; Valencia et al., 2009). While the TEP had historically attempted to place
student teachers with TEP graduates as a way to minimize the two-worlds pitfall – that is, to
lessen the potential ideological and pedagogical divide between PST and CT – recent budget cuts
at state and district levels led to a massive wave of teacher layoffs. Jessica shared, “One of the
challenges is when CCUSD pink-slipped everybody. Everybody who had graduated in the past
four years [was laid off] …We’re trying to rebuild our pool of [CTs] from our alums.” In part as
a result of these layoffs, it was more difficult for the TEP to place PSTs with CTs who were
likely to maintain a TEP-aligned social justice orientation to education. As Tim lamented,
It’s hard to find really progressive teachers … [M]ost [cooperating] teachers – most
teachers that I’ve seen – are not really social justice educators, and are not really
progressive, and a lot of them are just really good at whatever they do … As opposed to
people who are really amazing social justice educators, who do things like have their
students writing letters to the mayor, and they’re going to be meeting with a
congressman. That’s what I want to see! That’s where it’s hard.

Finding CTs who teach literacy, specifically, in social justice-oriented ways is arguably even
more difficult in the current policy climate, given the aforementioned (nearly exclusive)
emphasis on raising students’ standardized ELA test scores and the accompanying constraints
around literacy instruction that tend to predominate in high-needs, urban schools serving students
from historically marginalized groups (e.g., Gutiérrez, 2006; Pacheco, 2010; Stillman, 2011). In
short, there may often not be time or space for teachers to have students engage in such social
justice-focused literacy assignments as “writing letters to the mayor.”
Finding quality CTs is another longstanding issue within teacher education (e.g.,
Cochran-Smith, 1991; Darling-Hammond, 2006; Ladson-Billings, 2001), but here, Tim’s
comment demonstrates the even greater difficulty involved in finding “social justice educators”

170
– and not just “really good” teachers – to serve as CTs and mentors for PSTs. A larger but related
issue in finding high-quality CTs in urban, high-needs schools is the fact that these schools are
subject to a high teacher turnover rate and are disproportionately staffed by inexperienced
educators who likely do not yet have the expertise to mentor student teachers and facilitate PSTs’
learning (e.g., Barton & Cooley, 2009; Ingersoll, 2003). In most instances, the lack of
pedagogical and ideological alignment between CTs and the TEP seemed to contribute to PSTs’
struggles to teach literacy in accordance with TEP principles while student teaching. It perhaps
also affected the relative lack of substantive teacher educator mediation PSTs received from their
CTs, particularly around navigating the current policy climate, a theme I address subsequently.
First, I consider the somewhat surprising exception to the tendency that a lack of coherence
between the TEP’s and CT’s principles offered fewer opportunities for PSTs to engage in TEP-
aligned literacy pedagogy, which occurred in Megan’s second student teaching placement.
As mentioned previously, Megan’s second CT, Ms. Furnold, was nearly negligent in her
role as CT, as she provided Megan with no feedback or guidance around her instruction. Worse,
she spoke negatively about students, often in front of them. Megan complained to Tim about
having a negligent CT with deficit views about students and asked why she had been placed with
Ms. Furnold. Megan recalled their conversation:
[Tim] was really straight up with me, and was like, ‘Actually I was really reluctant to
place anybody at this school, but the principal assured me that it would be good.’ And he
was like, ‘In retrospect, I think she wanted you guys here so you would teach the teachers
something.’ And it’s like, ‘Well, that’s shitty. Because that’s not how the dynamic should
be.’ So … I appreciated his honesty … but I was still pretty upset about the whole thing.

Interestingly, this clearly less-than-ideal situation paved the way for Megan to put into practice a
relatively substantial amount of TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy – including several lessons with
clear social justice themes, such as the mapping lesson described in Chapter Five – in this

171
placement. Under these conditions, Megan had no guidelines around her instruction, particularly
surrounding an “elective” class – “Technology Exploration” – she taught two periods a day. Ms.
Furnold placed no restrictions on what Megan could teach during this elective period, and it also
seemed that Ms. Furnold was not required to teach particular topics during this time, either. In
other words, the norms and rules of this particular elective class involved not adhering to any
established rules, thus freeing Megan to design and deliver (more) TEP-aligned literacy
pedagogy in this context.
The high-stakes accountability policy climate also likely influenced the lack of rules
surrounding this elective, as it was not a subject tested on standardized exams, the results of
which can lead to rewards or sanctions for students, teachers, and schools. Substantial research
has shown that high-stakes accountability policies have in many cases led to the narrowing of
curriculum and an increased focus on tested subjects over those that are not (e.g., W. Au, 2007;
Booher-Jennings, 2005; Valli & Buese, 2007). While Ms. Furnold did not provide an explanation
behind why she allowed Megan to teach any topic of her choosing during this elective, her
decision to give Megan considerable instructional freedom was perhaps linked to the fact that the
elective did not carry the same “weight” as math and science, from a perspective of policy
emphasis. This finding of student teachers being able to teach literacy in (more) TEP-aligned
ways in classes with negligent CTs has been found in other research, which argues that PSTs
have the potential to positively influence CTs’ instruction in these contexts (e.g., Anderson &
Stillman, 2011; Lane, Lacefield-Parachini, & Isken, 2003). However, as this existing research
also illustrates, even though Megan was able to experiment with some lessons modeled after
those in the Critical Media Literacy course, this does not necessarily mean that student teaching
in Ms. Furnold’s classroom was an optimally educative experience for her. That is, Megan’s

172
“apprenticeship” with a CT whose deficit-laden comments (e.g., “ghetto black boy”), low
academic expectations, and limited scaffolding of students’ – and Megan’s – learning, likely did
not provide Megan with the kind of robust field-based learning experience she deserved, despite
providing space for Megan to practice teaching lessons presented in the TEP.
School Tracking Practices Constrain Opportunities to Teach Literacy in TEP-aligned
Ways
A third mediating factor stemming from the policy climate concerned the organization of
PSTs’ student teaching classrooms, particularly policies surrounding how K-12 students were
placed in specific classes. As previously mentioned, all of the PSTs’ placement classrooms were
grouped homogeneously. Either by district mandate (CCUSD schools) or school policy (Knox
Avenue Elementary), students were tracked into particular classes by their ELD levels or
standardized test scores. Due to its social justice orientation and emphasis on equity, the TEP
opposed inflexible homogeneous grouping of students, as research demonstrates that tracking
practices have overwhelmingly negative effects on learners, particularly those who are students
of color from low-income backgrounds (e.g., Oakes, 2005). While I was not privy to the thinking
behind these policy decisions to track students by ELD level or “achievement” performance,
research has documented many ways that schools and teachers have responded to the pressures
from high-stakes accountability policies and the accompanying exclusive focus on raising
students’ test scores (e.g., W. Au, 2007; Booher-Jennings, 2005; Pacheco, 2010; Valli & Buese,
2007; Valli & Chambliss, 2007). Given these conditions, one possibility is that the districts and
schools in this study chose to track students based on English proficiency and/or standardized
test scores in an effort to increase students’ performance scores, despite research evidence
against tracking practices.

173
Study data also suggest that tracked classes made it difficult for PSTs to teach literacy in
TEP-aligned ways during their student teaching placements. For example, they could not
incorporate many of the differentiation or language-acquisition strategies they learned in the
TEP, such as having students work together in heterogeneous groups that included both native
English speakers and ELs, with the native English speakers acting as language models for the
ELs, and giving the ELs the opportunity to talk in a small-group (as opposed to whole-class)
setting.
However, data suggest that there was an exception to the overarching rule that tracking
seemed to constrain PSTs’ opportunities to teach literacy in TEP-aligned ways: when certain
types of tracked classes led to increased pedagogical freedom, which in turn seemed to provide
PSTs with increased opportunities to experiment with TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy.
Specifically, data analysis revealed that Emily and Molly had increased opportunities to put into
practice TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy in student teaching placements in tracked “accelerated”
classes within the context of a high-performing school. As others have shown, high-performing
schools are often either exempt from certain policy requirements or existing policy constraints
are not strictly enforced (e.g., Diamond & Spillane, 2004; Gutiérrez, 2006). It has also been
shown that this can be the case in a high-performing class located in a low-performing school,
where a teacher of a “gifted” class may not be subjected to the same constraints as other teachers
in the school, due primarily to the class’s high test scores (e.g., Anderson & Stillman, 2011).
In Emily’s and Megan’s placements at Knox Avenue Elementary School, the “official”
district policy for literacy instruction was to use a scripted curricular program, McGraw-Hill’s
Open Court Reading. However, neither Emily nor Megan saw their CT touch any Open Court
materials during their placements. In fact, Renee and Miguel (their CTs) both talked about how

174
they actually attributed the school’s improvement over the last several years to the teachers’
decision to move away from Open Court to develop their own literacy curriculum. Renee
proudly claimed that she kept her Open Court materials “in the cupboards.” Without being
beholden to utilizing a prepackaged curriculum, Emily and Molly had the opportunity to design
their own lessons and were able to deliver more TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy. For instance,
Emily had students work in pairs to create comic strips representing the importance of multiple
perspectives, and Molly had students work in small groups to debate issues of their own
choosing. These lessons, as described in Chapter Five, incorporated elements of TEP-aligned
literacy pedagogy and reflected PSTs’ appropriation of “surface features” of the TEP ideal.
Interestingly, Emily discussed how in her friend Monica’s student teaching classroom –
also at Knox but in a tracked “low-performing” class – Open Court was utilized with fidelity.
Since Monica was not a participant in this study, nor was comprehensive data collected about
Knox as a school, this small piece of evidence is anecdotal. However, it seems that even within
the same high-performing elementary school, individual classrooms can have varying norms,
rules, and policy constraints, thereby potentially creating different experiences for the practicing
teachers, the K-12 students, and the PSTs placed in them. While it is not possible to say with
certainty that Emily and Molly would have been required to rigidly adhere to Open Court had
they been placed in “low-performing” tracked classes, they did not have to follow the
“mandated” scripted curriculum while student teaching in “accelerated” classes.
In short, the norms and rules of these “accelerated” classes within a high-performing
school proved to differ substantially from PSTs’ placements in lower-performing schools and
classrooms, which led to a different outcome for PSTs’ literacy instructional practice. The
classes’ and school’s high-performing status seemed to shield these classrooms from having to

175
adhere to the “official” policy of following the Open Court program. In this context, the
mediating artifact of Open Court was ignored, which differed starkly from the import placed on
the Treasures program as a mediating artifact in other contexts (i.e., low-performing schools).
Emily and Molly appreciated the opportunity to teach literacy outside of a scripted program and
claimed they learned a lot about teaching literacy in these placements. In terms of the TEP’s
object, these placements provided space for PSTs to come closer to realizing the TEP’s literacy
instructional goals than other placements. In other words, these placements provided
opportunities for PSTs to demonstrate their appropriation of at least some elements of TEP-
endorsed literacy instructional strategies, whereas in other settings, PSTs’ literacy instruction
tended to show that they had not taken up TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy at all, as discussed in
Chapter Five.
At the same time, potential shortcomings of PSTs being placed in “accelerated” classes
also exist, and perhaps particularly so when the literacy instruction PSTs observed and enacted in
these classes reflected sociocultural and culturally responsive approaches more so than PSTs’
placements in “regular” or “low” classes, as was the case with Emily’s and Molly’s experiences.
Under these conditions, PSTs could, possibly, begin to think that students in “accelerated”
classes can “handle”, or even “deserve”, a different – arguably more authentic, engaging, and
challenging – kind of literacy instruction than students in low-tracked classes. Providing students
with differential access to rigorous curriculum based on “achievement” performance runs
counter to the TEP’s social justice orientation and core tenets rooted in equity, as well as
research that evidences tracking’s particularly negative effects on low-income students of color
(e.g., Oakes, 2005), so these types of learnings would likely be considered problematic from the
TEP’s perspective. While Emily and Molly did not seem to adopt these views, necessarily, Molly

176
made one comment about the benefits of tracking for “gifted” students, which I elaborate on
subsequently.
Field Experiences Sometimes “Trump” TEP Coursework in the Development of PSTs’
Perspectives on Literacy Instructional Practice
The second notable theme was that PSTs’ field experiences appeared to be especially
influential for PSTs’ development – oftentimes more so than TEP coursework – and seemed to
contribute to PSTs’ limited degrees of appropriation of TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy. As
described in Chapter Five, PSTs’ perspectives on literacy teaching and learning were largely
shaped by TEP coursework, while their literacy instructional practice mostly reflected the
(oftentimes non-TEP-aligned) literacy teaching that occurred in their student teaching
placements. Despite these tendencies, data suggest that PSTs’ experiences in the field also
mediated the development of their perspectives, at times even seeming to “trump” ideas
presented in TEP coursework. In this section, I discuss this theme in more detail, showing the
various ways that field experiences were exceptionally influential in the development of PSTs’
perspectives on literacy instructional practice.
First, I describe how PSTs’ instructional opportunities during student teaching – both
what they did and did not teach – mediated their perspectives on what they considered to be
feasible literacy instruction to enact in elementary classrooms. PSTs also tended to make broad
generalizations about literacy teaching and learning based on singular student teaching
experiences (and not on ideas they were exposed to in the TEP). Next, I show that despite the
influential nature of field experiences for all PSTs’ development, participants’ critique of the
literacy instruction in their student teaching placements varied, a tendency that seemed to stem
from PSTs’ differing degrees of individual criticality and PSTs’ relationships with their CTs.

177
What PSTs Do (and Do Not Do) Shapes Perspectives on Instruction
Because field experiences were so impactful for PSTs, they often shaped what PSTs
considered possible in terms of literacy instruction. Specifically, their own practice – both what
they did and what they did not teach – during student teaching influenced what they believed
would be feasible to implement in the future. In other words, the division of labor during student
teaching – the literacy lessons they were able to teach and what they were allowed to teach
(within the parameters of their CTs’ norms and rules) – shaped how PSTs ultimately thought
about literacy instruction. More specifically, PSTs’ ideas of what might be possible as they
developed more expertise seemed to be rather narrow and relatively confined to what they had
already done during student teaching, as opposed to the type of literacy instruction they were
being exposed to in the TEP.
Megan’s discussion about the literacy instruction she delivered during student teaching
exemplified this sentiment:
What I tried to do was one special thing per day in any subject, so… [if] in vocab if we’re
gonna do skits, [then] comprehension might just kind of be by the book because … it’s so
hard to have time to do something more … And I feel like if you’re teaching a grade over
and over, it would get easier to do two cool things per day, three cool things …

Megan recognized that she would likely find it easier to incorporate more than one “cool thing,”
such as showing a short video clip to open a lesson, as she became a more experienced teacher.
However, merely adding “cool things” to a literacy lesson reflected an arguably limited
conception of what is possible to enact instructionally. She did not, for example, discuss being
able to teach more TEP-aligned literacy lessons as she developed pedagogical expertise, such as
enacting a balanced literacy approach to instruction, as promoted by the Literacy Methods
course. In short, her actual instruction during student teaching seemed to constrain what she
believed was possible to teach in the future. In addition, Megan’s limited ideas about what she

178
would likely be able to do instructionally in the future seemed to reflect PSTs’ tendency to
appropriate only “surface features” of more robust notions of TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy, as
described in Chapter Five.
On a related note, PSTs eventually came to view the TEP as promoting “idealistic”
literacy instruction, which they often felt could not be implemented in elementary classrooms. In
other words, PSTs were skeptical about the feasibility of pedagogical practices that they did not
see or put into practice while student teaching. Emily perhaps expressed these sentiments best
when she commented on writing workshop, a widely used approach to teaching writing that the
TEP endorsed:
I’m really intimidated … by writing workshop … We’ve gone to seminars about it, and
we’ve gone to professional development, and we’ve heard from so many people, but in
the videos you watch online it seems so idealistic … I feel like the [classrooms] that are
videotaped are the ones that … we read about in a book … [T]hat’s the thing that I’m
currently question marked about. It’s like classic UWC, like idealism, like all you have to
do is do this, this, and this, and then everything happens perfectly, and I’m not buying it.
I mean my poetry lesson was great, but it was not like that at all.

Emily’s claim that she was “not buying” the TEP’s message about writing workshop was said
somewhat sarcastically, but PSTs nonetheless did seem to doubt that they would be able to put
into practice many of the TEP-promoted literacy instructional strategies in their own future
classrooms. This notion of viewing the TEP as idealistic and not realistic was also perhaps
furthered by the lack of TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy PSTs observed and practiced during their
student teaching placements. Only seeing instructional practices – such as writing workshop – in
videos and not in person likely contributed to PSTs’ wariness that it was possible to engage in
these instructional practices relatively easily.
This finding echoes other work that stresses the importance of PSTs actually seeing
examples of “what’s possible” when student teaching (Anderson & Stillman, 2011). It also

179
highlights the crucial need for PSTs to practice employing TEP-endorsed approaches to literacy
instruction – not only for the development of their literacy instructional practice, but also for the
development of their perspectives on practice, or what they consider to be possible to enact
instructionally in elementary classrooms. Utilizing Cochran-Smith and Lytle’s (1999)
relationships of knowledge and practice framework sheds additional light on this finding.
Specifically, that the “knowledge-in-practice” PSTs are immersed in during student teaching –
and also that which they do not experience in the field – has the potential to “overrule” the
“knowledge-for-practice” introduced in the TEP. This is true even in terms of the potential for
“knowledge-in-practice” to powerfully shape PSTs’ perspectives, which more often tended to be
influenced by the TEP-promoted “knowledge-for-practice”, as argued in Chapter Five. In terms
of progressing toward the TEP’s object of PSTs teaching literacy in sociocultural, culturally
responsive ways, this finding is particularly worrisome if PSTs do not think it is even feasible to
put TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy into practice.
PSTs’ tendencies to make broad generalizations based on singular experiences. The
influential nature of field work for PSTs also appeared in PSTs’ tendency to make broad
generalizations based on singular experiences during student teaching. At times, these
generalizations were potentially troubling and even antithetical to the TEP’s principles. For
example, Megan’s frustration with her second CT’s deficit views of students and unprofessional
manner seemed to lead her to conclude, “Middle school is just different.” She also claimed that
the most helpful aspect of working with Ms. Furnold was, “I know I don’t want to teach middle
school.” While of course there are elements of middle school that are different than elementary
school – such as students rotating classes, students’ ages, and so forth – Megan’s experience at

180
Noreste led her to make sweeping conclusions about teacher morale and educators’ attitudes
across middle schools, even though she only had experience in one middle school.
Another example of PSTs’ broadly generalizing based on singular student teaching
experiences occurred with Molly. During a whole-class conversation in the Critical Media
Literacy course, the subject of homogeneously grouping, or tracking, students by test scores – as
was the practice at Knox Avenue Elementary – was raised. Several PSTs commented about how
inequitable the tracking practices were at Knox, particularly since students were tested prior to
entering kindergarten and overwhelmingly kept in the same “track” throughout elementary
school. A few of the PSTs student teaching at Knox also mentioned that certain classes of
students were treated differently, both in terms of classroom management and in terms of the
instruction provided. At one point during this conversation, Molly commented, almost somewhat
defensively, “But hey, [tracking] works for the GATE [Gifted and Talented Education] kids.”
This comment, albeit small, is worrisome given the TEP’s social justice orientation and focus on
equity. In particular, the TEP espoused an “anti-tracking” philosophy due to research that
evidences the inequitable learning opportunities tracking perpetuates – such as less rigorous
curriculum and less qualified teachers in “low-track” classes, which are disproportionately
populated with low-income students of color – despite evidence that students, even those with
“lower” test scores, consistently meet more rigorous expectations when presented with
challenging curriculum (e.g., Oakes, 2005).
Despite learning during TEP courses about research-based evidence showing how
tracking practices tend to be inequitable, Molly was in the midst of an overwhelmingly positive
student teaching experience in Miguel’s “accelerated” fourth-grade class when she made this
statement. It was as if her singular experience in Miguel’s classroom trumped her university

181
learning around tracking and homogeneous grouping practices and led to an outcome of
misalignment between her perspectives and the TEP’s principles. The comment was worrisome
because it seemed to imply that Molly was possibly internalizing that tracking – and its
accompanying pedagogical freedom in “high-performing” classes – “worked” for certain
students and that this might justify the practice of grouping students homogeneously. Molly of
course did not claim outright that she supported tracking and may likely have not promoted
homogeneous grouping if asked to discuss it in detail, yet her comment demonstrates the power
of what she perceived to be a positive field experience – perhaps over her TEP learning – in
shaping her perspectives.
In contrast, Emily was participating in this conversation and was voicing her concern and
outrage over the same tracking practices at Knox, despite also being in the midst of a positive
student teaching experience in an “accelerated” class. This difference in perspective between
Molly and Emily suggests that additional factors mediated PSTs’ learning. One such factor borne
out of the data was that individual PSTs – as individual learners – brought different experiences
to the TEP. This meant that Emily, who tended to have a more critical overall outlook on the
world, and Molly, who tended to be less skeptical about issues such as systemic power and
privilege, brought different lenses to their similar experiences of being placed in “accelerated”
classes. These individual differences were also reflected in the finding that PSTs critiqued the
literacy instruction in their student teaching placements to various extents.
PSTs’ Critique of Literacy Instruction Varied
While field experiences were influential for all PSTs’ development, participants’ critique
of the literacy instruction in their student teaching placements varied. This variation in their
critiques seemed to stem from PSTs’ different degrees of individual criticality and PSTs’

182
relationships with their CTs. Emily seemed inclined to develop the most nuanced critique of the
literacy instruction in her placements, seeing positive and negative aspects in both classrooms,
while Megan and Molly tended to have more binary views about the literacy instruction in their
placements. Two factors appeared to mediate the degree to which PSTs offered thoughtful
critique about the literacy instruction in their placements: their own personal degree of criticality
– or, differences in the individual subjects or learners – and their relationship with a key
community member: their CT. I discuss these each in turn.
Learners’ personal degree of criticality. Each PST’s personal degree of criticality
seemed to mediate the extent to which they critiqued the literacy instruction in their student
teaching placements. Megan and Molly, as less critical overall, both held rather binary views
about their student teaching placements, with one placement being perceived as “really great”
and another being perceived as “really awful” – in almost all respects. Indeed, Megan and Molly
had difficulty finding positive elements to their “bad” placements and tended to not be at all
critical of their “good” placements. At times, they also did not seize opportunities to incorporate
more elements of literacy instruction endorsed by the TEP within their placements.
For instance, despite having many opportunities to enact TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy
during her second student teaching placement (due to the “elective” class and Ms. Furnold’s
negligence, as described previously), Megan did not seem to acknowledge these opportunities to
practice as particularly noteworthy or helpful in her development as a literacy teacher and social
justice educator. She also seemed to not leverage additional opportunities to practice TEP-
aligned literacy pedagogy in this placement. For example, when Ms. Furnold chose The Cay as a
class novel – a book with prominent themes about race and racism – Megan did not take
advantage of the social justice potential of this text, choosing to just read it aloud and not

183
develop any specific lessons around the book. As she admitted, “I could’ve done more with The
Cay, with writing and stuff … I think that book could have been a really cool opportunity in their
English class because [the students] liked the book.” Instead of seizing this potentially “really
cool opportunity” to teach literacy, Megan let it pass. Similarly, when asked, Molly was unable
to identify something positive she learned in her first placement, beyond reporting to learn “what
not to do” in terms of literacy instruction. It almost seemed as if both Megan and Molly decided
toward the beginning of each placement that they either had a lot or very little to learn from the
experience and maintained these binary views throughout their respective placements.
Emily, on the other hand, was able to see both positive and negative aspects in her two
student teaching placements. Inclined to be more critical and reflective overall, she was quick to
praise her CTs but always remained healthily skeptical about school and classroom practices in
her placements. When asked about whether there was anything she wished Sonya, her first CT,
would have done to further her learning, Emily replied, “She’s the best and worst [cooperating]
teacher I’ve ever had because she’s my only [cooperating] teacher.” This notion of her CT being
“the best and worst” reflected Emily’s ability to learn from both of her placements and to be
simultaneously positive and critical toward her two CTs and placement schools.
Interestingly, Emily’s critiques of her student teaching placements also often centered on
issues at the school level, as opposed to the classroom or teacher level. For instance, as
previously mentioned, she was outraged by the school-wide tracking practices at Knox and
blamed the practice itself – as opposed to individuals – as being responsible for the different
treatment afforded students in the “accelerated” classes compared to those in other classes. Emily
also tended to be exceptionally hard on herself and her teaching, attributing all of her missteps
and imperfect lessons to herself and her own shortcomings, as opposed to using factors outside

184
of her control (e.g., scripted curriculum, CT) as an excuse, which Megan and Molly both did to
some extent. In short, variation of PSTs’ – the subjects’, or learners’ – personal degrees of
criticality seemed to lead to different outcomes in that Emily ultimately developed a more
nuanced critique of the literacy instruction in both of her placements than did Megan or Molly.
Relationship with CT. Another factor that mediated PSTs’ ability to develop a
thoughtful critique of the literacy instruction in their student teaching placements was their
relationship with their CTs, key community members in the activity system. This was
particularly true for Molly and Megan, who seemed reluctant to say anything negative or critical
about the CTs they adored and equally struggled to find positive elements in the classrooms of
the CTs where they had more strained relationships. For example, the strong relationship Megan
had with Mrs. Davis (described in Chapter Four) seemed to cloud Megan’s criticality of the
literacy instruction in Mrs. Davis’s classroom, perhaps because she did not want to disagree with
Mrs. Davis or criticize her teaching. Megan was much less critical about the Treasures program
(utilized by Mrs. Davis) than the other participants despite the frequent dissonance between the
program and Megan’s stated perspectives about effective literacy teaching as well as the TEP’s
approach to literacy instruction. Mrs. Davis was not particularly critical of Treasures and
appreciated having a program to utilize, and Megan greatly revered Mrs. Davis. These two
factors combined to seemingly limit Megan’s propensity to thoughtfully critique the literacy
instruction in Mrs. Davis’s classroom.
On the other hand, Molly seemed to have only negative things to say about the literacy
instruction in Rosa’s classroom, which also consisted of following the Treasures script. Molly
tried to remain positive about her first student teaching placement in the beginning, but as time
passed she became increasingly negative and defeated by the lack of connection she felt with

185
Rosa, as described in Chapter Four. When asked what had been helpful about working with Rosa
in terms of her learning about literacy teaching, she replied, “I think it’s been really helpful
because … I feel like I kind of learned what not to do … [T]hat is not how I want to set up my
literacy [instruction], which is for sure.” This is not to say that Mrs. Davis’s literacy instruction
deserved to be critiqued and Rosa’s did not, but rather that Megan’s and Molly’s perspectives on
their CTs’ literacy instruction seemed unduly influenced by their personal relationships with
their CTs.
Teacher Educator Mediation is Limited and (Sometimes Purposefully) Minor
A third theme that emerged regarding the factors that shaped PSTs’ development was the
amount of explicit guidance – or lack thereof – they received from the teacher educators who
surrounded their field-based literacy learning. Specifically, PSTs received relatively limited
amounts and degrees of mediation from teacher educators – their CTs and FA – while they were
student teaching, particularly around how to enact TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy within the
contexts of their placement classrooms. As mentioned, teacher educators are important members
of the community within the activity system, and previous research has emphasized the
importance of teacher educators’ targeted guidance – or mediation – in facilitating PSTs’
development, or progress toward the TEP’s object or goal (e.g., Anderson & Stillman, 2010,
2011; Feiman-Nemser & Buchman, 1987; Ferguson & Brink, 2004; Freidus, 2002; Stillman &
Anderson, in press). This research raises questions about what led to the varying degrees of
appropriation evidenced in PSTs’ perspectives on literacy teaching and learning – which tended
to mostly progress toward coherence with the TEP’s ideals – and PSTs’ literacy instructional
practice – which tended not to reflect TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy. In particular, it raises

186
questions about teacher educators’ roles in scaffolding PSTs’ appropriation of the TEP’s
pedagogical goals.
In this section, I first describe the type of feedback that PSTs tended to receive from
teacher educators – their CTs and FA – while student teaching. I then discuss potential factors
that may have led to what I describe as a relative lack of substantial feedback on the part of
teacher educators. I next discuss one notable instance where a teacher educator explicitly
addressed working with the Treasures program, suggesting ways PSTs could incorporate TEP-
promoted literacy instructional strategies into the required lessons.
Nonexistent, Procedural, or Superficial Feedback
One type of teacher educator mediation can come in the form of providing feedback to
PSTs, both on their lesson plans and on their actual instruction. Across the six student teaching
placements I observed, PSTs often not did receive any feedback on their literacy lessons. When
PSTs did receive feedback, it tended to focus on procedural or logistical aspects of instruction, or
otherwise centered on more superficial aspects of teaching. The teacher educators with the most
proximity to PSTs during student teaching were the CTs – who spent every day with PSTs in
their classrooms – and Tim, the FA who observed PSTs 2-3 times during each of their two
placements. As PSTs were working toward earning a multiple-subjects credential, Tim did not
only observe them teach literacy lessons; of his 2-3 observations per placement, oftentimes only
one of them was of a literacy lesson.
One of the most common complaints from PSTs was that they did not receive enough –
sometimes any – feedback from their CTs. As CTs observed every literacy lesson PSTs taught,
they were arguably in the best position to provide PSTs with specific feedback. Often, however,
this potential was not realized. In Molly’s first placement, for example, she would send her

187
weekly lesson plans to Rosa via email (per Rosa’s request), usually over the weekend, and she
would also ask Rosa for feedback after teaching a lesson. Molly was disappointed in the amount
and type of feedback she received on her lesson plans and her lesson implementation:
[Rosa] would either not respond [to the email] or send back a sentence with a wording
question or something, but most of the time it was like, ‘Looks good, see you Monday.’
And then when I would ask her about the lesson [after teaching it], she didn’t really have
much feedback for me. It was always just like, ‘Oh, that was good,’ or … ‘If a kid is
misbehaving, you may move him to a different seat.’ None of it was really focused on
what I could be doing differently.

The other PSTs voiced similar concerns. As Emily said, “Sonya never ever was negative …
When I sent her my lesson plans to plan with her – zero feedback. She’s not a feedback person
really.” As mentioned previously, Megan was extremely frustrated by the complete lack of
feedback she received from Ms. Furnold. Participants generally wanted to receive more critical
feedback, because they were committed to improving and admittedly felt like they knew very
little about teaching literacy. In Emily’s words, she wanted to know, “Am I doing this right? I
have no idea.” Molly’s thoughts were similar: “I know that I’m not doing everything right. I
mean, this is my first time really taking my serious stab at this.”
When PSTs did receive feedback on their lessons, it tended to focus mostly on procedural
or logistical aspects of teaching. For example, in the first lesson I observed Megan teach, Tim
was also observing. Megan taught a vocabulary lesson that she said was “straight from
Treasures.” After the lesson, Tim was very complimentary of Megan’s lesson, focusing
predominantly on its management aspects. For instance, he told her, “The hand signals worked
great – you never said, ‘Can I have your attention?’” commenting on her use of a “quiet signal”
to regain students’ attention at different points throughout the lesson. He also praised her for
“asking follow-up questions” whenever a student shared an answer and for having students

188
chorally repeat the vocabulary words three times, which he said was “good for English learners”
and all students. Tim’s only point of critical feedback was stated as follows:
The only thing I would say – and I wouldn’t even tell you to do it right now – but
someone who was more advanced, when the students are reading, take the teacher’s
edition and walk around the classroom, so your body proximity helps the other students
stay on task.

Tim’s focus on these more procedural aspects of teaching was typical of much of the feedback I
observed and heard reported. He did not, for instance, suggest she modify the Treasures
program’s script or try to make the lesson more interactive or student-centered, aspects that
would potentially have made the literacy lesson more in synch with the TEP’s approach to
literacy teaching. However, as the above quote demonstrates, Tim also seemed to be taking into
consideration Megan’s developmental stage when he said he would not yet suggest that she
“walk around the classroom” more, a rationale for providing more superficial feedback that I
discuss later. This debrief conversation was very short – only a few minutes long, as was typical
of these conversations – as Tim had to hurry to observe another student teacher, a constraint of
his heavy advisement load, which I address subsequently. It is also important to note that
positive feedback – such as Tim’s focus on hand signals, the use of follow-up questions, and
choral repetition of new vocabulary words – certainly also mediated PSTs’ learning. In my future
observations with Megan, for example, I noticed that she continued to ask follow-up questions,
tending to probe deeper into students’ thinking and rationale than if she just “accepted” a given
answer.
Other types of feedback PSTs received involved teacher educators occasionally taking
detailed, minute-by-minute notes during literacy lessons, something Tim, Mrs. Davis, and
Miguel did. These notes allowed PSTs to see exactly what they said and did and how long
different parts of the lessons lasted. PSTs tended to find these notes helpful, largely because they

189
could not keep track of this information themselves. However, often, it seemed that these notes
were given to PSTs without very much – or any – discussion around them, thereby leaving PSTs
to interpret these “minutes” on their own. As Megan commented,
[T]he fact that [Mrs. Davis] was taking minutes while I was [teaching] helped me ‘cause I
could go back and read it and be like, ‘Oh, here I should have done this,’ or, ‘I could have
done that.’ She wouldn’t necessarily say that … but it was just helpful to go back and
read my stuff.

PSTs appreciated when their CTs noted which students were off-task or seemingly disengaged,
something Mrs. Davis and Miguel did for Megan and Molly, but again this information tended to
simply be passed on to PSTs without much dialogue around, for instance, why certain students
might not have been engaged and what instructional strategies PSTs might incorporate to draw
these students into the literacy lesson. As argued in Chapter One, teaching literacy is particularly
complex and challenging, due in part to the complicated nature of learning to read and write
proficiently (e.g., Duffy & Hoffman, 1999; Hoffman & Pearson, 2000). It is therefore perhaps
especially important that PSTs receive more explicit guidance around how they might modify or
improve their instruction, as opposed to merely being provided with notes about what they did do
during a literacy lesson.
In addition to receiving relatively limited feedback on the literacy lessons they taught,
PSTs had few opportunities to work closely with their CTs. Even in situations where PSTs met
with their CTs to plan lessons they would teach (which was rare), the meetings tended to focus
more on logistics than on robust instructional decision-making. For instance, CTs would simply
tell PSTs what lessons or standards to “cover,” as opposed to sitting down and co-planning using
various instructional materials and resources (e.g., standards, curricular programs, student work,
etc.). I also did not observe or hear about PSTs observing their CTs plan lessons, their CTs
thereby providing a window into the “backstage labor” of teaching. For instance, PSTs did not

190
see their CTs model how to strategically adapt a mandated curriculum to better meet their
students’ needs – something the TEP fully endorsed – because the CTs either followed the
program with fidelity or ignored it altogether, findings others have documented as well
(Anderson & Stillman, 2011). This lack of teacher educator mediation and explicit guidance
around working with policy mandates likely also contributed to PSTs’ limited appropriation of
TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy during their student teaching placements.
Potential Underlying Factors Behind Limited and Superficial Teacher Educator Mediation
The limited amount and superficial nature of teacher educator mediation was likely
influenced by many factors. I discuss two particularly salient factors – institutional constraints
and purposefully minor feedback – in some detail below.
Institutional constraints. One of the factors that likely led to the limited amount of
feedback and explicit mediation on Tim’s part was the constraints placed on him by the TEP’s
institutional context. As mentioned previously, Tim’s team was large; he was responsible for
advising 22 PSTs. Simply getting into each PST’s classroom multiple times and scheduling
debriefing conversations about the observed lessons was a logistical challenge. And, many of
Tim’s observations were not of PSTs’ literacy lessons, as PSTs were earning a multiple-subjects
credential and he was responsible for their overall development as teachers. In the past, Tim had
12-15 PSTs on his team, so it is possible that this year was a particularly difficult one in terms of
providing substantive feedback. However, Tim also discussed the nature of his position as a
clinical or teaching faculty member. His contract was renewed (or not) annually and was
primarily dependent on the evaluations he received from PSTs in his classes and on his team. As
he said, “part of it is playing the game of making sure [the PSTs are] happy and we’re not
pushing them too far,” due to the potential for backlash in evaluations. This lack of job security

191
and heavy advisement and teaching load is unfortunately common in teacher education, and can
lead to both fewer opportunities for effective mediation of PSTs’ field-based learning and an
inclination to not provide PSTs with critical feedback, as seemed to be the case with Tim (e.g.,
Darling-Hammond, 2006).
Institutional constraints likely also shaped the limited amount of feedback PSTs received
from their CTs. Time was always an issue, and CTs reported receiving little guidance from UWC
in terms of how to best support PSTs’ learning. For instance, Renee, Emily’s second CT,
commented that she wished she had known “a little bit more of what [the PSTs] have done in
their coursework already … because I never had [that information] … That would be something
I wouldn’t have minded being in the loop on.” Renee admitted, however, that this information
might have been contained in the handbook UWC gave to CTs, saying she could be at “fault for
not reviewing the packet thoroughly.” All of the CTs and Tim mentioned that they had very little
contact with one another, beyond exchanging logistical information. This reflects larger trends in
teacher education programs to not create meaningful partnerships with CTs, which may
contribute to CTs having limited knowledge about the university’s goals for PSTs, thereby
making it difficult for them to provide feedback targeted at facilitating PSTs’ learning toward
those goals (e.g., Darling-Hammond, 2006; Valencia et al., 2009; Zeichner, 2006, 2010). In
terms of their own literacy instruction, CTs were also often constrained by the policy climate, for
example, feeling beholden to implementing the mandated scripted curriculum with fidelity, as
discussed previously. It would likely be difficult for CTs to mediate PSTs’ learning around
working within policy constraints to teach literacy in more TEP-aligned ways if they did not
engage in these practices themselves.

192
Purposefully minor feedback. At times, teacher educators may have intentionally
provided small degrees of feedback given PSTs’ status as novice educators. My conversations
with and observations of CTs did not support the notion that they were purposeful in their lack of
feedback (though they might have been), but Tim shared that providing minor feedback was
sometimes part of his plan for PSTs. For example, when talking about Molly, Tim mentioned his
concern that her lessons were too “teacher-controlled,” and he wanted to push her to engage in
more “democratic pedagogy.” However, knowing Molly and considering her long-term
development made him slow down his desire to provide her with more critical, larger-scale
feedback, as the following quote shows:
She needs to restructure her teaching to be empowering the kids … And when we’ve
talked about it in the past, this is where she tends to be more defensive … So what I end
up doing with her is just a lot of little suggestions, you know, walk around, use thinking
maps, give [students] more structures, and then trying to – like Inception – trying to plant
the seeds, how can you make the whole, bigger picture, more critical … And throughout
the whole year in TEP, that’s what we’ve been trying to do … I’ve seen growth. She
definitely is moving in that direction, but I think for her it will take years. You know,
little by little.

Tim also said that at times he gave “little suggestions” and “little strategies,” with the hope that
these would be easier for PSTs to internalize and move them – albeit incrementally – toward
appropriating TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy.
PSTs, while in general reported wanting more feedback, seemed conflicted about
receiving criticism. On the one hand, they wanted Tim to be more critical, but on the other hand,
they sometimes felt his feedback was too harsh, as mentioned previously. Emily, for one,
realized that his lack of very critical feedback might actually be intentional – and might be a
good thing for her, given where she was developmentally and emotionally as a student teacher.
As she said,

193
At this point where I cry at the drop of a hat, if my teachers were super [critical] … like
maybe they’ve studied 20-year-olds’ psych and know that … [this is a] time [to] just be
really loving and really, like, ‘Butterflies, look … everything is great in the world!’ …
[T]he thought of Tim being like, ‘Wow that was a terrible lesson,’ makes me want to just
crawl into a hole. So maybe I don’t even wish he was [sic] more critical … Maybe there’s
intent behind what he’s doing.

In short, at times it seemed that the limited amount of teacher educator mediation resulted from
forces beyond teacher educators’ control, while at other times teacher educators intentionally
provided minor feedback to PSTs. It is also worth noting that receiving relatively cursory or no
feedback also mediated PSTs’ learning, but likely in more indirect, passive – or perhaps even
misguided – ways.
A Potentially Beneficial Instance of Explicit Teacher Educator Modeling
Though they were relatively few and far between, there were instances where PSTs did
receive explicit guidance from teacher educators on their literacy instruction. One instance stands
out in its uniqueness, in that it was the only time I observed a teacher educator – in this case,
Jessica Darcy, the Literacy Methods instructor – explicitly address working with a mandated
scripted literacy curriculum and modifying it so lessons included TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy.
In short, Jessica showed PSTs an example of how she would design a week’s worth of literacy
lessons using the Treasures program. Importantly, however, Jessica’s modeling of creating a
weekly schedule was done in her TEP course – that is, within the confines of the university – and
therefore was not an example of targeted facilitation of PSTs’ field-based learning that took
individual learners and contexts into consideration, as others have argued is critical (e.g.,
Anderson & Stillman, 2011, 2013a; Stillman & Anderson, in press). That said, Jessica’s
presentation of a sample week’s schedule nonetheless provided an example of an approach to
teacher-educator guidance that PSTs reported to appreciate and from which they potentially

194
benefitted. In what follows, I first describe what Jessica presented to PSTs and then raise
questions about why similar types of support did not seem to be available to PSTs in the field.
On the last day of the Literacy Methods course, Jessica took a week from the second-
grade Treasures program and made a schedule she would follow. Jessica explained how she
would, for example, utilize the Treasures vocabulary words but each day have students practice
them in a more interactive and meaningful way, using strategies she had introduced throughout
the Literacy Methods course. She also said, “The anthology story is My Name is Yoon – one of
my suggestions is to find where the anthology text comes from and get the book.” She then
showed how she would teach the given anthology story but in more engaging, student-centered
ways. Jessica also pointed out that one of the Treasures “recommended” books for a read aloud
was Owl Moon, by Jane Yolen, so she planned to build off of that suggestion and do an author
study with several Jane Yolen books over the course of the week, scheduling these read alouds
immediately following students’ lunch. Jessica also shared how she would prioritize independent
reading and use specified times during the day to meet with small groups of students, among
other modifications. She encouraged students to “use breakfast time” to incorporate additional
literacy work outside of the Treasures program.
As Jessica was sharing the weekly schedule she had created, a PST commented, “We
need a whole class on this.” The rest of the class nodded in agreement. I heard similar sentiments
during my ongoing conversations with PSTs. For example, Molly said, “[T]he thing Jessica did
… with the lesson plan, for how to incorporate Treasures, but put your own spin on it, I am
really eager to learn more about that type of stuff.” As mentioned, Jessica presented this sample
weekly schedule on the last day of the Literacy Methods course. While she felt the topic of
working within Treasures was important, she worried that her example was just “telling” PSTs

195
what to do but did not give them enough time to really engage with this type of planning
themselves. Despite her concerns, PSTs reported appreciating Jessica’s example, as it showed
them that it was possible to straddle two worlds and incorporate TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy
even when they were required to utilize Treasures. This example was also potentially beneficial
for PSTs, as they could refer back to Jessica’s sample schedule when planning future lessons.
However, the potential benefit of Jessica’s modeling was likely not fully realized, due in
part to the fact that it was not conducted with particular learners and contexts in mind. I also did
not see – or hear reported – evidence that showed PSTs applied this information to their work in
the field, such as using Jessica’s schedule as a planning template. That is, PSTs did not utilize
Jessica’s schedule as a model and then appropriate it while student teaching. This is perhaps
somewhat unfortunate given PSTs’ stated desires to teach outside of Treasures and in ways that
were more TEP-aligned. However, it is possible that Jessica’s sample schedule served to plant
the seeds of how to balance teaching Treasures with incorporating TEP-aligned approaches in
PSTs’ minds, yet her modeling might not have been sufficient for PSTs to internalize how and
why she was altering the schedule as she was, and then put into practice something similar in
their student teaching placements. In other words, PSTs seemed to have appropriated the idea of
being able to teach outside of Treasures but not the pedagogical expertise to do so. It also seems
that here, Jessica was attempting to show how to incorporate the “knowledge-for-practice”
(Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999) she had taught PSTs throughout the Literacy Methods course
into the realities of the required literacy instruction in their student teaching placements in
tangible ways, which was greatly appreciated by PSTs, as mentioned above. Yet, as Jessica’s
presentation of the sample schedule remained confined to the university, PSTs struggled to
appropriate the knowledge meant for practice into their actual instruction.

196
As mentioned above, I was unaware of any additional explicit teacher-educator guidance
of a similar nature during PSTs’ first year in the TEP or in their student teaching placements. In
other words, the PSTs did not, for example, seem to have opportunities to work with their CTs to
modify and adapt the curriculum in ways that were more reflective of TEP-aligned literacy
pedagogy. PSTs also did not appear to engage deeply in this type of planning work within the
TEP – such as during the Student Teaching Seminar course – then teach their planned lessons in
their placements, and finally reflect on the lessons in the TEP. Some of the possible reasons
behind why this type of support was not available for PSTs in the field have been mentioned
previously, including institutional constraints such as a heavy advisement load for Tim and CTs’
seeming lack of knowledge about or hand in developing the TEP’s goals for PSTs. Since
Jessica’s presentation of a sample schedule remained confined to the TEP, it seems like a missed
opportunity for more explicit mediation of PSTs’ field-based learning on the part of teacher
educators.
Conclusion
As I have illustrated, three key factors seemed to mediate PSTs’ development of literacy
perspectives and literacy instructional practice. These factors, in particular, contributed to the
limited “degrees of appropriation” evidenced in PSTs’ literacy instructional practice. First, the
current policy climate in many high-needs, urban schools – and particularly the mandated use of
scripted curriculum, recent budget cuts that led to teacher lay-offs, and the school practice of
tracking students – seemed to exacerbate the disconnect between what the TEP was espousing
and what PSTs were experiencing in the field, thereby contributing to PSTs’ difficulty teaching
literacy in TEP-aligned ways during student teaching. Second, data pointed to the exceptionally
influential nature of PSTs’ field experiences – at times more so than their TEP experiences – in

197
shaping their practice and perspectives, thereby also seeming to lead to limited degrees of
appropriation of TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy. Third, there was a lack of explicit teacher
educator mediation surrounding PSTs’ field-based learning. In particular, PSTs received little
explicit guidance around modifying mandated curriculum to reflect TEP-aligned literacy
pedagogy. The implications of these findings are addressed next, in Chapter Seven.

198

CHAPTER SEVEN
DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS
As argued previously, despite persistent policy press to increase PSTs’ field experiences,
little is known about how field work (e.g., student teaching) shapes PSTs’ learning, particularly
for PSTs who plan to teach in high-needs, urban schools (Anderson & Stillman, 2013b). In
addition, relatively few studies explore the process of learning to teach literacy (Risko et al.,
2008), and those that do tend not to focus on PSTs learning to teach literacy in high-needs, urban
schools, specifically (e.g., Smagorinsky, 1999; Smagorinsky, Cook, et al., 2004; Valencia et al.,
2009). This study begins to address this gap by exploring the literacy learning of PSTs enrolled
in a social justice-oriented TEP that aims to prepare teachers to work with diverse students in
urban schools. Specifically, I investigated the development of PSTs’ perspectives on literacy
teaching and learning and the development of PSTs’ literacy instructional practice as well as the
factors that mediated PSTs’ development.
Due to the complexity of the process of learning to teach literacy, I approached this
instrumental nested case study of three PSTs from an “ecological perspective” (e.g., Wideen et
al., 1998). To support analysis and interpretation of the broader ecology of learning to teach
literacy in high-needs, urban schools, I anchored the study in Cultural Historical Activity Theory,
which emphasizes the importance of context and culture on learning (e.g., Cole & Engeström,
1993; Engeström, 1999a; Engeström & Miettinen, 1999). CHAT helped me uncover themes
within the entire “learning to teach” activity system that shaped PSTs’ learning around literacy.
Overall, PSTs’ perspectives on literacy tended to mostly develop toward coherence with the
TEP’s espoused approach to literacy teaching. Yet, PSTs’ literacy instructional practice most
often did not reflect TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy. TEP coursework shaped PSTs’ perspectives

199
but seemed to have less influence on their instruction, which seemed to be mediated primarily by
the existing norms and practices in their student teaching placements.
In this chapter, I provide a discussion of the study’s findings in relation to current
research and also address the implications of the study. I divide the chapter into four main
sections. First, I summarize the study’s major findings. Second, I connect the study’s findings to
existing research and theory. Third, I address implications of the study for teacher education
programs and teacher educator practice. Lastly, I provide recommendations for future research.
Summary of Major Findings
This study explored the development of PSTs’ perspectives on literacy teaching and
learning and the development of their literacy instructional practice within the context of a social
justice-oriented TEP that aims to prepare educators to teach students from historically
marginalized groups in high-needs, urban schools. The factors that seemed to mediate PSTs’
development were also investigated. The TEP espoused an approach to literacy teaching
grounded in sociocultural learning theory and cultural responsiveness exemplified in lessons that
are differentiated, meaning-based, and student-centered.
PSTs’ perspectives on literacy teaching and learning and their literacy instructional
practice developed to reflect different “degrees of appropriation” (Grossman et al., 1999) of the
TEP’s “ideal” of teaching literacy in sociocultural and culturally responsive ways. First, PSTs’
conceptions of literacy expanded, moving from a narrow view of literacy as “reading and
writing” to a broader definition that included participating in the world. Second, PSTs’
perspectives on the relationship between students and the curriculum evolved from PSTs
emphasizing generating students’ interest in curriculum to leveraging students’ strengths as
curriculum. These two learnings indicated that PSTs seemed to appropriate some of the

200
theoretical foundations of TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy that stress the sociocultural nature of
literacy and the importance of viewing students from an asset-based perspective. Third, PSTs’
stated commitment to varying instructional techniques and “supplementing” the mandated
curriculum with different materials seemed to deepen over time. In this area, PSTs seemed to
appropriate TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy only superficially, in part due to their surface-level
pedagogical critiques of only the scripted curriculum’s materials (e.g., anthology texts), and not
its espoused instructional approaches (e.g., whole class, undifferentiated lessons). Overall, PSTs’
perspectives on literacy teaching tended to move toward becoming increasingly coherent with,
though at times still falling short of, the TEP “ideal”.
In contrast, PSTs’ literacy instructional practice most often tended not to reflect the
literacy pedagogy promoted by the TEP. For instance, the majority of PSTs’ literacy lessons
were teacher-centered and conducted in a whole-class, undifferentiated format with
predetermined materials that often did not reflect students’ interests or strengths. These
instructional approaches run counter to the core tenets of TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy, and,
for the most part, PSTs’ stated perspectives. There were instances where PSTs incorporated some
elements of TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy, such as including partner work and incorporating
books and tasks PSTs thought would be “engaging” for students, but these lessons seemed to
reflect PSTs’ superficial appropriation of TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy. For example, Emily
had students work in pairs to create comic strips about the importance of multiple perspectives,
and Molly had students work in groups to select a current events topic to debate. In both cases
PSTs were attempting to offer student-centered literacy instruction that reflected TEP-endorsed
sociocultural and culturally responsive practices. However, Emily’s partner work did not seem to
provide students opportunities to make meaning on their own terms, and Molly’s potential debate

201
topics did not press students to ask and explore questions related to themes of social justice, nor
did her lesson seem to reflect and leverage an understanding of students’ cultural practices.
These lessons, therefore, fell short of the TEP “ideal” as the activities seemed to only reflect the
core tenets of TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy in cursory ways.
Three broad themes emerged regarding the factors that seemed to mediate PSTs’
development and lead to relatively limited appropriation of TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy,
particularly in terms of PSTs’ literacy instruction. First, conditions of the current policy climate
seemed to exacerbate the disconnect between what the TEP was espousing and what PSTs were
experiencing in the field. In particular, the district-mandated Treasures reading program proved
to be a dominating mediating artifact that shaped PSTs’ literacy instruction in ways that came
into tension with TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy. Additionally, education budget cuts, which
precipitated the laying off of many teachers, including some TEP alumni with whom the TEP
historically placed student teachers, made it more difficult for the TEP to place PSTs with CTs
who held TEP-coherent perspectives and enacted TEP-aligned practices. As a result, PSTs were
less likely to observe TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy and to teach literacy in sociocultural and
culturally responsive ways in CTs’ classrooms. Lastly, PSTs’ placement classes were tracked by
students’ ELD or “achievement” levels, which also seemed to contribute to PSTs’ difficulty
utilizing many TEP-endorsed instructional strategies, such as creating heterogeneous groups and
pairing ELs with native English speakers to act as language models.
A second major theme to emerge was that PSTs’ field experiences seemed to be
exceptionally influential for their development. Specifically, what PSTs actually did and did not
teach while student teaching seemed to influence what they thought was generally possible to
implement in elementary classrooms, at times leading them to deem the TEP’s practices

202
“idealistic.” PSTs varied in the extent to which they critiqued the literacy instruction – their own
and their CTs’ – in their student teaching placements. More specifically, individual PSTs
developed a nuanced critique of the literacy instruction in their placements to differing degrees,
with participants’ respective propensities toward criticality and their relationships with their CTs
seeming to mediate their views. For instance, Emily, having developed a more critical
consciousness, was able to ascertain positive and negative elements of the literacy teaching in
both of her placements, while Megan tended to have nothing critical to say about Mrs. Dowell –
a CT she adored – and only negative comments about Ms. Furnold, with whom she resented
being placed.
Third, teacher educator mediation – or facilitation of PSTs’ field-based learning – was
found to be (sometimes purposefully) limited in amount and scope, also seeming to contribute to
PSTs’ lower degrees of appropriation of TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy. Often, PSTs did not
receive any feedback on their literacy lessons from their CTs. When CTs or FA did offer
feedback, they tended to focus on procedural or superficial aspects of teaching as opposed to
addressing more substantive pedagogical issues. Institutional constraints – such as a heavy
advisement load and lack of an authentic partnership between the TEP and CTs – seemed to
contribute to this limited teacher educator mediation. In addition, Tim reported intentionally
providing small amounts of feedback, depending on PSTs’ developmental level. In other words,
Tim at times gave PSTs purposefully minor feedback in an effort to not overwhelm individual
learners and to help PSTs progress in ways and at a rate he deemed appropriate given their
current level of development. There was, however, one instance of teacher educator instruction
that stood out for its uniqueness in attempting to explicitly marry TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy
with what PSTs were required to do in the field: teach the Treasures program with fidelity. This

203
occurred when Jessica provided a sample week’s schedule that showed when she would utilize
the Treasures program as well as how she would deviate from it. Although PSTs reported
appreciating Jessica’s example, this modeling was not done with particular learners and contexts
in mind, thereby not exemplifying targeted field-based mediation of PSTs’ learning. Overall, the
relative lack of teacher educator mediation around how to incorporate TEP approaches to literacy
into PSTs’ placement classrooms – where often the literacy instruction ran counter to the TEP
“ideal” – likely contributed to PSTs’ literacy instructional practice falling short of reflecting
TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy.
In summary, PSTs’ perspectives tended to move toward a TEP-aligned stance on literacy
teaching and learning. PSTs’ literacy instructional practice, however, most often reflected that
PSTs had not appropriated the TEP’s object of teaching literacy in sociocultural and culturally
responsive ways. While TEP coursework seemed to shape PSTs’ perspectives, the exacerbated
disconnect between what the TEP was espousing and what PSTs were experiencing in the field –
due in large part to policy factors such as mandated scripted curriculum, budget cuts resulting in
teacher layoffs, and school tracking practices – seemed to contribute to the limited degrees of
appropriation evidenced in PSTs’ literacy instruction. Additionally, the power of the rare
examples of more explicit guidance from teacher educators (like the above example from
Jessica’s course) – even if disconnected from individual learners and their experiences – raises
questions about the potential power of feedback that would consider particular individuals and
contexts. That I did not observe or hear reported this type of teacher educator mediation likely
also contributed to PSTs’ struggles to teach literacy in TEP-aligned ways during student
teaching.

204

Connecting Findings to Research and Theory
In this section, I draw connections between this study’s findings and the current
knowledge base on preparing PSTs to teach literacy to students form historically marginalized
groups in high-needs, urban schools. The findings from this study both reflect existing empirical
evidence and extend research in the field. I also discuss how incorporating complementary
theoretical and conceptual frameworks helped lead to this study’s unique contribution.
Informing Research on PSTs’ Field-Based Learning
As argued in Chapter Two, this study aimed to address gaps in the research base
surrounding PSTs’ field-based learning about literacy instruction. Specifically, few studies
investigate the process of learning to teach literacy (Risko et al., 2008), and those that do tend to
focus on learning to teach literacy generally and not on learning to teach literacy to students from
historically marginalized groups in high-needs, urban schools, specifically (e.g., Smagorinsky,
1999; Smagorinsky, Cook et al., 2004; Valencia et al., 2009). It was important to study PSTs
learning to teach literacy in the context of high-needs, urban schools – that tend to predominantly
serve students from historically marginalized groups – for three main reasons.
First, literacy has long served as a gate-keeping mechanism for higher education and life
opportunities for students from historically marginalized groups, and teachers play a crucial role
in students’ literacy learning (e.g., Duffy & Hoffman, 1999; Freire & Macedo, 1987; Heath,
1991). Second, schools have traditionally under-served students from historically marginalized
groups, as evidenced by persistent gaps in literacy achievement between different groups of
students (e.g., Barton & Cooley, 2009; Reardon, 2011). Third, certain particularities exist
surrounding literacy instruction in high-needs, urban schools – such as the policy emphasis on
standardized test scores and the common requirement of utilizing scripted curriculum – that tend

205
not to be present in higher-performing schools (e.g., Diamond & Spillane, 2004; Gutiérrez,
2006). In order to improve PSTs’ learning and future inservice literacy practice, it is therefore
critical to understand how PSTs learn to teach literacy to students from historically marginalized
groups in the current policy climate. This study begins to fill gaps in the literature by heeding
scholars’ calls to utilize an “ecological approach” that pays particular attention to how various
contextual factors shape PSTs’ development as literacy educators (Anderson & Stillman, 2013b;
Clift & Brady, 2005; Olsen, 2011; Risko et al., 2008; Wideen et al., 1998).
One of the key contributions of this study is that it looked not only at PSTs’ perspectives
on literacy teaching and learning, but also at the literacy instructional practice they planned for
and enacted with students from historically marginalized groups. As discussed in Chapter Two,
many previous studies have focused exclusively on PSTs’ belief changes during teacher
education (e.g., Barnes, 2006; Brock et al., 2007; Brock et al., 2013; Conaway et al., 2007;
Dooley, 2008; Haddix & Price-Dennis, 2013; Rogers et al., 2006; Sabis-Burns & Lowery, 2007;
Walker-Dalhouse & Dalhouse, 2006). The seemingly implicit assumption undergirding many of
these studies is that PSTs’ beliefs will translate into their instructional practice with K-12
students.
Findings from this study complicate this implicit assumption. First, PSTs’ perspectives
did not simply develop in “positive” (i.e., toward the TEP “ideal”) or “negative” (i.e., away from
the TEP “ideal”) ways, as others have documented (e.g., Brock et al., 2007; Dooley, 2008).
Rather, PSTs evidenced different “degrees of appropriation” (Grossman et al., 1999) of the
TEP’s “ideal” conceptions of literacy teaching and learning. PSTs’ perspectives on certain
aspects of literacy instruction – particularly their consideration of the importance of
“supplementing” mandated curriculum, which corroborates others’ findings (e.g., Anderson &

206
Stillman, 2011) – reflected PSTs’ more superficial appropriation of the TEP-endorsed
approaches to teaching literacy, while PSTs showed higher degrees of appropriation in other
aspects of TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy (e.g., broadened conceptions of literacy). These
findings speak to the need to consider the development of PSTs’ perspectives on literacy
teaching and learning in more nuanced – and not just positive or negative – ways, attending to
different facets of, in this case, TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy and how teacher educators can
facilitate PSTs’ deeper appropriation of TEP principles.
Additionally, in this study, PSTs’ perspectives did not necessarily – and certainly not
automatically – translate into PSTs’ literacy instructional practice, as also documented by others
(e.g., Buehler et al., 2009; Smagorinsky, Cook, et al., 2004). For instance, despite PSTs’ stated
commitments to drawing on students’ interests and funds of knowledge to facilitate new literacy
learning – a core facet of TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy that became integrated into PSTs’
perspectives – their lessons typically did not “start from students’ strengths,” even in placements
where they had considerable pedagogical freedom. While some of the lessons were likely
engaging and potentially relevant for students (e.g., creating comic strips, debating video games),
PSTs tended to design these lessons around content and topics that they wanted to teach – or that
they were required to teach – as opposed to those that students wanted to learn or that reflected
students’ familiar cultural or linguistic practices. Choosing only teacher- or textbook-selected
topics departed from PSTs’ own purported stance on “effective” literacy instruction as well as
the TEP’s. This finding echoes other work that has documented, “the deep gap separating [the
PST’s] stated ideals and training from her ability to enact those ideals in practice” (Buehler et al.,
2009, p. 413).

207
Yet, there were times when PSTs’ literacy instructional practice did seem to more closely
reflect their own perspectives on what constituted “effective” literacy instruction for students
from historically marginalized groups. As mentioned, PSTs considered it important to
“supplement” the mandated curriculum with “quality” children’s literature that they thought
students would find “engaging” and “relevant” to their lives. Even though PSTs held these
beliefs, they most often were not able to act on them in their placements, particularly when
student teaching in classrooms that utilized the Treasures program with fidelity. In fact, the only
time Emily and Molly brought in literature from outside the Treasures’ anthology was during
their edTPA lessons. That they were able to “supplement” the mandated curriculum reflects
findings from prior research that shows it is possible for PSTs student teaching in classrooms
with curricular constraints to resist or adapt the curriculum (e.g., Castro, 2010; Ferguson &
Brink, 2004; Lloyd, 2007; Stillman & Anderson, 2011).
However, that Emily and Molly supplemented the mandated curriculum only when
teaching their edTPA lessons is notable. As edTPA is relatively new, few studies have explored
the potential opportunities and limitations of PSTs having student teachers complete this
particular high-stakes assessment while student teaching in CTs’ classrooms, though some
studies have looked at similar performance assessments (e.g., Bunch, Aguirre, & Téllez, 2009;
Noel, 2014; Okhremtochouk et al., 2009; Pecheone & Chung, 2006; Sato, 2014). Some scholars
have cautioned against possible negative effects of edTPA, or other performance assessments for
teachers, such as the potential for standardizing teacher education nationally instead of attending
to particular contexts locally and the use of a corporate entity to score teacher candidates’ exams
(e.g., W. Au, 2013; Stillman et al., 2014). Findings from this study, however, show that – at least
for some PSTs – edTPA seemed to provide a window of opportunity for PSTs to try out teaching

208
literacy in ways that were more coherent with their own perspectives, and somewhat more
reflective of TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy.
Somewhat surprisingly, when PSTs’ perspectives evidenced superficial levels of
appropriation of TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy, their views were (at times) reflected in their
practice. Yet, when PSTs’ seemed to have appropriated the TEP object more deeply, their
perspectives tended not to be reflected in their instruction. For example, and as argued
previously, PSTs’ conviction that it was important to “supplement” mandated curriculum with
more “engaging” children’s literature reflected their relatively shallow appropriation of TEP-
aligned literacy pedagogy, as PSTs tended not to critique the Treasures program on arguably
more sophisticated pedagogical grounds (e.g., its whole-class, undifferentiated instruction
emphasizing basic skills). Yet, Emily and Molly taught a few literacy lessons where they
incorporated what they deemed more “authentic” children’s literature – or, their instructional
practice reflected their perspectives on what constitutes “effective” literacy instruction in this
instance. Meanwhile, in aspects of TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy where PSTs seemed to have
more deeply internalized the theoretical foundations of TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy – such as
leveraging students’ strengths as curriculum – PSTs’ literacy instruction tended not to reflect
their perspectives. In other words, in areas where PSTs’ perspectives reflected deeper degrees of
appropriation of TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy, these perspectives seemed to not be evident in
their literacy instructional practice. On the other hand, when their perspectives reflected more
superficial levels of appropriation of TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy (e.g., “supplementing”
mandated curriculum), PSTs seemed better positioned to incorporate these commitments into
their literacy instructional practice. This raises questions about the effect of the “positive”
development of PSTs’ perspectives on their actual instruction, as deeper appropriation of the

209
TEP’s ideal – in terms of PSTs’ perspectives – was not always reflected in their literacy
instructional practice. It also raises questions about the links between beliefs and practice, and
the implicit assumption that furthering PSTs’ perspectives toward coherence with the TEP
“ideal” during teacher education may not be setting up PSTs to successfully base their instruction
off of these perspectives.
Findings around the factors mediating PSTs’ development tended to both reflect and
extend findings from previous studies. The long-standing “two-worlds pitfall” (Feiman-Nemser
& Buchman, 1985) between the university and the field is well documented (e.g., Anderson &
Stillman, 2010, 2011; Cherian, 2007; Smagorinsky, 1999; Smagorinsky, Cook, et al., 2004;
Smagorinsky, Gibson, et al., 2004; Smagorinsky et al., 2002). However, under the policy
conditions seen in the high-needs, urban schools in this study (e.g., mandated scripted
curriculum, teacher layoffs resulting from budget cuts, school tracking practices), the “two-
worlds pitfall” seemed more acute. Specifically, this amplified “two-worlds pitfall” seemed to
contribute to PSTs’ struggles to appropriate TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy by making it difficult
for PSTs to practice literacy instructional strategies they were exposed to in the TEP – such as
heterogeneous grouping and differentiated instruction – in the context of their placement
classrooms. That is, PSTs had a hard time reconciling the divergent approaches to literacy
instruction endorsed by the TEP and those they were experiencing in the field, making it difficult
for them to appropriate TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy within what appeared (to them) to be an
incompatible approach.
That the limited degree of appropriation of TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy was present
even in placements where PSTs had a great deal of pedagogical freedom (e.g., no scripted
curriculum to follow) speaks to the influence of other mediating factors in shaping PSTs’

210
development. As others have argued, intentional teacher educator mediation of PSTs’ learning in
the field is critical if teacher educators want PSTs to learn to teach in particular ways (e.g.,
Anderson & Stillman, 2013b; Clift & Brady, 2005; Feiman-Nemser & Buchman, 1987;
LaBoskey & Richert, 2002; Sleeter, 2008; Zeichner & McDonald, 2011). In this study, PSTs
received relatively little explicit mediation from teacher educators, particularly around how to
teach literacy in accordance with TEP principles during student teaching. In addition, PSTs
spoke about how they desired to teach outside of the Treasures script but did not know how to do
so. They expressed wanting to learn about how to both “follow the rules” of implementing the
mandated curriculum and find ways to teach literacy in ways they deemed more engaging,
responsive, and relevant to students. In short, they seemed to be clamoring for guidance about
how to navigate the amplified “two-worlds” pitfall they encountered in the contexts of their TEP
and their student teaching placements in high-needs, urban schools, yet this targeted support was
not something PSTs received. Under the current policy conditions in high-needs urban schools, it
seems that intentional teacher mediation – particularly around how to navigate policy constraints
around literacy instruction – is perhaps even more essential in these contexts than in K-12
classrooms less impacted by high-stakes accountability demands. That is, given the larger chasm
between literacy instruction promoted by the social justice-oriented TEP and the literacy
instruction present in the high-needs, urban schools in this study than that between more
“typical” TEPs and K-12 classrooms, PSTs learning to teach literacy in high-needs, urban
schools may need additional guidance from teacher educators, specifically around how to
reconcile or bridge the divide between the TEP and the field.

211

CHAT, Degrees of Appropriation, and Relationships of Knowledge and Practice:
Affordances of Utilizing Complementary Frameworks
One of the unique contributions of this study is its use of complementary conceptual and
theoretical frameworks. Specifically, I drew on Cultural Historical Activity Theory to explore
teachers’ learning, in accordance with a growing body of teacher education research (e.g.,
Anderson & Stillman, 2013a; Brayko, 2013; Brock et al., 2007; Grossman et al., 2000;
Smagorinsky, Cook, et al., 2004; Stillman, 2011; Stillman & Anderson, 2011; Valencia et al.,
2009). In this study, a CHAT perspective aided in generating findings that helped explain how
and why learning outcomes for different individuals, even those learning in very similar
contexts, are likely to vary due to the interaction among different elements within an activity
system. For example, even though Megan and Molly were placed in the same school, in
classrooms that utilized the same reading program to teach literacy, their experiences differed
notably, due especially, in this case, to the relationship between each PST and her CT as well as
differences between the individual PSTs as learners.
Furthermore, the inclusion of Grossman and colleagues’ (1999) conception of the five
“degrees of appropriation”, created within a CHAT perspective, additionally served as a valuable
analytic tool that helped me explore the not-always-linear development of PSTs’ perspectives
and practices in relation to the TEP “ideal”. Instead of framing PSTs’ development as being
“more” or “less” aligned with the TEP, it encouraged a more nuanced frame of how, why, and
when PSTs’ perspectives and practice were (and were not) aligned with the TEP’s object. More
specifically, this framing helped to highlight specific areas within the TEP’s “ideal” that PSTs
seemed to have appropriated to different degrees. Lastly, utilizing Cochran-Smith and Lytle’s
(1999) relationships of knowledge and practice as a complementary conceptual framework

212
helped me draw particular attention to PSTs’ experiences of knowledge production within and
across the TEP and the field, different settings that are both part of the “learning to teach”
activity system. This conceptual framework also aided in providing me with language to use to
describe the – often implicit – assumptions around the relationships of knowledge and practice
that emerged in the study. In the below example, I illustrate how all three of these frameworks
served as useful analytic tools in conjunction with one another.
For instance, Megan and Molly were placed in the same school for their first student
teaching placements, and both of their CTs followed the Treasures program with fidelity,
reflecting a great deal of similarity between their placements. However, the differing
relationships that they had with their CTs – Megan’s strong bond with Mrs. Davis and Molly’s
lack of connection with Rosa – led to notably different outcomes. Megan tended to be less
critical of Treasures, a program that Mrs. Davis liked, and did not deviate from the scripted
lessons. Molly, meanwhile, was critical both of Treasures and of Rosa’s instruction, and she
capitalized on the edTPA process in order to teach outside of Treasures by bringing in
“authentic” children’s literature she thought would be engaging for students. While this might
lead one to assume that Molly, given her pedagogical forays, would experience more
developmental growth, it was Megan who seemed to progress more in terms of her confidence as
a teacher, her classroom management skills, and so forth. Mrs. Davis’s guidance, it seemed, was
crucial in facilitating this development for Megan, even though it did not necessarily comport
with the TEP’s pedagogical and ideological orientation.
Utilizing CHAT to analyze Megan’s and Molly’s learning in this instance provided
affordances in considering how various elements within the activity system – PSTs, CTs,
mediating artifacts, classroom norms, and so forth – interacted with each other in unique ways to

213
shape PSTs’ individual development as literacy educators. Incorporating the “degrees of
appropriation” into the activity system analysis in this example contributed additional
affordances. Specifically, whereas CHAT overall led me to consider reasons why Megan and
Molly may have experienced similar situations differently, analyzing their progress toward
appropriation of the TEP’s object enabled me to more easily see similarities across the outcomes
of participants’ learning. For example, Megan and Molly – despite their different experiences in
these placements – both struggled to appropriate TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy, their literacy
lessons lacking evidence that they had taken up the pedagogical tools endorsed by the TEP. Yet,
their perspectives on literacy teaching and learning tended to cohere with the TEP’s principles.
Layering Cochran-Smith and Lytle’s (1999) conceptual framework on top of CHAT
offered utility in explaining this disconnect between PSTs’ perspectives and practice. It seemed
that PSTs had internalized the “formal,” research-based knowledge presented in TEP coursework
– “knowledge-for-practice” – for their perspectives, only, and not their practice. On the other
hand, the “knowledge-in-practice” PSTs presumably learn from observing and apprenticing with
master teachers in the field (i.e., during student teaching), seemed to be a more powerful
influence on their literacy teaching. Whereas Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1999) propose that all
forms of the relationships of knowledge and practice ideally can inform teachers’ instructional
practice, this study points to the relative degrees of influence of certain types of knowledge on
PSTs’ perspectives and others on their practice. That is, the “formal” knowledge teacher
educators presented to PSTs in the university, though it seemed to shape PSTs’ perspectives,
tended not to translate into PSTs’ classroom practice. Meanwhile, the “practical” knowledge
embedded within the existing norms and instructional practice in their CTs’ classrooms seemed
to predominantly shape PSTs’ literacy instruction. This leads to questions surrounding how TEP

214
coursework was structured, with seemingly few direct connections to PSTs’ experiences in the
field.
Utilizing these three frameworks in concert with one another aided in promoting a
layered and nuanced analysis of study data. In short, CHAT proved particularly useful in
exploring and delineating the interacting factors contributing to individual PSTs’ learning. The
continuum of “degrees of appropriation” helped me see patterns – both within and across
individuals – in the outcomes of the development of PSTs’ literacy perspectives and instructional
practice. The relationships of knowledge and practice framework helped me consider structural
dimensions of the TEP and the different ways PSTs are meant to internalize knowledge and
incorporate it into their practice and the reasons why they may fall short. The findings derived
from this multi-layered analysis add complexity to claims that student teachers learn most
optimally from placements in certain types of schools (e.g., Ronfeldt, 2012). Instead, data from
this study point to many factors within placements – especially the individual learner (PST) and
CT – and within the TEP – particularly concerning connections made to PSTs’ field experiences
– that may interact to provide PSTs with more or less educative learning opportunities from
student teaching. This reflects other research as well, that argues for considering the cumulative
effects of multiple placements that differ in instructional conditions (e.g., rigid or adaptive
implementation of mandated curriculum) and degrees of coherence with TEP-endorsed pedagogy
(Anderson & Stillman, 2011).
Implications for Programs and Practice
This study has implications for teacher education programs, particularly regarding PSTs’
field placements, as well as teacher educator practice around the facilitation of PSTs’ field-based

215
learning. Given the exploratory nature of this study, recommendations below are appropriately
tentative; further research is needed to confirm and expand upon them.
Implications for Teacher Education Programs
As described previously, there is a current policy press to make teacher education more
practice-based and to increase the amount of time PSTs spend in the field (e.g., AACTE, 2010;
NCATE, 2010; NRC, 2010). However, some have argued that more field experiences are not
necessarily better in terms of PSTs’ learning (e.g., Zeichner, 2012). This study confirms that
PSTs indeed learn a great deal – particularly about literacy instructional practice – from their
time in the field, yet PSTs’ field-based learning did not always reflect the TEP’s research-based
goals for their literacy instruction. In short, PSTs were not always learning what the TEP wanted
them to learn about teaching literacy to students from historically marginalized groups during
their student teaching placements.
In light of these findings, university-based teacher education programs might consider
programmatically reshaping PSTs’ field placements. Given that PSTs in this study at times made
sweeping generalizations based on singular field experiences, for example, it would likely be
worthwhile for teacher education programs to provide “complementary” field experiences for
PSTs. That is, PSTs might benefit not just from more field experiences but rather from different
field experiences, or, specifically, from field experiences that differ from one another in
particular ways, such as the degree of policy constraints around literacy instruction and/or the
extent of alignment between CTs’ instructional practices and TEP-endorsed literacy pedagogy.
This suggestion echoes and deepens those made by Anderson and Stillman (2011), who argue
that the “accumulation of opportunity” across student teaching placements – as opposed to only
looking at opportunities to learn within a single placement – is potentially important information

216
for teacher education programs to attend to as a way to promote deeper PST learning in and from
the field. These “complementary” field experiences may not only come in the form of full-scale
student teaching, due primarily to time constraints and credentialing requirements. Instead, they
may involve, for example, PSTs conducting observations in particular K-12 classes where
literacy instruction differs from the kind to which they are exposed in their primary placements.
Some such opportunities may be available even within the same school as the primary
placement, as seemed to be the case at Knox Avenue Elementary, where some teachers
purportedly followed scripted curricula with fidelity and others ignored it completely.
In addition to thinking about literacy instruction in relation to particular placements,
findings from this study suggest the importance of taking individual PSTs, as learners, into
consideration – namely considering their prior experiences, evidenced degrees of appropriation
of TEP’s learning goals, and so on – when making placement decisions. Indeed, it makes sense
that different learners would be apt to experience different learning outcomes, even when
learning within the same placements, given that their prior beliefs, personalities, and so forth
mediate their learning (e.g., Wideen et al., 1998; Wang & Odell, 2003). In this study, Emily, for
example, as person with a more critical consciousness, ascertained positive and negative
elements of the literacy instruction in both of her placements, and seemed to take advantage of
the learning opportunities provided in each placement. On the other hand, Megan and Molly,
who were less critically inclined, tended to have binary views of their placements, often seeming
to “give up” on being able to learn anything valuable from the placements they deemed “bad.” In
short, teacher education policymakers and programs should be wary of merely prescribing more
field experiences for all PSTs. Rather, programs should proceed with thoughtful intention about
who to place where and when during PSTs’ time in the field.

217
For example, Molly, who tended to exhibit less criticality, might benefit – as a learner –
from being placed first with a CT who was particularly reflective around and critical of her own
teaching practice as well as the broader contexts surrounding her classroom (e.g., community,
education policy, etc.). This reflective practitioner could model for Molly how she interrogates
and analyzes her lessons to refine and continually improve her practice and then push Molly to
do the same. Molly could then take her learning around critical reflection and lesson analysis into
her subsequent placement(s), thereby potentially lessening her tendency to jump to binary
conclusions about whether literacy instruction was universally “good” or “bad.” Emily, on the
other hand, who was already inclined to healthy skepticism and criticality of school-level
practices in particular, might benefit from being placed with a CT who encouraged close
observation of and targeted instruction for individual students. Emily could then be guided to
explore what literacy pedagogical strategies seemed to be effective – and ineffective – for certain
students and interrogate the potential reasons behind individual students’ success and challenges,
including personal, classroom, school, community, and societal factors. These two example
scenarios, while potentially educative for particular PSTs, would likely not realize their promise
without intentional teacher educator mediation, which I address next. In short, PSTs’ field-based
literacy learning might be more optimally facilitated if teacher education programs consider the
“fit” between particular learners (PSTs) and particular mentors (CTs), perhaps even within very
similar contexts (e.g., the same placement school). This recommendation echoes others’ call for
programs to attend to the fit between learners and placement contexts (Stillman & Anderson, in
press) but suggests also bearing in mind the fit between individual learner and mentor within
particular contexts.

218

Implications for Teacher Educator Practice
The findings from this study also have implications for teacher educator practice. As
described in Chapter Six, data suggested that PSTs tended to receive limited amounts and
degrees of feedback on their literacy instructional practice from the teacher educators charged
with facilitating their field-based learning (i.e., CTs and FA). These findings reflect what others
have found; specifically, that guidance from CTs tends to focus more on emotional and technical
support rather than pedagogical feedback (e.g., Anderson & Stillman, 2010, 2013a; Bullough,
2005; Smagorinsky, Cook et al., 2004; Stillman & Anderson, 2011; Valencia et al., 2009; Wang
& Odell, 2002). The limited teacher educator mediation seen in this study seemed to contribute
to PSTs’ low levels of appropriation of TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy, for PSTs did not yet
seem equipped to teach literacy in sociocultural and culturally responsive ways without
guidance. Explicit, targeted teacher educator mediation – that intentionally attends to individual
learners and specific contexts – seems like it could further PSTs’ appropriation of the TEP’s
goals.
Intentional teacher educator facilitation of PSTs’ literacy learning is perhaps especially
important when PSTs are learning to teach literacy in high-needs, urban schools that are more
likely to be subject to policy constraints, often leading to literacy instruction that tends not to
reflect the TEP’s principles (e.g., code-based instruction, exclusive focus on test scores, etc.), as
was the case in this study as well as others (Anderson & Stillman, 2010, 2011; Diamond &
Spillane, 2004; Gutiérrez, 2006). That there was often misalignment between the TEP’s “ideal”
and the literacy instruction offered in PSTs’ student teaching placements is not necessarily a
formidable obstacle to PSTs learning to teach literacy in TEP-aligned ways. As previously
discussed, from a CHAT perspective, activity systems are conceived of as spaces where

219
contradictions are expected, and “equilibrium is an exception” (Cole & Engeström, 1993, p. 8).
In fact, CHAT scholars posit that wrestling with tensions endemic to activity systems is what
leads to learning and progress (Cole & Engeström, 1993; Engeström, 1999b; Engeström &
Miettinen, 1999).
Yet, if PSTs – novice educators – are left to make sense of these competing goals on their
own, it is perhaps not surprising that their learning falls short of the TEP’s object. In other words,
PSTs would likely benefit from teacher educators explicitly addressing how PSTs might
strategically navigate the potential instructional constraints of the field as they work to teach
literacy in TEP-aligned ways, such as through modeling, co-planning instruction, and so forth.
For instance, when Jessica showed PSTs a sample schedule denoting when she would utilize
Treasures and where and how she would deviate from the program, PSTs seemed to appreciate
this example. However, that this was done exclusively within the TEP – with potential but not
direct connections to particular learners’ field experiences – likely limited the impact this had on
PSTs’ learning and development of instructional practice. I did not observe or hear reported that
PSTs rearranged their weekly schedules in similar ways while student teaching, for example.
A PST may have been better equipped to take up Jessica’s schedule if it had been co-
constructed and situated directly in the field. For instance, a teacher educator (likely an FA) and
a PST could literally “come to the table” together with various instructional materials, such as
the Treasures weekly plan, the TEP lesson plan template, children’s literature pertaining to the
Treasures’ unit theme, and so forth. The teacher educator and PST could then collaboratively
create a schedule (or lesson plan, unit plan, and so forth) with time allotted for the PST to teach
the Treasures lessons and other times allotted for additional activities grounded in TEP-endorsed
pedagogical strategies, such as when to pull small groups of students for targeted instruction.

220
After co-planning and co-constructing this schedule, the PST could subsequently teach the
lessons – ideally with the teacher educator observing. The two could then reconvene to reflect
together on how the week went, what areas could be improved, and so forth. Teacher educator
mediation of this kind has the potential to be more meaningful – and thereby impactful – for this
PST, as the teacher educator’s facilitation of the individual PST’s learning would have been
situated in the particular context of her student teaching placement. Overall, this study did not
uncover enough examples of “effective” teacher educator mediation, which is an area ripe for
future research, as I address subsequently. Indeed, a few scholars are beginning to provide
specific examples of what teacher educator mediation of PSTs’ field-based learning might look
like for PSTs student teaching in high-needs, urban schools (Anderson & Stillman, 2013a; Brock
et al., 2007; Stillman & Anderson, in press).
Before teacher educators can effectively mediate PSTs’ field-based learning, it seems
important that programs become clear on both their learning goals for PSTs and PSTs’ progress
toward those goals. This study provides evidence that suggests that utilizing Grossman and
colleagues’ (1999) continuum of “degrees of appropriation” might be helpful in this regard.
Taking a CHAT perspective, teacher educators may realize that “attaining mastery” of a robust
learning goal – such as skillfully teaching literacy in sociocultural and culturally responsive ways
– might not be a developmentally appropriate goal for PSTs given their status as novices.
Teacher educators might then ask themselves questions such as the following: What degree of
appropriation is developmentally appropriate for our PSTs in terms of their perspectives and
their practice? In what areas do we expect PSTs to appropriate conceptual underpinnings of TEP-
aligned literacy pedagogy? In what areas – if any – is it acceptable for PSTs to demonstrate

221
appropriation of surface features of TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy at this point in their
development?
Answering these questions about goals and expectations for PSTs could be followed by a
similar set of questions surrounding how teacher educators might facilitate PSTs’ progression
from one degree of appropriation to the next. For example: What can we do if PSTs are
demonstrating a lack of appropriation of TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy? How can we facilitate
PSTs’ understandings to go deeper than their appropriation of surface features of the TEP
“ideal”? How can we further PSTs’ appropriation of TEP-aligned instructional practice?
Engaging in these types of conversations with fellow teacher educators within a TEP may prove
beneficial for improving teacher educator practice around the facilitation of PSTs’ field-based
literacy learning. Additionally, determining PSTs’ development in terms of what features of
TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy they seemed to have appropriated more fully and those they have
not can also inform how teacher educators choose student teaching placements, basing their
decisions on what individual PSTs still need to learn.
Recommendations for Future Research
In this section, I address unanswered questions raised by this study and offer
recommendations for future research and investigation.
First, this study focused on teachers’ preservice development of literacy perspectives and
literacy instructional practice, but questions remain about connecting their preservice learning to
their inservice practice. For example, while PSTs struggled to teach literacy in ways that aligned
with their own perspectives and the TEP’s principles while student teaching, might they have
more opportunities to enact these practices in their future, full-time positions? Or, might they feel
further constrained by policy forces, such as mandated curriculum and standardized exams, when

222
they are the sole educator responsible in the classroom? More generally, what barriers do
teachers face in enacting TEP-aligned literacy pedagogy in their classrooms? What factors seem
to support them to teach literacy in ways that reflect their own perspectives and the TEP’s
principles? Some research has shown that educators in their first and second years teaching are
better able to implement practices learned in their TEPs than they were during student teaching
(e.g., Grossman et al., 2000; Smagorinsky, Cook, et al., 2004). However, these studies were not
conducted in the particular context of high-needs, urban schools, so it is possible that results may
vary in different contexts.
This study therefore points to the need for additional longitudinal studies conducted with
teachers in high-needs, urban schools, starting with PSTs enrolled in a TEP and proceeding to
follow them into their full-time teaching placements, ideally for a few years (e.g., Cochran-Smith
et al., 2012). These studies would help determine how educators’ preservice literacy learning
influences their inservice literacy instructional practice, a particularly important area to address
given that teachers’ inservice instruction is ultimately what affects K-12 students’ learning in
classrooms. These studies would also provide insight into how teachers make sense of their
preservice learning given additional contextual factors of their inservice realities – such as school
and district professional development, curriculum, the perspectives and practices of their
colleagues, and so forth – and would help demonstrate how preservice learning becomes one
element of a larger set of factors that shape teachers’ practice.
Second, studies across multiple TEPs would also make valuable contributions to the
existing knowledge base. Given the importance of context in learning, as posited by CHAT (e.g.,
Cole & Engeström, 1993; Engeström, 1999a), conducting similar in-depth studies across
different contexts (i.e., across different TEPs) would provide additional insights into what and

223
how contextual factors mediate PSTs’ literacy learning when preparing to teach in high-needs,
urban schools, as others have also noted (Cochran-Smith & Zeichner, 2005). Findings from
studies across TEPs could potentially provide teacher educators with additional information
about how to better re-mediate the “learning to teach” activity system to create more optimally
educative field-based learning experiences for PSTs (e.g., Anderson & Stillman, 2013a). For
example, further investigations may uncover more information about different artifacts (e.g.,
teacher performance assessments) and how they influence PSTs’ literacy instructional practice in
different contexts.
Similarly, studying different learners within these different contexts would also likely be
informative, as individual learners respond uniquely to mediating contextual factors. In
particular, this study focused on three learners whose demographic characteristics reflect those of
the majority of the teaching force in the United States – they were upper-middle class,
monolingual white females from suburban areas (e.g., Zumwalt & Craig, 2005). Future studies
might choose to focus on PSTs who vary demographically from those in this study. For instance,
PSTs of color may likely experience student teaching in high-needs, urban schools differently
than white PSTs. Drawing together all of these different elements within a CHAT framework –
TEP context, artifacts, people, and so forth – could help surface larger themes across TEPs,
thereby providing teacher educators with valuable information about how to optimally facilitate
PSTs’ learning around literacy teaching.
Third, future studies on PSTs’ literacy learning within the context of the current policy
climate would benefit from attending more closely to teacher educator mediation. As this study
found minimal explicit teacher educator mediation of PSTs’ learning, particularly in relation to
navigating policy constraints, additional research could investigate this area further. For

224
example, future studies could include more observations of teacher educator (both CT and FA)
lesson debriefing with PSTs, followed up by interviews with the teacher educator and the PST
about the process and the feedback. This study and additional existing research demonstrate the
importance of teacher educator mediation and the potential pitfalls of ineffective or absent
teacher educator support (e.g., Anderson & Stillman, 2013a; Brock et al., 2007; Valencia et al.,
2009), yet relatively little is currently known about the specifics of what kind of teacher educator
mediation facilitates PSTs’ learning and how this mediation shapes PSTs’ development (Stillman
& Anderson, in press). More evidence around teacher education within the context of preparing
PSTs to teach in high-needs, urban schools seems particularly important given the amplified
“two-worlds pitfall” (Feiman-Nemser & Buchman, 1985) seen in this study. Additionally,
learning more about effective teacher educator mediation has the potential to improve teacher
educator practice, thereby enhancing PSTs’ learning, ideally then leading to better literacy
instruction for K-12 students.
Although questions remain about PSTs’ literacy learning in the context of high-needs,
urban schools, the findings from this study indicate that teacher education practitioners, policy
makers, and researchers cannot fully understand – and thereby better facilitate – PSTs’ learning
around literacy teaching without intentional consideration of the complex and nuanced
contextual factors that mediate that learning. It was the aim of this exploratory study to extend
lines of research around PSTs’ learning in high-needs, urban schools by specifically focusing on
PSTs’ field-based learning around literacy and to provide directions for future investigations in
this area.

225

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Achinstein, B. & Ogawa, R.T. (2006). (In)fidelity: What the resistance of new teachers reveals
about professional principles and prescriptive educational policies. Harvard Educational
Review, 76(1), 30-63.
Achinstein, B. & Ogawa, R.T., Speiglman, A. (2004). Are we creating separate and unequal
tracks of teachers? The effects of state policy, local conditions, and teacher characteristics
on new teacher socialization. American Educational Research Journal, 41(3), 557-603.
Altheide, D. L., & Johnson, J. M. (1994). Criteria for assessing interpretive validity in qualitative
research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp.
485-499). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. (2010). Reforming teacher education:
The critical clinical component. Washington, DC: Author.
Anagnostopoulos, D. (2003). Testing and student engagement with literature in urban
classrooms: A multi-layered perspective. Research in the Teaching of English, 38(2),
177-212.
Anderson, L. & Stillman, J. (2010). Opportunities to teach and learn in high-needs schools:
Student teachers’ experiences in urban placements. Urban Education, 45(2), 109-141.
Anderson, L. & Stillman, J. (2011). Student teaching for a specialized view of professional
practice? Opportunities to learn in and for urban, high-needs schools. Journal of Teacher
Education, 65(5), 446-464.
Anderson, L., & Stillman, J. (2013a). Making learning the object: Using Cultural
Historical Activity Theory to analyze and organize student teaching in urban high-needs
schools. Teachers College Record, 115(3), 1-36.

226
Anderson, L.M., & Stillman, J.A. (2013b). Student teaching’s contribution to preservice teacher
development: A review of research focused on the preparation of teachers for urban and
high-needs contexts. Review of Educational Research, 83(1), 3-69.
Anyon, J. (1981). Social class and school knowledge. Curriculum Inquiry, 11(1), 3-42.
Apple, M.W. (2014). Official knowledge: Democratic education in a conservative age (3
rd
ed.).
New York: Routledge.
Au, K. H (1998) Social Constructivism and the School Literacy Learning of Students with
Diverse Backgrounds. Journal of Literacy Research, 30(2), 297-319.
Au, K.H. (2001). Culturally responsive instruction as a dimension of new literacies. Reading
Online, 5(1). Retrieved from http://www.readingonline.org/newliteracies/lit_index.asp?
HREF=/newliteracies/au/index.html
Au, K.H. (2003). Balanced literacy instruction: Implications for students of diverse
backgrounds. In J. Flood, D. Lapp, J. Squire, J. Jensen (Eds.), Handbook of research on
teaching the English language arts (pp. 955-966). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Au, K.H. & Blake, K.M. (2003). Cultural identity and learning to teach in a diverse community:
Findings from a collective case study. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(3), 192-205.
Au, K.H. & Mason, J.M. (1981). Social organizational factors in learning to read: The balance of
rights hypothesis. Reading Research Quarterly, 17(1), 115-152.
Au, W. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative metasynthesis.
Educational Researcher, 36(5), 258-267.
Au, W. (2013, Summer). What’s a nice test like you doing in a place like this? The edTPA
and corporate education “reform.” Rethinking Schools, 22-27.

227

Banks, J., Cochran-Smith, M., Moll, L., Richert, A., Zeichner, K., LePage, P., Darling-
Hammond, L., & Duffy, H. (2005). Teaching diverse learners. In L. Darling-Hammond &
J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should
learn and be able to do (pp. 232-274). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Barksdale-Ladd, M. A. & Thomas, K. F. (2000). What’s at stake in high-stakes testing: Teachers
and parents speak out. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(5), 384-397.
Barnes, C. (2006). Preparing preservice teachers to teach in a culturally responsive way. The
Negro Educational Review, 57(1-2), 85-100.
Barton, P.E. & Coley, R.J. (2009). Parsing the Achievement Gap II. Princeton, NJ: Educational
Testing Service.
Bennett, S.V. (2013). Effective facets of a field experience that contributed to eight preservice
teachers’ developing understandings about culturally responsive teaching. Urban
Education, 48(3), 380-419.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theories and methods (5
th
ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Booher-Jennings, J. (2005). Below the bubble: “Educational triage” and the Texas accountability
system. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 231-268.
Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2009). Teacher preparation and
student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(4), 416-440.
Braun, H. (2004). Reconsidering the impact of high-stakes testing. Education Policy Analysis
Archives, 12(1). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/157

228
Brayko, K. (2013). Community-based placements as contexts for disciplinary learning: A stdy of
literacy teacher education outside of school. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(1), 47-59.
Brock, C.H., Case, R. & Taylor, S.S. (2013). Dilemmas in guiding pre-service teachers to
explore literacy instruction and diversity. Teacher Education Quarterly, 40(1), 81-100.
Brock, C. H., Moore, D. K., & Parks, L. (2007). Exploring pre-service teachers’ literacy
practices with children from diverse backgrounds: Implications for teacher educators.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(6), 898–915.
Buehler, J., Gere, A.R., Dallavis, C., & Haviland, V.S. (2009). Normalizing the fraughtness:
How emotion, race, and school context complicate cultural competence. Journal of
Teacher Education, 60(4), 408-418.
Bullough, R.V. (2005). Teacher vulnerability and teachability: A case study of a mentor and two
interns. Teacher Education Quarterly, 43(3), 23-39.
Bullough, R.V. & Draper, R.J. (2004). Making sense of a failed triad: Mentors, university
supervisors, and positioning theory. Journal of Teacher Education, 55(5), 407-420.
Bunch, G. C., Aguirre, J. M., & Téllez, K. (2009). Beyond the scores: Using candidate
responses on high stakes performance assessment to inform teacher preparation for
English learners. Issues in Teacher Education, 18(1), 103-128.
Burch, P. & Spillane, J.P. (2003). Elementary school leadership strategies and subject matter:
Reforming mathematics and literacy instruction. Elementary School Journal, 103(5),
519-535.
Burch, P. & Spillane, J.P. (2005). How subjects matter in district office practice: Instructionally
relevant policy in urban school district redesign. Journal of Educational Change, 6(1),
51-76.

229
Castro, A.J. (2010). Challenges in teaching for critical multicultural citizenship: Student teaching
in an accountability-driven context. Action in Teacher Education, 32(2), 97-109.
Chall, J.S. (1967). Learning to read: The great debate. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Chall, J.S., Jacobs, V.A., & Baldwin, L.E. (1990). The Reading Crisis: Why Poor Children Fall
Behind. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Chiang, H. (2009). How accountability pressure on failing schools affects student achievement.
Journal of Public Economics, 93(9-10), 1045-1057.
Cherian, F. (2007). Learning to teach: Teacher candidates reflect on the relational, conceptual,
and contextual influences of responsive mentorship. Canadian Journal of Education,
30(1), 25-46.
Clay, M. (1998). By different paths to common outcomes. York, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.

Clift, R. & Brady, P. (2005). Research on Methods Courses and Field Experiences. In M.
Cochran Smith & K.M. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying Teacher Education: The report of the
AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp. 309-424). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Coburn, C.E. (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading
policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
23(2), 145-170.
Coburn, C.E. (2004). Beyond decoupling: Rethinking the relationship between the institutional
environment and the classroom. Sociology of Education, 77(3), 211-244.
Coburn, C.E. (2005). Shaping teaching sensemaking: School leaders and the enactment of
reading policy. Educational Policy, 19(3), 476-509.

230

Coburn, C.E., Pearson, P.D., & Woulfin, S. (2011). Reading policy in the era of accountability.
In M.L. Kamil, P.D. Pearson, E.B. Moje, & P.P. Afflerbach (Eds.), Handbook of Reading
Research (pp. 561-593). New York: Routledge.
Coburn, C.E. & Stein, M.K. (2006). Communities of practice theory and the role of teacher
professional community in policy implementation. In M.E. Honig (Ed.), New directions
in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity (pp. 25-46). Albany, New
York: State University of New York Press.
Cochran-Smith, M. (1991). Learning to teach against the grain. Harvard Educational Review,
61(3), 279-310.
Cochran-Smith, M. & Lytle, S. (1999) Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher
learning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 24, 249-305.
Cochran-Smith, M. & Zeichner, K. (Eds.), (2005). Studying teacher education: The report of the
AERA panel on research and teacher education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Cochran-Smith, M., McQuillan, P., Mitchell, K., Terrell, D.G., Barnatt, J., D’Souza, L., Jong, C.,
Shakman, K., Lam, K., & Gleeson, A.M. (2012). A longitudinal study of teaching
practice and early career decisions: A cautionary tale. American Educational Research
Journal, 49(5), 844-880.
Cohen, D.K. (1990). A revolution in one classroom: The case of Mrs. Oublier. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 311-329.
Cohen, D.K. & Hill, H.C. (2001). Learning policy: When state education reform works.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

231
Cole, M. (1985). The zone of proximal development: Where culture and cognition create each
other. In J.V. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, communication, and cognition: Vygotskian
perspectives (pp. 146-161). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: Belknap
Press of Harvard University Press.
Cole, M. & Engeström, Y. (1993). A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition. In G.
Salomon (Ed.) (1997). Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational
considerations (pp. 1-46). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cole, M. & Griffin, P. (1983). A socio-historical approach to re-mediation. Quarterly Newsletter
of the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition, 5(4), 69-74.
Conaway, B. J., Browning, L. J., & Purdum-Cassidy, B. (2007). Teacher candidates’ changing
perceptions of urban schools: Results of a 4-year study. Action in Teacher Education,
29(1), 20-31.
Cornbleth, C. (2010). Institutional habitus as the de facto diversity curriculum of teacher
education. Anthropology and Education, 41(3), 280-297.
Costigan, A.T. (2008). Canaries in the coal mine: Urban rookies learning to teach language arts
in “high priority” schools. Teacher Education Quarterly, 35(2), 85-103.
Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
Approaches (2
nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Crocco, M.S., & Costigan, A.T. (2007). The narrowing of curriculum and pedagogy in the age of
accountability: Urban educators speak out. Urban Education, 42(6), 512-535.
Cummins, J. (2005). Teaching the language of academic success: A framework for school-based
language policies. In C.F. Lebya (Ed.), Schooling and language minority students: A

232
theoretico-practical framework (3
rd
ed., pp. 3-32). Los Angeles, CA: LBD Publishers.
Cummins, J. (2007). Pedagogies for the poor? Realigning reading instruction for low-income
students with scientifically based reading research. Educational Researcher, 36(9), 564-
572.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement. Education Policy &
Analysis Archives, 8(1). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/392/515
Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Powerful teacher education: Lessons from exemplary programs.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Darling-Hammond, L. & Bransford, J. (Eds.). (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world:
What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Datnow, A. (2002). Can we transplant educational reform, and does it last? Journal of
Educational Change, 3(3), 215-239.
Datnow, A. & Castellano, M. (2000). Teachers’ responses to Success for All: How beliefs,
experiences, and adaptations shape implementation. American Educational Research
Journal, 37(3), 775-779.
Dee, T. S., & Jacob, B. A. (2011). The impact of no Child Left Behind on student achievement.
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 30(3) 418-446.
Delpit, L. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people’s
children. Harvard Educational Review, 58, 280-298.
Diamond, J.B., & Spillane, J.P. (2004). High-stakes accountability in urban elementary schools:
Challenging or reproducing inequality? Teachers College Record, 106(6), 1145-1176.
Dooley, C. M. (2008). Multicultural literacy teacher education: Seeking micro-transformations.
Literacy Research and Instruction, 47(2), 55-75.

233
Duffy, G.G. & Hoffman, J. V. (1999). In pursuit of an illusion: The flawed search for a
perfect Method. The Reading Teacher 53(1), 10-16.
Duncan, A. (2010). “Remarks by Secretary Arne Duncan at the Council on Foreign Relations
Meeting.” May 5, 2010. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/news/speeches/2010/05/
05262010.html.
Dreeben, R., & Gamoran, A. (1986). Race, instruction, and learning. American Sociologicl
Review, 51(5), 660-669.
Ehri, L.C., Nunes, S.R., Willows, D.M., Schuster, B.V., Yaghoub-Zadeh, & Shanahan, T.
(2001). Phonemic awareness instruction helps children learn to read: Evidence from the
National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 36(3), 250-287.
Engeström, Y. (1999a). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y.

Engeström, R. Miettinen & R. Punamäki, R. (Eds.) Perspectives on activity theory (pp.

19-38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Engeström, Y. (1999b). Innovative learning in work teams: Analyzing cycles of knowledge
creation in practice. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen & R. Punamäki, R. (Eds.)
Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 377-406). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Engeström, Y. & Miettinen, R. (1999). Introduction. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen & R.
Punamäki, R. (Eds.) Perspectives on activity theory (pp.1-18). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Faulkner, S.A., & Cook, C. M. (2006). Testing vs. teaching: The perceived impact of assessment
demands on middle grades instructional practices. Research in Middle Level Education
Online, 27(7), 1-13.

234

Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen
and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 1013-1055.
Feiman-Nemser, S. & Buchmann, M. (1985). Pitfalls of experience in teacher preparation.
Teachers College Record, 87(1), 53-65.
Feiman-Nemser, S., & Buchman, M. (1987). When is student teaching teacher education?
Teaching and Teacher Education, 3(4), 255-273.
Ferguson, J. & Brink, B. (2004). Caught in a bind: Student teaching in a climate of state reform.
Teacher Education Quarterly, 31(4), 55-64.
Figlio, D. N., & Rouse, C. E. (2006). Do accountability and voucher threats improve low-
performing schools? Journal of Public Economics, 90(1-2), 239-255.
Foegen, A., Espin, C.A., Allinder, R.M., & Markell, M.A. (2001). Translating research into
practice: Preservice teachers’ beliefs about curriculum-based measurement. Journal of
Special Education, 34(4), 226-236.
Freidus, H. (2002). Teacher education faculty as supervisors/advisors/facilitators: Playing
multiple roles in the construction of field work experiences. Teacher Education
Quarterly, 29(2), 65-76.
Freire, P. & Macedo, D.P. (1987). Literacy: Reading the word and the world. South Hadley,
MA: Bergin & Garvey Publishers.
Gándara, P. (2000). In the aftermath of the storm: English learners in the post-227 era. Bilingual
Research Journal, 24(1/2), 1-13.
Gándara, P. & Baca, G. (2008). NCLB and California’s English language learners: The perfect
storm. Language Policy, 7(3), 201-216.
Gándara, P. & Hopkins, M. (Eds.) (2010). Forbidden language: English learners and restrictive

235
language policies. New York: Teachers College Press.
Gándara, P., Losen, D., August, D., Uriarte, M., Gómez, M.C., & Hopkins, M. (2010). Forbidden
language: A brief history of U.S. language policy. In P. Gándara & M. Hopkins (Eds.),
Forbidden language: English learners and restrictive language policies (pp. 20-33). New
York: Teachers College Press.
Gándara, P. & Orfield, G. (2012). Segregating Arizona’s English learners: A return to the
“Mexican room”? Teachers College Record, 114(9), 1-27.
Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education,
53(2), 106-116.
Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice (2
nd
ed.). New
York: Teachers College Press.
Gerstl-Pepin, C.I. & Woodside-Jiron, H. (2005). Tensions between the “science” of reading and
a “love of learning”: One high-poverty school’s struggle with NCLB. Equity and
Excellence in Education, 38(3), 232-241.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for
qualitative research. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
Greene, J.C. (1994). Qualitative program evaluation: Practice and Promise. In N.K. Denzin &
Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 530-544). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Grossman, P. & Thompson, C. (2004). District policy and beginning teachers: A lens on teacher
learning. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(4), 281-301.

236

Grossman, P.L., Smagorinsky, P., & Valencia, S. (1999). Appropriating tools for teaching
English: A theoretical framework for research on learning to teach. American Journal of
Education, 108(1), 1-29.
Grossman, P., Valencia, S.W., Evans, K., Thompson, C., Martin, S., & Place, N. (2000).
Transitions into teaching: Learning to teach writing in teacher education and beyond.
Journal of Literacy Research, 32(4), 631-662.
Gunning, T.G. (2006). Assessing and correcting reading and writing difficulties (3
rd
ed.).
Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Gutiérrez, K. (2006). White innocence: A framework and methodology for rethinking
educational discourse. International Journal of Learning, 12, 1-11.
Gutiérrez, K.D., Asato, J., Santos, M., & Gotanda, N. (2002). Backlash pedagogy: Language and
culture and the politics of reform. The Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural
Studies, 24(4), 335-351.
Gutiérrez, K. D., Morales, P.Z., & Martinez, D. C. (2009). Re-mediating literacy: Culture,
difference, and learning for students from nondominant communities. Review of Research
in Education, 33(1), 212-245.
Gutiérrez, K.D., & Rogoff, B. (2003). Cultural ways of learning: Individual traits or repertoires
of practice. Educational Researcher, 32(5), 19-25.
Gutiérrez, K.D., & Vossoughi, S. (2010). Lifting off the ground to return anew: Mediated praxis,
transformative learning, and social design experiments. Journal of Teacher Education,
61(1-2), 100-117.

237
Haddix, M. & Price-Dennis, D. (2013). Urban fiction and multicultural literature as
transformative tools for preparing English teachers for diverse classrooms. English
Education, 45(3), 247-283.
Hakkarainen, P. (1999). Play and motivation. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R. L. Punamäki
(Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 231–249). New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Hamilton, L.S., & Berends, M. (2006). Instructional practices related to standards and
assessments. RAND Working Paper WR-374-EDU. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (2007). Ethnography: Principles in practice (3
rd
ed.). New
York: Routledge.
Hanushek, E. A., & Raymond, M. E. (2005). Does school accountability lead to improved
student performance? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24(2), 297-327.
Harding, S. (1987a). Conclusion: Epistemological questions. In S. Harding (Ed.), Feminism and
methodology (pp. 181-190). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Harding, S. (1987b). Introduction: Is there a feminist method? In S. Harding (Ed.), Feminism and
methodology (pp. 1-14). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Hargreaves, A., Earl, L., Moore, S., & Manning, S. (2001). Learning to change: Teaching
beyond subjects and standards. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Harper, C.A., de Jong, E.J., & Platt, E. (2008). Marginalizing English as a second language
teacher expertise: The exclusionary consequence of No Child Left Behind. Language
Policy, 7, 267-284.
Heath, S.B. (1982). What no bedtime story means: Narrative skills at home and school.
Language in Society, 11(1), 49-76.

238
Heath, S.B. (1991). The sense of being literate: Historical and cross-cultural features. In R. Barr,
M. Kamil, R. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research (Vol. 3,
pp. 3-25). White Plains, New York: Longman.
Hirsch, E.D. (2003). Reading comprehension requires knowledge – of words and the world.
American Educator, 27(1), 10-29.
Hoag, C. (2012). California teacher layoffs: 4
th
year of pink slips spur concerns. Huffington Post.
Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/05/california-teacher-
layoff_n_1486326.html
Hoffman, J. and Pearson, P.D. (2000). Reading teacher education in the next
millennium: What your grandmother’s teacher didn’t know that your
granddaughter’s teacher should. Reading Research Quarterly, 35(1), 28-44.
Hollins, E.R. (2008). Culture in school learning: Revealing the deep meaning (2
nd
ed.). New
York: Routledge.
Hollins, E.R. (2011). The meaning of culture in learning to teach: The power of socialization and
identity formation. In Ball, A.F., & Tyson, C.A. (Eds.), Studying diversity in teacher
education (pp. 105-130). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Hollins, E.R., & Guzman, M.T. (2005). Research on preparing teachers for diverse populations.
In M. Cochran-Smith & K. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of
the AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp. 477-495). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Howard, T.C. (2001). Powerful pedagogy for African American students: A case of four
teachers. Urban Education, 36(2), 179-202.

239
Ingersoll, R. M. (2003). Is there really a teacher shortage? Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of
Teaching and Policy.
Irwin, J.W. (2007). Teaching reading comprehension processes (3
rd
ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson
Education, Inc.
Jones, S. & Enriquez, G. (2009). Engaging in the intellectual and the moral in critical literacy
education: The four-year journeys of two teachers from teacher education to classroom
practice. Reading Research Quarterly, 44(2), 145-168.
Jones, S.R., Torres, V., & Armino, J. (2006). Negotiating the complexities of qualitative

research in higher education: Fundamental elements and issues. New York: Routledge.

LaBoskey, V. K., & Richert, A. E. (2002). Identifying good student teaching placements: A
programmatic perspective. Teacher Education Quarterly, 29(2), 7-34.
Ladd, H. F., & Lauen, D. L. (2010). Status versus growth: The distributional effects of school
accountability policies. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 29(3), 426-450.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995a). But that's just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant
pedagogy. Theory into Practice, 34(3), 159.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995b). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American
Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465-491.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1999). Preparing teachers for diversity: Historical perspectives, current
trends, and future directions. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the
Learning Profession (pp. 86-123). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2001). Crossing over to Canaan: The journey of new teachers in diverse
classrooms. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

240

Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding
achievement in U.S. Schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3-12.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2009). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American
children (2
nd
ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lane, S., Lacefield-Parchini, N., & Isken, J. (2003). Developing novice teachers as change
agents: Student teacher placements “against the grain.” Teacher Education Quarterly,
30(2), 55-68.
Lee, C.D. (1995a). A culturally based cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching African American high
school students skills in literary interpretation. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(4), 608-
631.
Lee, C.D. (1995b). Signifying as a scaffold for literary interpretation. Journal of Black
Psychology, 21(4), 357-381.
Lee, C.D. (2001). Is October Brown Chinese?: A cultural modeling activity system for
underachieving students. American Educational Research Journal, 38(1), 97-141.
Lee, J., & Wong, K. K. (2004). The impact of accountability on racial and socioeconomic equity:
Considering both school resources and achievement outcomes. American Educational
Research Journal, 41(4), 797-832.
Lloyd, G.M. (2007). Strategic compromise: A student teacher’s design of kindergarten
mathematics instruction in a high-stakes testing climate. Journal of Teacher Education,
58(4), 328-347.
Los Angeles Unified School District. (2013). Certificated employment operations: K-12 teacher
vacancies. Retrieved from http://www.teachinla.com/cert/vacancies.html

241

Luna, C. & Turner, C.L. (2001). The impact of the MCAS: Teachers talk about high-stakes
testing. The English Journal, 91(1), 79-87.
MacGillivray, L., Ardell, A. L., Curwen, M. S., Palma, J. (2004). Colonized teachers: Examining
the implementation of a scripted reading program. Teaching Education, 15(2), 131-144.
McCarthy, S.J. (2008). The impact of No Child Left Behind on teachers’ writing instruction.
Written Communication, 25(4), 462-505.
McNeil, L., & Valenzuela, A. (2001). The harmful impact of the TAAS system of testing in
Texas: Beneath the accountability rhetoric. In G. Orfield & M.L. Kornhaber (Eds.),
Raising standards or raising barriers? Inequality and high-stakes testing in public
education (pp. 127-150). New York: Century Foundation Press.
Menken, K. (2006). Teaching to the test: How No Child Left Behind impacts language policy,
curriculum, and instruction for English language learners. Bilingual Research Journal,
30(2), 521-546.
Merriam, S.B. (2001). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Moats, L.C. (2004). Efficacy of a structured, systematic language curriculum for adolescent poor
readers. Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 20(2), 145-
159.
Moll, L., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using
a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31(2),
132-141.

242
Moll, L. & Gonzalez, N. (2004). Engaging life: A funds of knowledge approach to multicultural
education. In J. Banks (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Multicultural Education (2
nd
ed.,
pp. 699-715). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Morrison, K.A., Robbins, H.H., & Rose, D.G. (2008). Operationalizing culturally relevant
pedagogy: A synthesis of classroom-based research. Equity and Excellence in Education,
41(4), 433-452.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2008). The nation’s report card: Long-term trend
2008. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2010). Transforming teacher
education through clinical practice. Report of the Blue Ribbon Panel On Clinical
Preparation and Partnerships for Improved Student Learning. Washington, DC: National
Council on Accreditation of Teacher Education.
National Council on Teacher Quality. (2011). State of the states: Trends and early lessons on
teacher evaluation and effectiveness policies. Washington, D.C.: Author.
National Research Council. (2010). Preparing teachers: Building evidence for sound policy.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Neuman, S. B. (2010). Lessons from my mother: Reflections on the National Early
Literacy Report. Educational Researcher 39(4), 301-304.
Neuman, S. B. & Bredekamp, S. (2000). Becoming a reader: A developmentally appropriate

approach. In Strickland, D. & Morrow, L. (Eds.), Beginning reading and writing (pp. 22-

34). New York: Teachers College Press.

243
Noel, A.M. (2014). Teacher performance assessment (edTPA): An instructor’s development and
evaluation of an embedded signature assessment in an early childhood literacy course.
Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 35(4), 357-372.
Oakes, J. (2005). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality (2
nd
ed.). New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press.
Oakes, J., Lipton, M., Anderson, L., & Stillman, J. (2013). Teaching to change the world (4
th

ed.). Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.
Okhremtchouk, I., Seiki, S., Gilliland, B., Atch, C., Wallace, M., & Kato, A. (2009). Voices
of pre-service teachers: Perspectives on the Performance Assessment for California
Teachers (PACT). Issues in Teacher Education, 18(1), 39-62.
Olsen, B. (2011). “I am larger, I contain multitudes”: Teacher identity as a useful frame for
research, practice, and diversity in teacher education. In Ball, A.F., & Tyson, C.A. (Eds.),
Studying diversity in teacher education (pp. 257-273). Lanham, MD: Rowman &
Littlefield.
Olson, K. (2007). Lost opportunities to learn: The effects of education policy on primary
language instruction for English learners. Linguistics and Education, 18, 121-141.
Oliff, P., Mai, C., & Leachman, M. (2012). New school year brings more cuts in state funding
for schools. Washington, DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
O’Reilly, K. (2005). Ethnographic methods. New York: Routledge.
Orfield, G. & Wald, J. (2000). The high-stakes testing mania hurts poor and minority students
the most: Testing, testing. The Nation, 270(22), 38.
Pacheco, M. (2010). English-language learners’ reading achievement: Dialectical relationships
between policy and practices in meaning-making opportunities. Reading Research

244
Quarterly, 45(3), 292-317.
Pajares, M.F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct.
Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332.
Pardo, L.S. (2006). The role of context in learning to teach writing: What teacher educators need
to know to support beginning urban teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(4), 378-
394.
Parks, A.N. (2008). Messy learning: Preservice teachers’ lesson-study conversations about
mathematics and students. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(5), 1200-1216.
Pease-Alvaraz, L. & Samway, K.D. (2008). Negotiating a top-down reading program mandate:
The experiences of one school. Language Arts, 86(1), 32-41.
Pease-Alvaraz, L. & Samway, K.D., & Cifka-Herrera, C. (2010). Working within the system:
Teachers of English learners negotiating a literacy instruction mandate. Language Policy,
9(4), 313-334.
Pecheone, R. L., & Chung, R. R. (2006). Evidence in teacher education: The Performance
Assessment for California Teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(1), 22-36.
Perfetti, C. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of
Reading, 11(4), 357-383.
Picower, B. (2011). Resisting compliance: Learning to teach for social justice in a neoliberal
context. Teachers College Record, 113(5), 1105-1134.
Polikoff, M. S. (2012). Instructional alignment under No Child Left Behind. American Journal of
Education, 118(3), 341-368.

245

Polikoff, M.S., & Struthers, K.S. (2013). Changes in the cognitive complexity of English
instruction: The moderating effects of school and classroom characteristics. Teachers
College Record, 115(8), 1-26.
Reardon, S.F. (2011). The widening academic achievement gap between the rich and the poor:
New evidence and possible explanations. In Richard Murnane & Greg Duncan (Eds.),
Wither opportunity?: Rising inequality and the uncertain life chances of low-income
children (pp. 91-116). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Risko, V.J., Roller, C.M., Cummins, C., Bean, R.M., Block, C.C., Anders, P.L., & Flood, J.
(2008). A critical analysis of research on reading teacher education. Reading Research
Quarterly, 43(3), 252-288.
Rivkin, S.G., Hanushek, E.A., & Kain, J.F. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic
achievement. Econometrica, 73(2), 417-458.
Robinson, D., Baker, E., & Clegg, L. (1998). Literacy and the pendulum of change: Lessons for
the 21
st
century. Peabody Journal of Education, 73(3/4), 15-30.
Rogers, T., Marshall, C. & Tyson, C. (2006). Dialogic narratives of literacy, teaching, and
schooling: Preparing literacy teachers for diverse settings. Reading Research Quarterly,
41(2), 202-224.
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. New York: Oxford University
Press.

246

Ronfeldt, M. (2012). Where should student teachers learn to teach? Effects of field placement
school characteristics on teacher retention and effectiveness. Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis, 34(1), 3-26.
Roth, W.M. & Lee, Y.J. (2007). “Vygotsky’s neglected legacy”: Cultural-historical activity
theory. Review of Educational Research, 77(2), 186-232.
Rushton, S. (2004). Using narrative inquiry to understand a student-teacher’s practical
knowledge while teaching in an inner-city school. The Urban Review, 36(1), 61-79.
Sabis-Burns, D., & Lowery, R.M. (2007). From borders to bridges: Making cross-cultural
connections through multicultural literature. Multicultural Education, 14(4), 50-54.
Saldaña, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2
nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Sanacore, J. & Palumbo, A. (2009). Understanding the fourth-grade slump: Our point of view.
The Educational Forum, 73, 67-74.
Sato, M. (2014). What is the underlying conception of teaching of the edTPA? Journal of
Teacher Education, 65(5), 421-434.
Sawchuk, S. (2013). Performance key on teacher tests. Education Week, 33(13), 1-22.
Selwyn, D. (2007). Highly quantified teachers: NCLB and teacher education. Journal of Teacher
Education, 58(2), 124-137.
Sexton, D.M. (2008). Student teachers negotiating identity, role, and agency. Teacher Education
Quarterly, 35(3), 73-88.
Sleeter, C. E. (2001). Preparing teachers for culturally diverse schools: Research and the
overwhelming presence of whiteness. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(2), 94-106.
Sleeter, C. (2008). Preparing white teachers for diverse students. In M. Cochran-Smith, S.

247
Feiman-Nemser, & D.J. McIntyre (Eds.), Handbook for research in teacher education
(3
rd
ed., pp. 559-582). New York: Routledge.
Smagorinsky, P. (1999). Time to teach. English Education, 32(1), 50-73.
Smagorinsky, P. (2010). The culture of learning to teach: The self-perpetuating cycle of
conservative schooling. Teacher Education Quarterly, 37(2), 19-31.
Smagorinsky, P., Cook, L.S., & Johnson, T.S. (2003). The twisting path of concept development
in learning to teach. Teachers College Record, 105(8), 1399-1436.
Smagorinsky, P., Cook, L.S., Moore, C., Jackson, A.Y., & Fry, P. (2004). Tensions in learning to
teach: Accommodation and the development of a teaching identity. Journal of Teacher
Education, 55(1), 8-24.
Smagorinsky, P., Gibson, N., Bickmore, S.T., Moore, C.P., Cook, L.S. (2004). Praxis shock:
Making the transition from a student-centered university program to the corporate climate
of schools. English Education, 36(3), 214-245.
Smagorinsky, P., Lakly, A., & Johnson, T.S. (2002). Acquiescence, accommodation, and
resistance in learning to teach within a prescribed curriculum. English Education, 34(3),
187-213.
Smith, M.S., & O’Day, J. A. (1991). Systemic school reform. In S. H. Fuhrman & B. Malen
(Eds.), The politics of curriculum and testing: Politics of Education Association yearbook
(pp. 233–267). Bristol, PA: Falmer Press.
Spillane, J.P. (2002). Local theories of teacher change: The pedagogy of district policies and
programs. Teachers College Record, 104(3), 377-420.
Spillane, J.P. (2004). Standards deviation: How schools misunderstand education policy.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

248
Spillane, J.P., Reiser, B.J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition:
Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research,
72(3), 387-431.
Stairs, A.J. (2010). Becoming a professional educator in an urban school-university partnership:
A case study analysis of preservice teacher learning. Teacher Education Quarterly, 37(3),
45-62.
Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stillman, J. (2009). Taking back the standards: Equity-minded teachers’ responses to
accountability-related instructional constraints. The New Educator, 5(2), 135-160.
Stillman, J. (2011). Teacher learning in an era of high-stakes accountability: Productive tension
and critical professional practice. Teachers College Record, 113(1), 133-180.
Stillman, J. & Anderson, L. (2011). To follow, reject, or flip the script: Managing instructional
tension in an era of high-stakes accountability. Language Arts, 89(1), 22-37.
Stillman, J. & Anderson, L. (in press, 2015). Minding the mediation: Examining one teacher
educator’s facilitation of two preservice teachers’ learning. Urban Education.
Stillman, J., Anderson, L., Arellano, A., Wong, P. L., Berta-Ávila, M., Alfaro, C., &, Struthers,
K. (2014). Putting PACT in context and context in PACT: An account of teacher
educators’ collaboration and adaptive response to policy mandates. Teacher Education
Quarterly 40(4), 135-157.
Strickland, D.S., Bodino, A., Buchan, K., Jones, K.M., Nelson, A., & Rosen, M. (2001).
Teaching writing in a time of reform. The Elementary School Journal, 101(4), 385-397.

249
Stullich, S., Eisner, E., McCrary, J., & Roney, C. (2006). National assessment of Title I interim
report to Congress: Implementation of Title I. Washington, D.C.: US Department of
Education, Institute of Educational Sciences.
Tabachnick, B.R. & Zeichner, K.M. (1984). The impact of student teaching experience on the
development of teacher perspectives. Journal of Teacher Education, 35(1), 28-36.
Teale, W.H., Pacigo, K.A., & Hoffman, J.L. (2007). Beginning reading instruction in urban
schools: The curriculum gap ensures a continuing achievement gap. The Reading
Teacher, 61(4), 344-348.
Tolman, C.W. (1999). Society versus context in individual development: Does theory make a
difference? . In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen & R. Punamäki, R. (Eds.) Perspectives on
activity theory (pp. 70-86). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Traynelis-Yurek, E. & Strong, M.W. (2000). Preservice teachers’ ability to determine miscues
and comprehension response errors of elementary students. Journal of Reading
Education, 26(1), 15-22.
United States Department of Education. (2002). No child left behind act of 2001. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/
leg/esea02/107-110.pdf
Valencia, S. W., Martin, S. D., Place, N. A., & Grossman, P. (2009). Complex interactions in
student teaching: Lost opportunities for learning. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(3),
304-322.
Valencia, S.W., Place, N.A., Martin, S.D., & Grossman, P. (2006). Curriculum materials for
elementary reading: Shackles and scaffolds for four beginning teachers. The Elementary
School Journal, 107(1), 93-120.

250
Valli, L. & Buese, D. (2007). The changing roles of teachers in an era of high-stakes
accountability. American Educational Research Journal, 44(3), 519-558.
Valli, L., & Chambliss, M. (2007). Creating classroom cultures: One teacher, two lessons, and a
high-stakes test. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 38(1), 57-75.
Vygotsky, L.V. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Walker-Dalhouse, D., & Dalhouse, A. (2006). Investigating white preservice teachers' beliefs

about teaching in culturally diverse classrooms. The Negro Educational Review, 57(1-2),
69-84.
Walsh, K., Glaser, D., & Wilcox, D.D. (2006). What education schools aren’t teaching about
reading and what elementary teachers aren’t learning. Washington, D.C.: National
Council on Teacher Quality.
Wang J. & Odell, S.J. (2002). Mentored learning to teach according to standards-based reform:
A critical review. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 481-546.
Wang, J. & Odell, S.J. (2003). Learning to teach toward standards-based writing instruction:
Experiences of two preservice teachers and two mentors in an urban, multicultural
classroom. The Elementary School Journal, 104(2), 147-174.
Weaver, D. & Stanulis, R.N. (1996). Negotiating preparation and practice: Student teaching in
the middle. Journal of Teacher Education, 47(1), 27-36.
Wideen, M., Mayer-Smith, J., & Moon, B. (1998). A critical analysis of the research on learning
to teach: Making the case for an ecological perspective on inquiry. Review of Educational
Research, 68(2), 130-178.

251
Wolf, D.L. (1996). Situating feminist dilemmas in fieldwork. In D.L. Wolf (Ed.), Feminist
dilemmas in fieldwork (pp. 1-55). Boulder, CO: Westveiw.
Wong, K.K., Anagnostopoulos, D., Rutledge, S., & Edwards, C. (2003). The challenge of
improving instruction in urban high schools: Case studies of the implementation of the
Chicago academic standards. Peabody Journal of Education, 78(3), 39-87.
Yin, R.K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4
th
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Young, E. (2010). Challenges to conceptualizing and actualizing culturally relevant pedagogy:
How viable is the theory in classroom practice? Journal of Teacher Education, 61(3),
248-260.
Zeichner, K. (2006). Reflections of a university-based teacher educator on the future of college-
and university-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 326-340.
Zeichner, K. (2010). Rethinking the connections between campus courses and field experiences
in college- and university-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1-
2), 89-99.
Zeichner, K. (2011). Embracing complexity and community in research on multicultural teacher
education. In Ball, A.F., & Tyson, C.A. (Eds.), Studying diversity in teacher education
(pp. 329-337). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Zeicher, K. (2012). The turn once again toward practice-based teacher education. Journal of
Teacher Education, 63(5), 376-382.
Zeichner, K. & McDonald, M. (2011). Practice-based teaching and community field experiences
for prospective teachers. In A. Cohen & A. Honigsfeld (Eds.), Breaking the mold of
preservice and inservice teacher education: Innovative and successful practices for the

252
21
st
century (pp. 45-54). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
Zoos, M., Holbrook, T., McGrail, E., & Albers, P. (2014). Knotty articulations: Professors and
preservice teachers on teaching literacy in urban schools. English Education, 47(1), 38-
79.

253

APPENDIX A
PST INTERVIEW PROTOCOL #1: BACKGROUND
Background

1. Tell me about yourself.
a. Where did you grow up?
b. Where did you go to college?
c. What are you passionate about?
d. What was your schooling experience like for you?

2. Why did you decide to become a teacher?

3. Why did you choose to attend [university’s] teacher education program (TEP)?
a. What factors influenced your decision to attend [university’s] TEP?

4. Where do you want to teach? Why do you want to teach in that community?

5. In your view, what does it mean to be a good teacher?
a. Can you give a specific example about what you mean?
b. What in your experience makes you believe [what you mentioned] is so
important?

6. What does it mean to be a bad teacher?
a. Can you give a specific example about what you mean?
b. What in your experience makes you believe [what you mentioned] is so
important?

7. To you, what does it mean to be a good teacher for students from culturally and
linguistically diverse backgrounds?
a. Can you give a specific example about what you mean?
b. What in your experience makes you believe [what you mentioned] is so
important?

8. What does being a social justice educator mean to you?
a. Can you give a specific example about what you mean?

Literacy Perspectives

9. How would you describe what it means to be literate? Or, what would you say literacy
includes?

10. How do you think someone becomes literate?

254
a. What factors contribute to a person’s reading and writing development? Give a
specific example of what you mean.

11. Why do you think some students struggle with literacy in school?
a. What do you think the teacher can – or should – do if a student is struggling with
literacy learning?

12. What do you remember about your own process of becoming a reader and writer?
a. Tell me about literacy-related activities you remember from your home growing
up.
i. What makes these experiences memorable?
b. What are some memorable experiences from your school literacy learning?
i. What makes these experiences memorable?
ii. Tell me about any positive school literacy experiences that are memorable
for you.
iii. Tell me about any negative school literacy experiences that are memorable
for you.

13. What are you hoping to learn about teaching literacy to students from culturally and
linguistically diverse backgrounds in your TEP coursework?
a. What makes you think it is important to learn about [what you mentioned]?

14. What are you hoping to learn about teaching literacy as a social justice educator? Or,
what are you hoping to learn about teaching literacy for social justice?
a. What makes you think it is important to learn about [what you mentioned]?

15. Is there anything else you want to share about your own literacy experiences or your
thoughts on developing literacy in students?

255
APPENDIX B

PST INTERVIEW PROTOCOL #2:
TEP COURSEWORK AND FIRST STUDENT TEACHING PLACEMENT
Literacy Methods Course and TEP Coursework

1. How would you describe the literacy theories and practices you learned about in the
literacy methods course?

2. What did you find helpful about your literacy methods course?
a. Can you give a specific example?

3. What did you find confusing and/or challenging in your literacy methods course?
a. Can you give a specific example?

4. What, if anything, did you learn about teaching literacy to students from culturally and
linguistically diverse backgrounds or teaching literacy from a social justice perspective,
in particular?

5. What did you learn from completing the final assignment for the literacy methods
course? Or, in what ways was that assignment helpful to your learning about teaching
literacy?
a. In what ways could the final assignment been improved to further your learning?
b. What type of feedback did you receive on the final assignment?
i. In what ways did this feedback support your literacy learning?
ii. In what ways could this feedback have better supported your literacy
learning?

6. Have any of your other TEP courses influenced your thinking about literacy teaching and
learning? How so?

Student Teaching Questions

7. If someone asked you to describe your student teaching placement – the school you’re in,
your class of students – what would you say?

8. Can you describe/walk me through a typical day in your placement?
a. Did you have the opportunity to observe, plan with your guiding teacher, teach
lessons, assess students, etc.?

9. Describe a lesson you implemented in your placement that you feel was particularly
successful.
a. What do you think contributed to this lesson being successful?

256
10. Describe a lesson you implemented in your placement that you feel was not particularly
successful.
a. What do you think contributed to this lesson being challenging?

11. Tell me about your guiding teacher.
a. What seems to be his/her teaching philosophy?
i. What makes you describe his/her teaching philosophy in this way?
b. Describe a typical meeting between you and your guiding teacher. In other words,
what took place during meetings between you and your guiding teacher? What did
the two of you discuss?
c. Describe any similarities between your guiding teacher’s literacy instruction and
what you learned about literacy instruction in your TEP coursework.
i. Can you give a specific example of how what you learned in your TEP
was reflected in your guiding teacher’s literacy instruction?
d. Describe any differences between your guiding teacher’s literacy instruction and
what you learned about literacy instruction in your TEP coursework.
i. Can you give a specific example of how what you learned in your TEP
was not reflected in your guiding teacher’s literacy instruction?
e. Was there anything you wished you would see, in terms of literacy instruction, in
your placement?
i. What makes you think it would have been helpful to see [what you
mentioned]?
f. In what ways, if any, has your guiding teacher’s literacy instruction been shaped
by policy – at the school, district, state, and/or federal level?
i. Can you give a specific example of how [the policy/ies you mentioned]
has influenced his/her literacy instruction?
ii. In your opinion, in what ways has [the policy/ies you mentioned] helped
or hindered your cooperating teacher’s literacy instruction?
1. Can you give a specific example of what you mean?
g. What, if anything, has been helpful about working with your guiding teacher in
terms of your development as a literacy teacher?
i. Can you give a specific example of something that has been particularly
helpful?
h. What, if anything, do you wish your guiding teacher would have done to support
your development as a literacy teacher?

12. Tell me about your literacy instruction in your student teaching placement.
a. How and to what extent have you been able to apply the literacy instructional
strategies from your coursework in your placement?
i. Describe one lesson or activity in which you were able to do this.
1. Why were you able to implement this lesson or activity? In other
words, what went into making this teaching opportunity for you?
2. Explain whether or not this lesson or activity was successful and
why.
b. Is there anything you wanted to implement in terms of your literacy instruction
that you were unable to? Why?

257
c. What guided or influenced your literacy instructional decisions (e.g., curriculum,
GT’s pacing guide, TEP coursework)?
d. In what ways, if any, has your literacy instruction been shaped by policy – at the
school, district, state, and/or federal level?
i. Can you give a specific example of how [the policy/ies you mentioned]
has influenced your literacy instruction?
ii. In your opinion, in what ways has [the policy/ies you mentioned] helped
or hindered your literacy instruction?
1. Can you give a specific example of what you mean?
e. In terms of literacy, what would you feel confident implementing in your own
placement and/or classroom right now?
i. What makes you say you feel confident implementing [what you
mentioned]?

13. You also completed your edTPA lessons during this student teaching placement. Tell me
about the edTPA process.
a. How did you plan your lessons? What influenced your planning process (e.g.,
curriculum, standards, etc.)?
b. What reflections do you have on how the lessons went? What went well? What
could have been improved?
c. What, if anything, did you find helpful about completing the edTPA?
i. Can you give a specific example of what you mean?
d. What, if anything, did you find confusing or challenging about completing the
edTPA?
i. Can you give a specific example of what you mean?
e. In what ways, if any, did the edTPA influence your learning about teaching
literacy?
i. Can you give a specific example of what you mean?

14. Tell me about your faculty advisor.
a. Describe a typical meeting between you and your faculty advisor when he/she
came to observe in your placement. In other words, what took place during
meetings between you and your faculty advisor? What did the two of you discuss?
i. How did your faculty advisor provide feedback on your lessons?
1. Can you give a specific example of feedback you received?
a. Was his/her feedback helpful? Why or why not?
b. What, if anything, has been helpful about your faculty advisor in terms of your
development as a literacy teacher?
i. Can you give a specific example of something that has been particularly
helpful?
c. What, if anything, do you wish your faculty advisor would have done to support
your development as a literacy teacher?

258

Perspectives on Literacy

15. Some people say we continue to learn about literacy throughout our lives. What are you
learning, if anything, about literacy teaching and learning now?
a. How would you describe what it means to be literate? Or, what do you think
literacy includes?
i. Why do consider [what you mentioned] important in defining literacy?

16. Describe what you consider to be an effective literacy teacher for students from culturally
and linguistically diverse backgrounds.
a. What knowledge does s/he have? (probe for example)
b. What skills or expertise does have? (probe for example)
c. What does effective literacy instruction involve for students from culturally and
linguistically diverse backgrounds? (probe for example)

17. What does it mean to be a social justice educator?
a. What does it mean to teach literacy from a social justice perspective? (probe for
example)

18. Is there anything else about your TEP coursework, your first student teaching placement,
or literacy teaching and learning specifically, that you want to share?

259
APPENDIX C

PST INTERVIEW PROTOCOL #3:

TEP COURSEWORK AND SECOND STUDENT TEACHING PLACEMENT

Critical Media Literacy Course and TEP Coursework

1. How would you describe the literacy theories and practices you learned about in the
critical media literacy course?

2. What did you find helpful about the critical media literacy course?
a. Can you give a specific example?

3. What did you find confusing and/or challenging in the critical media literacy course?
a. Can you give a specific example?

4. What, if anything, did you learn about teaching literacy to students from culturally and
linguistically diverse backgrounds or teaching literacy from a social justice perspective,
in particular?

5. Have any of your other TEP courses influenced your thinking about literacy teaching and
learning? How so?

General Student Teaching Questions

6. If someone asked you to describe your student teaching placement – the school you’re in,
your class of students – what would you say?

7. Can you describe/walk me through a typical day in your placement?
a. Did you have the opportunity to observe, plan with your guiding teacher, teach
lessons, assess students, etc.?

8. Describe a lesson you implemented in your placement that you feel was particularly
successful.
a. What do you think contributed to this lesson being successful?

9. Describe a lesson you implemented in your placement that you feel was not particularly
successful.
a. What do you think contributed to this lesson being challenging?

10. Tell me about your guiding teacher.
a. What seems to be his/her teaching philosophy?
i. What makes you describe his/her teaching philosophy in this way?

260
b. Describe a typical meeting between you and your guiding teacher. In other words,
what took place during meetings between you and your guiding teacher? What did
the two of you discuss?
c. Describe any similarities between your guiding teacher’s literacy instruction and
what you learned about literacy instruction in your TEP coursework.
i. Can you give a specific example of how what you learned in your TEP
was reflected in your guiding teacher’s literacy instruction?
d. Describe any differences between your guiding teacher’s literacy instruction and
what you learned about literacy instruction in your TEP coursework.
i. Can you give a specific example of how what you learned in your TEP
was not reflected in your guiding teacher’s literacy instruction?
e. Was there anything you wished you would see, in terms of literacy instruction, in
your placement?
i. What makes you think it would have been helpful to see [what you
mentioned]?
f. In what ways, if any, has your guiding teacher’s literacy instruction been shaped
by policy – at the school, district, state, and/or federal level?
i. Can you give a specific example of how [the policy/ies you mentioned]
has influenced his/her literacy instruction?
ii. In your opinion, in what ways has [the policy/ies you mentioned] helped
or hindered your cooperating teacher’s literacy instruction?
2. Can you give a specific example of what you mean?
g. What, if anything, has been helpful about working with your guiding teacher in
terms of your development as a literacy teacher?
i. Can you give a specific example of something that has been particularly
helpful?
h. What, if anything, do you wish your guiding teacher would have done to support
your development as a literacy teacher?

11. Tell me about your literacy instruction in your student teaching placement.
a. How and to what extent have you been able to apply the literacy instructional
strategies from your coursework in your placement?
i. Describe one lesson or activity in which you were able to do this.
1. Why were you able to implement this lesson or activity? In other
words, what went into making this teaching opportunity for you?
2. Explain whether or not this lesson or activity was successful and
why.
b. Is there anything you wanted to implement in terms of your literacy instruction
that you were unable to? Why?
c. What guided or influenced your literacy instructional decisions (e.g., curriculum,
GT’s pacing guide, TEP coursework)?
d. In what ways, if any, has your literacy instruction been shaped by policy – at the
school, district, state, and/or federal level?
i. Can you give a specific example of how [the policy/ies you mentioned]
has influenced your literacy instruction?

261
ii. In your opinion, in what ways has [the policy/ies you mentioned] helped
or hindered your literacy instruction?
2. Can you give a specific example of what you mean?
e. In terms of literacy, what would you feel confident implementing in your own
placement and/or classroom right now?
i. What makes you say you feel confident implementing [what you
mentioned]?

12. Tell me about your faculty advisor.
a. Describe a typical meeting between you and your faculty advisor when he/she
came to observe in your placement. In other words, what took place during
meetings between you and your faculty advisor? What did the two of you discuss?
i. How did your faculty advisor provide feedback on your lessons?
1. Can you give a specific example of feedback you received?
a. Was his/her feedback helpful? Why or why not?
b. What, if anything, has been helpful about your faculty advisor in terms of your
development as a literacy teacher?
i. Can you give a specific example of something that has been particularly
helpful?
c. What, if anything, do you wish your faculty advisor would have done to support
your development as a literacy teacher?

13. You’ve now completed two student teaching placements, in different grades, in different
schools, and with different guiding teachers. We’ve talked about both placements
individually, but I’m wondering if you could talk about them in relation to one another.
a. For example, what were notable similarities and differences across your
placements in terms of literacy teaching and learning?
i. Can you give a specific example of what you mean?
ii. How did these similarities and differences influence your own learning
around teaching literacy?
b. How, if at all, did the order of your two placements influence your learning about
teaching literacy?
i. Why do you think this is the case?
c. What, if anything, do you wish you would have observed or experienced in
relation to literacy teaching and learning in your student teaching placements that
you did not have the opportunity to?
i. Why do you think [what you mentioned] would have been helpful for your
learning?
d. What, if anything, would you have changed about either, both, or the combination
of your student teaching placements?
i. Why do you think [what you mentioned] would have been helpful for your
learning?

262

RICA

14. Last quarter we talked about your edTPA, which was an assessment of your literacy
teaching, and this quarter you took the RICA, which is another assessment of your
knowledge about literacy teaching.
a. First, tell me about the RICA. What were your impressions of the exam?
b. What, if anything, did you find helpful about studying for and completing the
RICA?
i. Can you give a specific example of what you mean?
c. What, if anything, did you find confusing or challenging about studying for and
completing the RICA?
i. Can you give a specific example of what you mean?
d. In what ways, if any, did the RICA influence your learning about teaching
literacy?
i. Can you give a specific example of what you mean?

Perspectives on Literacy

15. Some people say we continue to learn about literacy throughout our lives. What are you
learning, if anything, about literacy teaching and learning now?
a. How would you describe what it means to be literate? Or, what do you think
literacy includes?
i. Why do consider [what you mentioned] important in defining literacy?

16. Describe what you consider to be an effective literacy teacher for students from culturally
and linguistically diverse backgrounds.
a. What knowledge does s/he have? (probe for example)
b. What skills or expertise does have? (probe for example)
c. What does effective literacy instruction involve for students from culturally and
linguistically diverse backgrounds? (probe for example)

17. What does it mean to be a social justice educator?
a. What does it mean to teach literacy from a social justice perspective? (probe for
example)

18. How have your perspectives on literacy teaching and learning have developed or changed
over the course of this year, if at all?
a. Can you give a specific example of what you mean?

19. How has your literacy instructional practice developed or changed over the course of this
year, if at all?
a. Can you give a specific example of what you mean?

20. Is there anything else about your TEP coursework, your student teaching placements, or
literacy teaching and learning specifically, that you want to share?

263
APPENDIX D

LITERACY METHODS COURSE INSTRUCTOR INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

Background

1. Tell me about your background as an educator.
a. Where did you teach?
b. What grade levels?

2. Tell me about your training to become an instructor at the university level.
a. How long have you been teaching at the university level?
b. Why did you decide to teach at the university level?
c. What brought you to [university’s] TEP?

3. What courses do you teach?

Literacy Methods Course

4. How long have you been teaching the literacy methods course?
a. What went into the design of the literacy methods course?
b. What are the overarching goals of the course? What do you hope students take
away from the course?

5. What do you think is critical for the novices to learn about teaching literacy?
a. How does your course help them to learn [what you mentioned]?

6. How did you design the course assignments and what learning are the assignments
intended to promote?
a. For the literacy lesson plans, what are your goals for having the novices teach at
least one of the two lessons?
b. What challenges and opportunities exist in connecting this course – and this
assignment, specifically – with the Observation and Participation course?

7. What perspectives and/or theories underlie the literacy instructional approach promoted
by the course?

8. What approach do you take to teaching the class? Give an example of what you mean.

9. How do you provide feedback to the novices in the course? Give an example of what you
mean.

10. What knowledge and competencies do you think are critical for the novices to develop in
relation to teaching literacy to students from culturally and linguistically diverse
students? Why?
a. How does your course help them learn [what you mentioned]?

264

11. What knowledge and competencies do you think are critical for the novices to develop in
relation to teaching literacy as a social justice educator? Why?
a. How does your course help them learn [what you mentioned]?

12. What challenges do the novices tend to have in the literacy methods course?
a. Why do you think they tend to struggle in this area?
b. How do you help them overcome these challenges?

13. Is there anything else you’d like to share about teaching the literacy methods course or
about facilitating novices’ learning about literacy teaching?

265

APPENDIX E

FACULTY ADVISOR AND CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY COURSE INSTRUCTOR
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
Background

1. Tell me about your teaching and education background.
a. Where did you teach?
b. What grade levels?

2. Tell me about your training to become an instructor at the university level.
a. How long have you been teaching at the university level?
b. Why did you decide to teach at the university level?
c. What brought you to [university’s] TEP?

3. What courses do you teach?

Critical Media Literacy Course

4. How long have you been teaching the critical media literacy course?
a. What went into the design of the critical media literacy course?
b. What are the overarching goals of the course? What do you hope students take
away from the course?

5. What do you think is critical for the novices to learn about teaching critical media
literacy?
a. How does your course help them to learn [what you mentioned]?

6. How did you design the various course assignments and what learning are the
assignments intended to promote?

7. What challenges do the novices tend to have in the critical media literacy course?
a. Why do you think they tend to struggle in this area?
b. How do you help them overcome these challenges?

Student Teaching Mentorship

8. Tell me about being a faculty advisor for student teachers.
a. Why did you decide to become a faculty for student teachers?
b. How long have you been a faculty advisor?
c. What do you enjoy about being a faculty advisor?
d. What do you find challenging about being a faculty advisor?

266
9. How do you view your role and responsibilities as a faculty advisor?
a. Can you give an example of how you put [what you mentioned] into practice with
student teachers?

10. What do you believe are the primary goals of student teaching? Or, what do you think is
important for the novices to learn while student teaching?
a. Can you give an example of what you do to help the novices learn [what you
mentioned]?

11. Describe what occurs when you observe the novices teaching in their placements.
a. What are you looking for in your observations?
b. How do you provide them with feedback? Give a specific example of what you
mean.

12. What is your relationship with guiding teachers?
a. What do you view as particular opportunities involved in working with guiding
teachers? Give an example of what you mean.
b. What do you view as particular challenges involved in working with guiding
teachers? Give an example of what you mean.

13. In your view, in what ways, if any, has literacy instruction in guiding teachers’
classrooms been shaped by policy – at the school, district, state, or federal level?
a. Can you give a specific example of how [the policy/ies you mentioned] has
influenced cooperating teachers’ literacy instruction?
b. In your opinion, in what ways has [the policy/ies you mentioned] helped or
hindered literacy instruction in these classrooms?
i. Can you give a specific example of what you mean?
c. What effect, if any, has [the policy/ies you mentioned] had on your mentoring
student teachers?
i. Can you give a specific example of what you mean?

Mentoring [Participant]

14. How has your experience been mentoring [participant] during student teaching?
a. What has been rewarding about mentoring [participant]? Why?
b. What has been challenging about mentoring [participant]? Why?

15. What have you worked on with [participant] in terms of his/her literacy instruction?
a. What have you done to mentor [participant] (e.g., co-planning, lesson feedback)?
b. What do you consider his/her strengths regarding literacy instruction?
c. What areas do you think he/she needs to work on regarding literacy instruction?
d. What goals to you have for his/her future literacy instruction?

16. How would you evaluate [participant’s] literacy instruction and ability to teach literacy to
students from culturally and linguistically diverse students overall?

267
Literacy Perspectives

17. In your own words, what does it mean to be literate? Or, what would you say literacy
includes?

18. How do you think someone becomes literate?

19. What does it mean to be a good literacy teacher to students from culturally and
linguistically diverse backgrounds? To teach literacy from a social justice perspective?

20. What perspectives or theories guide your thinking behind literacy teaching and learning?
d. How does this influence your work with guiding teachers and student teachers?

21. Is there anything else you would like to share about being a faculty advisor, about
mentoring [participant] in the area of literacy, or about teaching the critical media literacy
course, specifically?

268

APPENDIX F
COOPERATING TEACHER INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
Background

1. Tell me about your teaching experience.
a. How many years have you been teaching? How long have you been teaching at
this school?
b. What grade levels have you taught, and for how long?

2. In your view, what does it mean to be a good teacher?
a. What does it mean to be a good teacher for students from culturally and
linguistically diverse backgrounds?

3. How would you describe your teaching philosophy?
a. What guides your instructional decisions?

4. What do you consider to be your strengths as a teacher?
a. What in your experience makes you say that [what you mentioned] are your
strengths as a teacher?

Student Teaching Mentorship

5. Tell me about being a guiding teacher.
a. How many years have you been a guiding teacher?
b. What made you decide to become a guiding teacher?
c. Have you always worked with [university’s] TEP?
i. How would you describe [university’s] TEP’s approach to student
teaching?
ii. How did you come to understand their approach? In other words, how did
you learn about the TEP’s approach to student teaching? (e.g., From the
student teacher? From the university field supervisor? Another university
liaison?)
d. If you have worked with any other TEPs, describe your work with them. How it is
similar or different to your work with [university’s] TEP?

6. How do you view your role and responsibilities as a guiding teacher?
a. Can you give an example of how you put [what you mentioned] into practice with
student teachers?

7. What do you believe are the primary goals of student teaching? Or, what do you think is
important for student teachers to learn while student teaching?
a. Can you give an example of what you do to help student teachers learn [what you
mentioned]?

269

8. What is your relationship with [university’s] TEP, the faculty advisor, and the university
field supervisor?
a. What do you view as particular opportunities involved in working with the faculty
advisor? Give an example of what you mean.
b. What do you view as particular challenges involved in working with the faculty
advisor? Give an example of what you mean.

Mentoring [Participant]

9. How has your experience been working with and mentoring [participant]?
a. What has been rewarding about mentoring [participant]? Why?
b. What has been challenging about mentoring [participant]? Why?

10. What have you worked on with [participant] in terms of his/her literacy instruction?
a. What have you done to mentor [participant] (e.g., co-planning, lesson feedback)?
b. What do you consider his/her strengths regarding literacy instruction?
c. What areas do you think he/she needs to work on regarding literacy instruction?
d. What goals to you have for his/her future literacy instruction?

11. How would you evaluate [participant’s] literacy instruction and ability to teach literacy to
students from culturally and linguistically diverse students overall? Why?

12. Is there anything else you would like to share about being a cooperating teacher, or
supervising [participant’s] development of literacy instruction, specifically?

Literacy Instruction

13. In your own words, what does it mean to be literate? Or, what would you say literacy
includes?

14. What does it mean to be a good literacy teacher to students from culturally and
linguistically diverse backgrounds?

15. Describe the literacy program in your classroom.
a. What does reading instruction involve? Writing? Word study?
b. Why have you chosen to structure your literacy instruction in this way? In other
words, what factors shape your literacy instruction?
c. What do you do when students are struggling in literacy? Can you give a specific
example of what you mean?

16. In what ways, if any, has your literacy instruction been shaped by policy – at the school,
district, state, and/or federal level?
a. Can you give a specific example of how [the policy/ies you mentioned] has
influenced your literacy instruction?

270
b. In your opinion, in what ways has [the policy/ies you mentioned] helped or
hindered your literacy instruction?
i. Can you give a specific example of what you mean?

271

APPENDIX G
LIST OF CODES
First Cycle Codes

• Broader contexts
o achievement gap
o expectations
o home and family
o language issues
o navigation
o policy
o poverty
o structures and system

• Learner
o college
o current feelings
o demographics
o general background
o home-family memories
o K-12
o prior work
o teacher educator opinion

• Learning views
o critical thinking
o developmental level
o encouragement
o enjoyment
o exposure
o home support
o individual differences
o interest
o practice
o relevance-connections
o school effects

• Literacy
o definition
o foundation
o linguistics
o literature
o process

272
o teaching within constraints

• Mediating artifacts
o DIBELS
o edTPA
o lesson plan template
o literature
o RICA
o standards
o textbooks
o Treasures
o Write Reflections

• Student teaching
o attributing learning to ST
o challenges
o class description
o classroom management
o critiques
o FA mediation
o CT mediation-feedback
o CT’s instruction
o CT’s management
o ST goals
o teaching opportunities
! art project
! encyclopedia use
! implementing TEP techniques
! read aloud
! working with individual students
! writing

• Teacher educators
o course instructors
o faculty advisor
o cooperating teachers
o outside TEP

• Teaching views
o classroom culture
! classroom community
! management
o instruction
! building from the bottom
! considerate of feelings
! critical thinking

273
! cultural relevance-sensitivity
! different techniques
! empowering
! engagement
! enjoyment
! enjoyment
! family and community
! generating excitement-interest
! giving options
! goals for PSTs
! grading
! honoring language
! inclusion
! independent thinking
! individualized instruction
! interdisciplinary curriculum
! objectives
! prior knowledge
! relatability-identify with
! scaffolding
! small groups
! students figuring it out
! supporting
! teaching style
! teaching with constraints
! whole child
o teacher characteristics
! advocacy
! anti-deficit views
! approachability
! care
! challenge
! deep content knowledge
! empathy
! equity
! high expectations
! humanity
! inspiring
! intimidating
! knowing your students
! milestones
! multiple hats
! open-mindedness
! prioritizing students’ best interest
! respect
! responsibility

274
! teacher as learner
! uncertainty-questioning

• TEP
o assignments
! book box
! literacy lesson plan
! website
! voice thread
! digital storytelling
! meme
o attributing learning to TEP
o coursework
o field-TEP connection
o non-coursework learning opportunities
o peers
o pedagogy
! analyzing student work
! building community
! modeling best practices
! theory-practice
! video
o philosophy-approach
! access for students
! asset-based perspectives
! authenticity
! biases
! prioritizing students
! social justice
! time issues
o teaching strategies
o texts
o topics covered
! comprehension
! culturally relevant pedagogy
! home literacy
! LGBTQ issues
! management
! misconceptions
! navigating policy
! phonemic awareness
! phonics
! RICA
! rubrics
! stages of reading development
! writing instruction

275

Second Cycle Codes

• Salience of field experiences

• Teacher educator mediation
o feedback
! helpful
! lacking
! TE rationale
! types
- procedural
- management
- substantive

• TEP-aligned teaching
o opportunities
o struggles

• TEP-field disconnect
o policy factors

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

From meaning‐making to expansive learning: how contradictions shape teachers' implementation of technology‐based personalized learning

PDF

Preservice teachers' understanding's of how to teach literacy

PDF

Teachers in continuation high schools: attributes of new teachers and veteran teachers in urban continuation high schools

PDF

Cogenerative dialogues as spaces for teacher, student, and public learning: a design investigation into two instantiations

PDF

Preparing teachers for social emotional learning driven instruction and practice

PDF

Middle school science teachers' reaction and pedagogical response to high stakes accountability: a multiple case study

PDF

Teacher discourse and practice: the role of discourse in grade-level meetings for teacher learning and changes in practice

PDF

Factors that influence the ability of preservice teachers to apply English language arts pedagogy in guided practice

PDF

Factors that may lead to an urban high school‘s outperforming status: a case study of an institution‘s achievement in the age of accountability

PDF

The social media dilemma in education: policy design, implementation and effects

PDF

Student achievement and teacher effectiveness in an era of heightened accountability

PDF

Examining the effects of structured dialogue grounded in socioculturalism as a tool to facilitate professional development in secondary science

PDF

High-achieving yet underprepared: first generation youth and the challenge of college readiness

PDF

Quality literacy instruction in juvenile court schools: an evaluation study

PDF

Making equity & student success work: practice change in higher education

PDF

Latina/o pre-service teachers: a community's cultural wealth overlooked

PDF

Using cognitive task analysis to capture how expert secondary teachers build classroom community based on trust, care, and high expectations in ethnically and culturally diverse urban high school...

PDF

Examining the use of mnemonic devices in instructional practices to improve the reading skills of third grade public school students with learning disabilities

PDF

Examining the effects of structured dialogue grounded in socioculturalism as a tool to facilitate professional development in secondary science

PDF

Blended learning in a credit recovery program: emerging insights and issues

Asset Metadata

Creator Struthers, Kathryn Scott (author)

Core Title Uneven development of perspectives and practice: Preservice teachers' literacy learning in an era of high-stakes accountability

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Education

Publication Date 01/30/2015

Defense Date 01/15/2015

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag high-needs schools,high-stakes accountability policy,Literacy,OAI-PMH Harvest,preservice,Teacher education,Urban Education

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Stillman, Jamy (committee chair), Burch, Patricia E. (committee member), Kaplan, Elaine (committee member)

Creator Email kstruthers@gmail.com,struther@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-529111

Unique identifier UC11297766

Identifier etd-StruthersK-3145.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-529111 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-StruthersK-3145.pdf

Dmrecord 529111

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Struthers, Kathryn Scott

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA