University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Preservice teachers' understanding's of how to teach literacy

(USC Thesis Other)

Preservice teachers' understanding's of how to teach literacy

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

PRESERVICE TEACHERS’ UNDERSTANDINGS OF HOW TO TEACH
LITERACY

by

Kimberly Hanson Hill Shotwell

___________________________________________________________

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

December 2009

Copyright 2009 Kimberly Hanson Hill Shotwell

ii
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my husband JP and my children James,
Harrison and Juanita. Your patience and love are woven through these pages.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I’d like to acknowledge the longtime support of my committee members: Dr.
Gisele Ragusa for providing me with intellectual guidance, and for which the
strength of this dissertation is largely due to her tireless comments; Dr. Myron
Dembo for his many years of steady and unwavering support; and lastly, Dr. Eugenia
Mora-Flores, for her support and enthusiasm for this project.
Thank you to Dr. Ilda Jimenez y West and her staff in the Doctoral Support
Center for your perpetual optimism. Thank you to Nadine Sighn in the EdD office
for assisting with navigating university all these years. Thank you to the members of
my study group for being inspirational in every way.

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ii
Acknowledgments iii
List of Tables v
Abstract vi
Chapter 1: Introduction to Study 1
Chapter 2: Literature Review 16
Chapter 3: Methodology 71
Chapter 4: Findings 97
Chapter 5: Discussion 149
References 167
Appendices
Appendix A: IRB Consent Form 174
Appendix B: Focus Group Protocol 179
Appendix C: Focus Group Sample Data 181
Appendix D: Observation Data Collection Template 182
Appendix E: Observation Guide Sample Data 184
Appendix F: Interview Questions 185
Appendix G: Interview Sample Data 188
Appendix H: Research Methods Timeline 190
Appendix I: School Placement Information: School, Grade Level, 191
Cooperating Teacher Gender
Appendix J: Weekly Reflection Writing Prompts from Reading and 192
Writing Methods for Elementary Instruction
Appendix K: Weekly Reflection Sample Data 194
Appendix L: 2004 School Site Data from California Department of 196
Education Policy and Evaluation Division
Appendix M: Data Source by Participant 197

v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1: Literacy Teacher Effectiveness Categories by Theme, adapted 20
from Williams and Baumann (2008).

Table 3.1: Demographics by Participant 78
Table 3.2: Master Codes 94
Table 3.3: Categories 96
Table 4.1: Field Experiences: Codes, Frequencies, Percentages and Examples 110
Table 4.2: Preservice Teacher Theoretical Identity 114
Table 4.3: Related Pedagogy: Codes, Frequencies, Percentages and Examples 116
Table 4.4: Personal Literacy Experiences: Codes, Frequencies, Percentages 121
and Examples

Table 4.5: Type of Instruction Observed at 10 Minute Intervals 128
Table 4.6: Reflections on Curriculum and Classroom Literacy Practices: 147
Codes, Frequencies, Percentages and Examples

Table C.1: Focus Group Sample Data 181
Table E.1: Observation Guide Sample Data 184
Table G.1: Interview Sample Data 188
Table H.1: Research Methods Timeline 190
Table I.1: School Placement Information: School, Grade Level, Cooperating 191
Teacher Gender

Table K.1: Weekly Reflection Sample Data 194

Table L.1: 2004 School Site Data from California Department of Education 196
Policy and Evaluation Division

Table M.1: Data Source by Participant 197

vi
ABSTRACT
This study examined the field experiences, literacy experiences and
reflections of preservice teachers (PSTs) in relationship to development of their
instructional literacy practice. The objective was to establish a better understanding
how PSTs develop their instructional literacy practices. This is a qualitative study
using PSTs reflective journals, lesson-sharing feedback, transcripts from a focus
group and a series of personal interviews as well as in-classroom observations of
literacy related instruction as primary sources. Data were analyzed using
sociocultural theory guided by Rogoff’s (2003) three planes of learning and
development: the personal, the social and the community-institutional. The author
found the PST’s developing literacy practices were primarily influenced by their
early literacy experiences, their early field experiences, the literacy practices
observed from the cooperating teacher (CT) and, to a much lesser extent,
coursework. The CT was most influential where the PST had not articulated early
literacy learning experiences. In terms of lesson planning, the coursework was either
not referenced by the PSTs or acknowledged as potentially useful but difficult to
remember and look-up. This finding was most evident among those who did not
identify with their early learning experiences. Lesson planning overall was stressful
due to limited planning time, feedback and consulting with their CT. Overall, PSTs
with the weakest, or missing, articulation of early literacy memories were associated
with the weakest application of coursework and greatest reliance on the CT for
instructional literacy practices. Last, during the interviews and throughout their

vii
journals, the PSTs revealed their beliefs and values as related to literacy, to learning
and children’s abilities. Half of this data were related specifically to classroom
management. Implications for practice call for including structured, guided and
critical reflection in PST development. Capturing the learning experiences of PSTs
and deconstructing those experiences per best practices and current theory can
provide a base upon which PSTs can build their pedagogy (Hollingsworth, 1989;
Lortie, 1977; Wideen, Mayer-Smith & Moon, 1998). Vygotsky’s (1986) theory of
Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) asserts that learning can be scaffolded
through a learner’s collaboration with a more knowledgeable person. Thus, having a
routinized time for the CT and PST to meet and debrief allows for scaffolding.
Marxen and Rudney (1999) identified debriefing sessions as a key feature of PSTs
development in their study, where PSTs replaced their initial ideas with positive
knowledge and understanding. Lastly, Hollingsworth (1989) recommends that
classroom management knowledge be routinized – allowing PSTs to focus on their
content rather than on classroom management. Successful literacy teachers use a
variety of management routines, effectively increasing instruction time (Williams &
Baumann, 2008).

1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO STUDY
Introduction
The first one hundred days of the Bush administration were notably marked
by the signing into law of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). This Act
expanded federal involvement in education requiring annual testing, measuring
school effectiveness, establishing timelines for improvement and establishing
consequences in the case of failure (No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C.).
In the time since the implementation of NCLB, a culture of accountability has
pervaded nearly every aspect of the educational system, spawning new vigor for
educational reform.
In the world of educational reform, the U.S. Secretary of Education and
former chief executive officer of the Chicago public schools, Arne Duncan, identifies
dramatic change, such as replacing school leadership or staff, as a means of
establishing a new school culture (Duncan, 2009). Cities such as Washington, D.C.
are working for dramatic change in just the way Duncan describes. Since 2007 the
District’s reform-minded school chancellor, Michelle Rhee, has been working to
eliminate weak teachers from the classrooms and tie student achievement with
teacher compensation. If the effort is successful, it will be the first public school
system in the nation to use merit pay. Rhee’s approach represents the reform
movement’s belief in and reliance on data for decision making. If her reforms,
including merit pay, prove successful in raising student achievement, teacher

2
education programs could be next under the national microscope of educational
reform.
Current teacher education programs do not place great emphasis on
preservice teachers prior learning experiences, instead providing the learning
experiences believed necessary to teach. However, longstanding and mounting
evidence supports the idea that a preservice teacher’s (PST) learning experiences are
taken right into the classroom lesson book .This helps identify an area for further
study: Teachers’ learning experiences and their impact on instruction.
This dissertation examines the literacy experiences and reflections of six
preservice teachers as they progress through a reading methods course and student
teaching. According to Risko, Roller, Cummins, Bean, Block, Anders, and Flood
(2008) there is little research to guide the design of a reading teacher education
program. This paper hopes to add qualitative evidence to the conversation of what
elements are necessary in teacher education to prepare teachers for the classroom.
Background and Statement of the Problem
Accountability for educational outcomes is the rallying cry of policy makers
and has become institutionalized at a national level with the adoption of NCLB
(2002). Accountability begins at the classroom level, looking directly at how well
teachers instruct by examining student scores on standardized assessments. Arroyo,
Rhoad and Drew, (1999) identified teachers’ behavior, their expectations, and their
applications of curriculum as key factors associated with (student)
underachievement. In the Los Angeles Unified School District, students’ reading

3
scores (in 2000) placed them in the bottom third of the Stanford 9 nationally;
consequently, a highly scripted and paced content area curriculum was adopted
(Hefland, 2000). Thus it was hoped that the variable of teacher interpretation of
curriculum had been minimized and literacy would improve as a result.
In an extensive review of state policy evidence on teacher qualifications and
other school inputs related to student achievement, Linda Darling-Hammond (2000)
concluded teacher preparation and certification are by far the strongest correlates to
student achievement in reading and mathematics: “The most consistent highly
significant predictor of student achievement in reading and mathematics in each year
tested is the proportion of well-qualified teachers in a state” (p. 60). A 2003 report
from the International Reading Association’s National Commission on Excellence in
Elementary Teacher Preparation for Reading Instruction reviewed the impact of
quality teacher preparation on teaching effectiveness. Similar to the Darling-
Hammond study, the Commission found a connection between quality teacher
education and student outcomes in reading, “Teachers who are educated in quality
reading teacher preparation programs are more effective in creating a rich literacy
environment in their classrooms, preparing students to read, and engaging them in
reading than teachers who are not” (p. 6).
This dissertation study seeks to help teacher educators and cooperating
teachers understand how emergent educators develop their understanding of teaching
literacy. Based on sociocultural theory and consistent with other findings in the
research on teacher education, preservice teachers bring a host of preconceived ideas

4
about literacy and children’s learning to their credentialing programs as a result of
their prior knowledge and personal learning and school related experiences (Lortie,
1975; Zeichner & Liston, 1987). While enrolled in a teacher education program,
teacher candidates continue to learn and develop on the three planes described as
being critical aspects of sociocultural theory. How their experiences influence their
understandings of how to teach reading and writing is the focus of this study.
Before examining preservice teacher education field experiences it is
necessary to acknowledge what is presently known about learning and fieldwork,
preservice teachers and prior knowledge, and reading and writing instruction. It has
been documented that humans construct meaning through contextualized learning
(Rogoff, 2003); likewise, teachers’ beliefs and practices are influenced by their own
learning experiences, both formal and informal (Lortie, 1975; Pajares, 1992); the
study of theory and best practices alone do not produce effective teaching practices
(MacGillivray, Rueda, Monzo & Walker, 2001; Wideen, Mayer-Smith & Moon,
1998); preservice field experiences provide teachers with a highly contextualized
experiences capable of changing preservice teachers’ beliefs and practices (Goodman
& Fish); and field experience is capable of confirming and strengthening preservice
teachers’ negative stereotypes of culturally diverse classrooms (Wiggins & Follo,
1990; Wideen, Mayer-Smith & Moon, 1998).
In terms of reading, evidence suggests that teachers rely on the same methods
that they were taught to read with. In two related studies, MacGillivray, Rueda,
Monzo and Walker (2001) examined the early school and literacy experiences of

5
thirty-two Latina teachers and two Latina paraeducators. Both studies concluded that
current ideologies and teaching practices were influenced by early experiences,
formal education, mentors as well as resources and constraints in their work
environment. Their results emphasize the value of using a sociocultural lens to look
at teaching practices; where the past is considered alongside current circumstances.
What is not known is how field experiences and the development of an effective
teacher of reading and writing are related and how they are related for minority
students. There is a significant gap in the research relating to field experiences and
the development of an effective teacher of reading and writing.
Teacher effectiveness is a term whose definition eludes consensus. In a
comprehensive review of contemporary research examining elementary literacy
teachers, effective literacy teacher was defined as one who exhibits the greatest
ability to improve the literacy achievement of students (Williams & Baumann,
2008). In their review, Williams and Baumann identify four themes and 17
effectiveness categories. Their review suggests that achieving teacher effectiveness
involves a constellation of influences.
This dissertation captures significant aspects of six preservice teachers’
teacher education program and identifies early learning experiences, field experience
and course work as salient influences on how they practice literacy. Early learning
experiences are beyond the reach of teacher education programs, but these programs
can respond to early learning experiences and utilize those experiences to design

6
field experiences and coursework to maximize those early influences on teacher
practice.
This dissertation study contributes to the findings of Risko et al. (2008)
whose review of the literature lists a number of descriptive characteristics of
previous teacher education studies. Of 82 studies reviewed only five involved
graduate students, 9% occurred during one year or less, 19% were conducted by
observer-participants or an independent researcher. Of further relevance, 41% did
not report the gender of participants, 64% did not report race, and 70% did not report
ethnicity. When reported, two-thirds of the participants were white females. In
contrast, this present dissertation study was conducted by an independent researcher
with six graduate students, including two males and six minority students over a
period of three semesters. Each of those factors contributes to the case studies
described within.
Research Questions
This dissertation study will address the following questions:
1. What are the influences that inform preservice teachers’ instructional
literacy practice?
2. What are the instructional literacy practices of preservice teachers?
3. What do the reflections of preservice teachers reveal about their learning
experiences as student teachers?
These research questions developed from my experience as a field supervisor
where I frequently observed preservice teachers implement a lesson based on their

7
memories of how they themselves learned or on their interpretation of a lesson they
had observed a cooperating teacher deliver. My observations fueled my interest in
exploring how preservice teachers make sense of all they see and learn in teacher
education programs when considering their past experiences and knowledge of
teaching practices.
Theoretical Framework
From the sociocultural perspective (Vygotsky, 1978) both learning how to
teach and actual instructional practice are complex. These are historical and
sociocultural processes shaped by numerous factors that extend over time and have
occurred in diverse contexts. For the purposes of this dissertation, these processes
include the preservice teacher’s formal and informal learning experiences, including
early literacy experiences, fieldwork and student teaching.
Sociocultural theory recognizes the dynamic process of social participation
that contributes to the understandings of emergent educators. Sociocultural theory is
based on the work of Lev Vygotsky (1986) and has been elaborated by other scholars
including Barbara Rogoff (2003). As Rogoff describes, learning and development
occur on three inseparable planes. The personal plane involves individual cognition,
emotions, behaviors, values and beliefs. The social plane includes communication,
dialogue, assistance and assessment. The community-institutional plane includes
shared history, language, rules, values, beliefs and identities. The basic unit of
analysis for research using sociocultural theory must include activity setting as it
contains all three planes (Rogoff, 2003). The activity setting is the “who, what, when

8
where and why” of everyday life across the three planes. The construction of
meaning takes place within the activity setting (Rueda & Dembo, 1995).
There is an implicit presumption in describing the behaviors of others and in
the interpretation of their behaviors as seen through the lens of the researcher’s
reality which includes personal experiences and beliefs (Florio-Ruane & McVee,
2001). With this acknowledgement the researcher is aware that her own history as a
former classroom teacher and former teaching assistant in the very education
department where this study was conducted may have influenced data collection and
analysis of that data for this study.
Definition of Terms/ Definitions
Before reviewing the literature associated with this dissertation, it is
important to note the distinction between some key terms that will be utilized
throughout this study.
Blackboard: Blackboard is a Web-based course-management system
designed to allow students and faculty to participate in classes delivered online or
use online materials and activities to complement face-to-face teaching. Blackboard
enables instructors to provide students with course materials, discussion boards,
virtual chat, online quizzes, an academic resource center, and more. The degree to
which Blackboard is used in a course varies.
Cooperating Teacher (CT): A cooperating teacher is synonymous with master
teacher. A cooperating teacher serves as a mentor to a preservice teacher for a period
of observation and participation.

9
Coursework: The classes and content of those required classes that students
complete to achieve a desired degree.
Field experience: Field experience is used interchangeably with fieldwork; it
refers to the supervised time students spend inside a school classroom for the
purposes of observation and participation.
Field site: synonymous with placement. The location of the field experience
where a preservice teacher is “placed” for observation, participation and experiential
learning.
Guided Reflection: The reflection is completed in response to a prompt
determined by course instructors.
Instructional Practice: The practices and activities used for teaching. Used in
this paper instructional practice is associated with reading instruction or the practices
employed for the teaching of reading.
Lesson plan sharing and feedback: In the first semester of the Master of Arts
in Teaching MAT, the preservice teachers were responsible for writing and
delivering two lesson plans. Prior to teaching the lesson, the preservice teachers
posted their lessons online using Blackboard where their discussion group peers
would then review and provide feedback to the author(s) of the lesson plan.
Feedback guidelines provided by the fieldwork supervisor asked PSTs to provide
two written comments for each posted lesson. It was suggested that the two
comments be “one to grow on, and one to glow on.”

10
Literacy: Literacy includes any activity involving any stage or element of
reading and/or writing, not limited to language arts instruction.
Methods Course: A university course that focuses on teaching practical
methods as well as theory for application in a classroom setting. Typically directed at
a single subject such as reading.
Online reflective journal: The online reflective journals were “structured”
meaning that, they were a weekly assignment, with an assigned topic. In this study,
the reflections were weighted less than 10% of the overall course grade. The weekly
online journals were guided by a single question or statement determined by the
fieldwork supervisor. Using Blackboard’s discussion board feature the online
reflective journals were posted by the students themselves and available for other
members of their small group to view and comment on.
Practicum: The experiential learning component of a methods course.
Typically, preservice teachers are placed in a classroom with a learning objective and
assignments from the university course.
Preservice Teacher (PST): A preservice teacher is a student enrolled in a
teacher education program or professional development school but is not yet
teaching, nor credentialed.
Reading Instruction: the practices employed for the teaching of reading.
Reflection: An oral or written examination of an idea, a concept or action.
Considering it beyond the moment of experience, including the impact of the idea,
concept or action and the influences acting upon the idea, concept or action.

11
Reflective Practitioner: a teacher, at any level, who examines and critiques
his or her own experiences, assumptions and beliefs in terms of how they teach
(Friere, 1970).
Self Studies: Studies conducted by members of the teacher education
profession, typically a college or university professor as the primary investigator,
using their own students and courses for participants and subject matter.
Student Teaching: Typically the final phase in teacher education programs,
whrereby preservice teachers are placed with a cooperating teacher for a period of
apprenticeship.
Structured Reflection: An assigned reflection, with assigned topics and
frequency.
Teacher Candidate: Synonymous with Preservice Teacher.
Teacher Education: Teacher education is synonymous with teacher
preparation; it refers to both undergraduate and graduate programs that prepare
preservice teachers for the profession.
Assumptions and Limitations
The primary focus of this dissertation study is on the experience of preservice
teachers and how they come to understand teaching literacy in a teacher education
program. I bring a number of perspectives to this study that can be viewed as both
strengths and as weakness. I hold a Master’s of Arts in Teaching; I am a former
elementary school teacher, a former cooperating teacher and a former fieldwork

12
supervisor and teaching assistant in a teacher education program. I am white, middle-
class and a mother of three children.
As a result of each of the roles that I have played in the educational world, I
have come to recognize that teaching teacher candidates to teach reading and writing
is one of the most critical components of elementary school teacher education. From
my experiences of watching teacher candidates pass through teacher education
courses about literacy instruction, I have become increasingly curious how they
interpret it and use their instructional knowledge. In other words, I am curious to
know how they make sense of what they are taught in their teacher education
program and if they use it as an informant of their practice as an educator.
The six participants selected for this dissertation study include five who have
minority status, one of the participants is male and four are first generation American
of diverse descents. The size and duration of this dissertation study is characteristic
of similar qualitative studies and accordingly, may not be applicable to a wider
population. This study focuses on the experiences of teacher education students in
relation to their making sense of literacy instruction. This is not an evaluation of a
course of study or of a teacher education program. However, the findings from this
study may be used to enhance teacher education programs by identifying and
building upon the personal experiences of students as they learn.
Significance of Study
Many studies indicate that the most significant factor in student achievement
(namely literacy achievement) is an effective teacher (American Council on

13
Education, 1999; Bond & Dykstra, 1967; Darling-Hammond, 2000). Teacher
preparation programs include field experience, as mandated by most state
credentialing bodies. The role that pre-service field experiences play in contributing
to the development of an effective literacy teacher is poorly documented by teacher
education research.
To date, the majority of research on teacher education and literacy instruction
do not include minority participants. In a recent analysis of research on reading
teacher education, Risko et al. (2008) compiled statistics that support the importance
of this dissertation study. Of 82 studies reviewed by these scholars, only five
programs involved graduate students, 9% occurred during one year or less, 19%
were conducted by observer-participants or an independent researcher. Of further
relevance, 41% did not report the gender of participants, 64% did not report race, and
70% did not report ethnicity. When reported, two-thirds of the participants were
white females.
This present study was conducted with six graduate students, including two
males and six minority students over a period of three semesters. This study is
unique in that each of the participants do not conform to the stereotypical image of a
teacher, that of a white, middle-income female. Further, the female participants in
this study are all minorities, each participant is a graduate student, and the study
includes two male participants.
The results of this study provide teacher education programs and university
professors with a greater understanding of the way in which preservice teachers

14
develop an understanding of how to teach reading and writing, including the various
influences that impact that development. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) demands
accountability for student outcomes, including reading and writing. This look at
preservice teachers’ experiences contributes to the body of knowledge about the
interaction between PST’s early learning experiences, their coursework, and field
work in terms of instructional reading practices. Teacher education programs may
use these findings to evaluate current practices and courses. This study confirms
findings by other scholars that early literacy experiences do influence teachers use of
instructional practice (MacGillivray, Monzo, Rueda, & Walker, 2001; Street, 2003).
For example, literacy instruction remains an active influence on learners (students)
beyond the early years (Draper et al., 2000). Field placements are a significant factor
in the preservice teachers’ development (Goodman & Fish, 1997; Kauchak &
Burbank, 2003). Findings from other research have also included the observation that
preservice teachers had insufficient time for lesson planning and meeting with their
Cooperating Teacher, consequently, the reading course did not provide adequate
teaching experience for the student and there was a lack of emphasis on critical
reflection.
Chapter Organization
The remaining four chapters of this dissertation are organized as follows:
Chapter Two includes a review of the relevant literature upon which this
dissertation is based. The literature review is organized by three strands. The first
focuses on the research on field and course-based experiences and the use of

15
reflection in preservice teacher literacy education. The second strand examines what
is known about preservice teachers’ early literacy experiences and the impact of
these experiences on classroom instructional practices. Lastly, the third strand is a
broad look at preservice teachers and the process of learning and development.
Chapter Three addresses the design and methodology of the dissertation. Chapter
four presents the findings of the study and finally, chapter five discusses the findings
and makes recommendations for practice and for additional related research.

16
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
How teachers are prepared to teach reading is a multifaceted question. There
are a number of factors that must be considered in studying teacher preparation
including who the preservice teachers (PST) are, where they come from and their
own K-12 school experiences. Studying teacher preparation also encompasses the
teachings and experiences provided by the teacher education program.
This chapter will describe and critique literature related to the literacy
instruction experiences of preservice teachers. Beginning with a review of the
research on field and course based experiences and the use of reflection in preservice
teacher literacy education. Followed by a review of what is known about preservice
teachers’ early literacy experiences and the impact of these experiences on classroom
instructional practices. Lastly, the review takes a broad look at preservice teachers
and the process of learning and development.
Documentation
The research included in this literature review was collected using a
combination of databases including, the Educational Resources Information Center
(ERIC), Proquest, JSTOR, PsycINFO and Wilson Select databases. The keywords
used in the literature search were: teacher education, elementary, credentialing
programs, and field experience, reading instruction and writing instruction. Initial
searches were limited to refereed journals, printed in English, available either online,
or at the University of Southern California and were published after 1995. Secondary
searches were conducted using the phrases, teacher education and reading

17
instruction. After a reviewing the results of these early searches, the search was
expanded to include studies published prior to 1995 that made significant
contributions to the present body of knowledge or were the only qualified study on a
particular issue.
Introduction
Studies of teachers and of teacher education are well established, however,
the research on teacher preparation for reading instruction as it relates to preservice
teacher education is somewhat limited. A comprehensive review of the literature on
teacher preparation for reading instruction by Risko et al. (2008) identifies the
characteristics of studies that have collectively exposed gaps in this literature, such
as, the limited length of studies, studies where the role of the researcher is absent or
the work was a self-study, the majority of studies used an undergraduate population
and finally, participant demographics are frequently not included. As the list reveals,
the nature of these characteristics are primarily methodological or concerned with
reporting the findings. Risko, and her colleague’s identification of these limitations
and weaknesses from past studies concurs with the findings of the literature review
in this dissertation as well, further reiterating that continued study in this area is
needed and warranted.
In an inductive paradigmatic analysis of 82 empirical investigations on
teacher preparation for reading instruction, and subsequent meta-analysis, Risko et.
al. (2008) identifies limitations within the research on reading teacher education.
Risko et al. found that of the studies included for analysis, 41% did not report the

18
gender of the study participants. When gender was reported, two-thirds of
participants were females. In those studies that reported information on the
participant population, 64% reported race and 70% reported ethnicity.
Undergraduates proved to be the most popular population studied, with 90% of the
studies reviewed involving them, and followed by only 6% of studies reviewed
involving graduate students exclusively. The Risko review and critique found that
most studies were conducted in a methods course 41%; a methods course with
practicum, 27%; or in a practica with a single student, 10%. Most studies (53%) were
conducted during a single semester, 9% were conducted over two semesters, 4%
over three semesters and 6% over a two year or four semester period. The role of the
researcher was frequently not addressed (41%), while 31% of the researchers self-
identified as course instructors, and 19% as either participant/observer or
independent researcher. The most common research orientation was constructivist
(73%), followed by 22% sociocultural; the remainders were identified as coming
from a positivist/behaviorist perspective. Again, the Risko review (2008) echoes the
conclusions and criticisms found in this current review of the literature which state
that most of the studies in teacher education and reading instruction are among
elementary education certification programs, with an undergraduate population, in
reading methods courses, are limited to one semester and are conducted by the
course instructors.
These findings are relevant because this dissertation study addresses many of
the weaknesses that the Risko et al. outlines. This dissertation study involves a

19
diverse population of graduate students, including both male and female participants
from diverse racial and ethnic groups. This study encompasses three semesters of
study, including a methods course, a practicum and a semester of student teaching.
The current study is important in that it documents the experiences of minority
preservice students in a majority dominated field, as the field is changing. Teacher
education is adjusting to new demographics of both the student populations and the
growing numbers of diverse teacher candidates (Darling-Hammond, 2000).
In a teacher education study, Williams and Baumann (2008) identify what an
effective literacy teacher does. By examining 126 contemporary studies of
elementary literacy teachers which combined quantitative and qualitative studies
such as: numerical and categorical surveys, qualitative data from classroom
observations and interviews and quantitative data and basic inferential statistics; in
their study, Williams and Baumann established four themes and 17 effectiveness
categories. The term effective literacy teachers was defined as those who exhibited
the greatest ability to improve the literacy achievement of students. Table 2.1
highlights the terms and categories adapted from their work. Their work is relevant
here as this current study documents what preservice teachers are doing in terms of
literacy practice. The findings of this current study are potentially more useful when
viewed in light of what is known about effective literacy teachers.

20
Table 2.1: Literacy Teacher Effectiveness Categories by Theme, adapted from
Williams and Baumann (2008).

Theme Theme label
Teacher Philosophy
Representing teacher’s beliefs
about students learning and
their own learning.
1. maintain high expectations for all students
2. believe that learning is social and structure their
classrooms and lessons accordingly. (ex, limiting the
time devoted to whole-group instruction)
3. Valued and fostered student independence (ex.,
guiding students to self-regulate their own learning).
Instructional Practices
Characterizes how effective
elementary literacy teachers
construct and implement a
rich literacy teaching
environment.
1. employ various strategies and were clear about how
different strategies worked, able to provide a rationale
for their choice of different practices
2. use multiple materials. Ex., materials from other
content areas and theme units used to reinforce and
illustrate key literacy concepts.
3. use explicit instruction, including direct explanation,
modeling, guided practice and independent practice.
4. use integrated instruction by connecting across the
language arts or across content areas.
5. were familiar with multiple forms of assessment.
6. often employed small-group instruction.
Engagement practices
Demonstrate how effective
elementary literacy teachers
connect with students and
support their learning.
1. use motivation and praise to tap internal motivation,
praise was specific.
2. design a supportive environment, ex., with areas for
reading, exploring, and cooperative learning. With
student access to materials.
3. The prominent display of student work.
4. rich talk between student and teacher, rather than a
classroom dominated by teacher talk.
5. uses a variety of management routines, establishing
daily routines and student responsibilities.
Personal qualities
The affective dimensions of
teaching. Not specific to
literacy instruction.
1. Compassion and empathy, taking a personal interest
in their students and are sensitive to students needs.
2. instructional adaptability, to adapt instructional
practices to individual students needs. Organized and
prepared for lessons and adapted lesson plans as needs
arose.
3. demonstrate enthusiasm about reading and writing by
sharing their interests or communicating their own
value of reading and writing.

21
Williams and Bauman (2008) have itemized what effective literacy teachers
do in the classroom. As seen in Table 2.1, they outline a long list of traits, activities
and practices that produce a textured image of a teacher which is not limited to one
dimension of teaching. The themes capture the philosophy, instructional practices,
engagement practices and personal qualities associated with an effective literacy
teacher. Williams and Bauman’s findings highlight the complexity of good teaching.
The use of reflection as a tool for growth and development is a common
feature of teacher education programs but a term that is frequently without a clear
definition and thus, one that remains without a clear means of assessment (Rodgers,
2000). Without a clear definition of what reflection is or how it is done, the results of
reflection are muted by its very inexactness and suffer lost value within the field.
Preservice teacher beliefs have been the topic of change studies. Most of
these studies seek to document how that change occurred for a group of preservice
teachers; not necessarily how or for what duration and under what circumstances.
This review does include some studies that document a shift in various beliefs
associated with teaching but does not focus on the concept of shift in belief or
change in belief. Change or a shift in beliefs associated with teaching is not the
intention of the current study, only to consider that from a sociocultural perspective,
teaching practice must on some level be influenced by the beliefs of preservice
teachers.
For decades teachers have been studied and the experience of becoming a
professional and transitioning into the workplace has been documented by various

22
stages and phases in the field research, some of that scholarship has attempted to
chronologically lock-step stages while others have discerned more fluid development
that can co-exist in multiple stages. A representation of these studies is included here
to illustrate that point.
Field and Course Based Experiences and the Use of Reflection
In this section, I explore the various ways field experience, coursework and
the use of reflection have been shown to exert influence on a preservice teacher’s
development of learning how to teach literacy and of literacy instruction. These
studies are predominately self-studies, with limited or no descriptions of the field
placements, most with incomplete demographic data on the participants and among
those that reference reflection, all lacking definitions of reflection and detailed
information regarding the use of reflection.
Field and Course Based Experience
In an extensive review of the literature on preparing teachers for diverse
populations, Hollins and Guzman (2005) found that studies of field experience
lacked sufficient descriptions of field placements including a description of the
setting, the assignments or activities that the preservice teachers participated in, or
how the teacher education program and the field experience aligned, furthermore, the
studies did not outline the roles of those monitoring the experience such as an
instructor, a supervisor or a cooperating teacher. The same critiques are consistent
for the studies reviewed in this section.

23
In one of the few studies to include three semesters of data collection
Nierstheimer, Hopkins, Dillon and Schmitt (2000) followed 67 undergraduate
students (60 female, 7 male) in a reading methods course and practicum. The
purpose of their study was to document PSTs knowledge before and after
participation in a reading methods course designed to challenge the PSTs
preconceptions of struggling literacy learners. Using a Constructivist theoretical
framework, a cross-case and within-case analysis, and multiple data sources
(including questionnaires, videotaping, written response, interviews, small group
discussions, observations and artifacts) the authors found that the beliefs the
undergraduates held about the children they tutored shifted as their own sense of
responsibility changed.
As part of their coursework in a corrective reading methods course, the
preservice teachers tutored a student once a week, for 75 minutes over a period of
twelve weeks, receiving feedback from a supervisor and from peers. At the start of
the study preservice teachers reported that elementary children’s reading problems
were not their responsibility and were caused by sources outside the school. After
participating in the course and designing a lesson plan portfolio for the tutored
student, preservice teachers shifted in their beliefs toward accepting responsibility
for helping children with reading problems.
At the start of the study, 50% of the preservice teachers identified various
home influences as a factor for why some children experience difficulty with
reading, while 49% identified ineffective teaching. In addition, 47% said inadequate

24
learning strategies were also to blame. After the course, the preservice teachers were
less likely to state that the child they had been tutoring had learning, physiological,
or psychological problems (36% compared to 58% at the beginning). Features of the
Reading Recovery professional development model were used in the tutoring
component of the course and are credited as a primary factor in the preservice
teachers’ shifts in knowledge and belief. Reading Recovery is a supplementary
education program.
Without addressing the past learning experiences of PSTs, this study
established a baseline of preservice teachers’ attitudes and knowledge regarding
student abilities and performance. The authors demonstrate that a shift in both is
possible. The features of the Reading Recovery professional development model is
credited by the authors as being a primary factor in the preservice teachers abilities
to select appropriate instructional practices for their tutoring students and focus on
their needs. These results suggest that it is possible to shift knowledge and attitudes
without directly examining past experience. Second, a reading program can be
influential in the shift. More information about the Reading Recovery program is
needed to understand how it influenced the shift in knowledge and belief among
these students and to determine if the shift in knowledge and attitude can be held
over time or is sustainable using a different reading program. In addition,
Nierstheimer et al, (2005) do not provide placement data on the tutored students or
their school site, providing only the gender and number of undergraduates in the
study, and lastly, the type and frequency of feedback provided to the PSTs is not

25
described. The study is significant because these results run counter to the results of
Pajares (1992) landmark study and the theories of Vygotsky (1986) and Rogoff
(2003), who describe the interaction between the personal and social planes of
experience.
In a study designed to better understand the development of literacy beliefs
and change processes in PSTs with reading specializations Linek, Sampson, Raine,
Klakamp and Smith (2006) found that cognitive dissonance and self-reflection are
credited with a shift in literacy beliefs. Using a descriptive case study model, the
researchers followed eight European-American, female, preservice teachers with
reading specializations in their final year of school across two field placements in
elementary public schools. The data includes results from the Philosophical
Orientation to Literacy Learning (POLL), a semi-structured, open-ended
questionnaire administered before, midway and at the conclusion of the year long
experience. Other data sources were a pre and post questionnaire, guided written
reflections, lesson plans and formal interviews with the course instructors. Students
shifted in their beliefs on literacy instruction from the starting point to new points by
the end. Students’ definitions of a good reader doubled from the start to the end
point; by mid point they were having realizations from their experiences. By the end
it was clear that the experiences created cognitive dissonance, which was a main
trigger for the observable shifts, as was success with a strategy or concept. The
researchers operated on the idea that self-reflection is essential to shifts in beliefs
(Linek et al., 2006). The instructors of the students cited the guided reflections for

26
pushing understanding and challenging the students’ thinking. The reflections asked
students to identify what did or did not work, to analyze why and to project what
should change for the next time. Linek et al. provide information on their school
context and the field placements. The study, although a self-study where teacher
educators carried out research on their own practice, did have two outside
researchers, and an outside research assistant, a feature uncommon among the self-
studies reviewed here. Their study extends across multiple courses and two separate
field placements. The courses are briefly described provided a thin context for their
field placements.
The study emphasizes the role of disequilibrium as essential in the shift of
beliefs; early in their field experiences the preservice teachers said that the teaching
experiences had caused disequilibrium in their thinking but later, the source of the
disequilibrium was thought to be a result of the critical reflection. They do not
enumerate the number of reflections or state whether they were graded, but do
provide the content of the prompts. The study has multiple data sources and a well
documented methodology that contribute to the well-substantiated conclusion.
In a two-part study Knudson and Maxson (2001) followed nine preservice
teachers enrolled in a beginning reading methods course. Over a fifteen week period
the preservice teachers accumulated ten hours of field experience, of those, five had
to be in a 1-3 grade classroom observing beginning reading instruction. Using
questionnaires completed at the start and end of the fifteen week period, and by
analyzing at least four assignments, including their lesson plans and the final

27
examination of the nine reading methods students, it was apparent that these students
had assimilated much new information about literacy instruction and demonstrated
positive changes in their attitudes and beliefs. The three strongest students were the
most successful in assimilating new information into their existing schema for
reading.
What is most notable in this study is that the researchers acknowledge that
the students each began the reading methods course with different levels of ability, at
different starting points and measured knowledge growth as a result of experience
rather than change. The students identified the exam as a good learning experience
and as a good foundation for a beginning course. The concept of acknowledging
experience as a key component of knowledge growth vs. expecting change as a pre-
requisite for knowledge growth is unique to this study.
The Knudson and Marxen (2001) study begins by validating the knowledge
students bring with them by documenting it with a questionnaire. It provides a
reference point to measure future growth. Experience is identified as the source of
growth in the students. There is no measure for how the “successful” students were
identified, and the authors do not describe the field sites or how the remaining hours
of field experience could be spent. The basis for this study’s relevance here is that it
acknowledges that preservice teachers arrive with different levels of ability and
understanding and attempts to meet preservice teachers where they were. In this
current dissertation study, the individuality of the preservice teachers’ own
experiences prior to entering their teacher education program is central to the

28
dissertation questions; they too arrived with different levels of ability and
understanding. My study examines how this impacts their instructional practice.
Using an approach called “teaching against the grain” that uses a social
equity perspective by Marilyn Cochran-Smith (1991), Goodman and Fish (1997)
“explored the ways elementary preservice teachers experienced coursework and
early field experience designed to foster a commitment to teach in a socially and
pedagogically progressive manner” (p. 96). They collected interview data from
fifteen graduate students from diverse backgrounds. The students in this study were
enrolled in a Master’s of Arts in Teaching (MAT) Program that emphasized teachers
as curriculum makers using integrated, socially constructed knowledge. The field
component of the program provided students with a realistic context to practice and
learn in. Several students, who did not initially express a commitment to social
equity, either built it into their lesson plans in later field experiences or expressed it
in their final term paper.
Goodman and Fish (1997) concluded that the fieldwork and coursework
either affirmed previously held beliefs or provided a new way of viewing the
education of children. The authors speculate that the quality and locale of sites
defined student experiences significantly. Interestingly, a student’s growth was either
greatly enhanced or limited according to the practicum site and the cooperating
teacher assigned to the student. In some cases the cooperating teacher gave the
student the choice of topic to teach, whereas in other cases, the cooperating teacher
told the student what was to be taught. In a particular case, a student was able to

29
negotiate with the cooperating teacher what the student would teach. Aside from the
cooperating teachers’ level of involvement, Goodman and Fish did not articulate
what characteristics differentiated practicum site success. As noted earlier, the lack
of detailed information on field placements in studies of field placements is
problematic (Hollins & Guzman, 2005). Here Goodman and Fish draw attention to
the inequalities among placements, exposing a need for greater transparency.
From the coursework component of the Goodman and Fish study, (1997)
some insight into the preservice teacher coursework experience can be gained from
the experiences of one student, “Art.” Within the confines of the MAT courses Art
became a visible influence upon the experiences and perceptions of the other MAT
students in his classes. He often took a dissenting or critical perspective in class
discussions, to the extent that others admittedly stopped participating and
complained of his habits. In a public altercation with the instructor Art complained
that the instructor did not teach as the program professed. As a result of this
exchange, other students withdrew further from discussion, agreeing that the
instructor failed to teach as he was instructing them to.
Not all preservice teachers’ learning is limited to the coursework or field
experiences of their program alone. Goodman and Fish (1997) leave many
unanswered questions but document obvious truths that are typically ignored in these
studies, such as the discrepancies in quality among field placements. Goodman and
Fish’s results show field experience as uneven and complex. Their study documents
that fieldwork and coursework can both affirm previously held beliefs or provide

30
new ways of viewing the education of children. Goodman and Fish attribute the field
placement with determining the outcome.
In one of few studies that tracked preservice teachers through their entire
teacher education program, Groulx (2001) surveyed 112 preservice teachers entering
and completing their professional development school project. The purpose of the
study was to compare the preservice teachers’ perceptions of urban, minority schools
at the beginning and completion of teacher preparation. The participants were ninety-
eight percent European American and eighty-nine percent female. Groulx’s findings
confirm that field experiences influence preservice teachers’ perceptions of what
they consider to be a desirable place to teach. In the initial survey, nearly one third of
the preservice teachers rated suburban or private schools at the top of the scale for
work interest and comfort levels. The post-program survey showed considerable
shifts in interest and comfort levels; the preservice teachers who had spent the most
time teaching in urban, minority schools felt more positive and efficacious about
teaching in those settings. These preservice teachers tended to be in the elementary
grades. Due to the availability of placements, music and secondary program students
were placed exclusively in suburban student teaching placements. The preservice
teachers placed in the suburban school placements did not experience the same shifts
in interest or comfort levels regarding urban, minority schools. In debriefing
sessions, the music and secondary preservice teachers shared that they couldn’t
imagine the schools described in the survey, their experience with urban, minority
schools was so limited. For those without sufficient urban, minority school

31
experience, these results suggest that preservice teachers without sufficient
experiences in urban, minority schools are not only unprepared or unwilling to face
the challenges of urban schools but their sense of efficacy and comfort levels are
lower. Reflections and practices were not considered as part of this study; however,
the authors acknowledge how vital the role of reflection is in the continuity between
espoused beliefs and actual practices (Groulx, 2001). This study is significant as it
documents the preservice teachers’ feeling of being more positive and efficacious
about teaching in an urban, minority environment, it provides participant
demographics as well as describes the difference between placements as a link to
results.
With the stated purpose of investigating how the individual knowledge and
beliefs of two minority teacher candidates influenced their experiences within a
teacher education program Kauchak and Burbank (2003) linked the teachers’ beliefs
with their practice. The two teacher candidates were interviewed before and after the
teacher education program regarding their views about teaching and diversity in
addition to completing assignments designed to identify the interplay between belief
systems and how those beliefs manifest in instructional practice. The two preservice
teachers selected for the study were chosen on the basis of their cultural and
linguistically distinct backgrounds.
Despite participating in the same year-long program, the two candidates
expressed considerably different views on curriculum, management and diversity.
The researchers identified possible reasons for the differences in outcome as their

32
different backgrounds, their match with students’ cultures, personal beliefs, having
different content area specializations and being at different professional development
stages. Aside from their many differences, the authors identified the student teaching
placement in an urban, minority school as a significant factor in both of the teachers’
development. This study is a small example of how even under the same
circumstances of sharing a field placement and teacher education program, the
individual preservice teacher is a formidable variable and the impact of individuality
will vary accordingly. These results diminish the influence of the teacher education
program. Kauchak and Burbanks (2003) narrow focus on two teacher candidates
allowed them to provide detail on each candidates experience but the study failed to
report contextual program information including how many minorities were enrolled
in the teacher education program only noting that the secondary education majors
investigated areas relating to culturally and ethnically diverse students. However, the
field placements were described in detail.
Not every teacher preparation program has local access to fieldwork
placements in urban, minority schools. At the University of Minnesota, Morris
(UMM), a small, rural campus where students of color make up only 11% of the
population students were bused into urban Chicago schools for an intensive one-
week field experience where European-American students are the minority (Marxen
& Rudney, 1999). The study examined the impact of an urban field experience on 25
preservice teachers, 22 female, three male.

33
Data were collected from daily debriefings, interviews, and two reflective
essays written in response to the Chicago field experience. The second of the two
reflections was written six months after the experience and revealed what students
remembered and what learning they attributed to the experience. Marxen and
Rudney (1999) found that initial student perceptions were replaced by positive
cultural knowledge and understanding. The daily debriefing sessions and the
reflective writing assignments were credited by the authors for much of the student’s
success. There was one student who did not experience a perceptual change: this
student went into the experience with negative perceptions which were then
reinforced by the experience. The authors speculate that the student had selective
perception (Haberman, 1991) that allowed her to enter the classroom with a set of
beliefs, and then perceive situations which supported those beliefs. What makes this
individual’s experience salient is that with early identification or prior screening, the
individualized needs of the student may have been addressed differently with
positive results rather than reinforcing the negative perceptions. Also, despite
debriefing sessions and reflective writing, her negative perceptions were reinforced.
Extending the first study, Marxen and Rudney (1999) followed-up with six
participants from the Chicago experience. Three were teaching in urban
environments with diverse populations and three were teaching in rural communities.
Using interviews, Marxen and Rudney found that the three working with diverse
populations were able to transfer the knowledge and skills learned from the Chicago
experience to their current work setting. The remaining three teaching in rural

34
communities spoke of having an open mind and of no longer racially stereotyping
people. Prior to the experience, the PSTs had expressed stereotypes including, a
deficit perspective of the families and student abilities of inner city residents and
concerns of school violence, and classroom behavior problems.
The authors concluded that where diversity was perceived, the UMM
students applied the Chicago experiences whereas, where no diversity was perceived,
the UMM students did not perceive multicultural education as a priority. The authors
provide detailed descriptions of the fieldwork settings and follow-up on the
application of the preservice teachers’ learning in their professional environments as
teachers. The study is a self-study where the authors were the course instructors and
the researchers. In the context of this dissertation study, Marxen and Rudney’s
results are valuable. Their single case of “selective perception” can serve as a
cautionary tale to teacher educators who strive to provide new experiences for their
preservice teachers in the name of educating them. Perceptions can be reinforced, the
negative as well as the positive despite the use of reflection and debriefings.
Secondly, the learning associated with the Chicago experience did have a lasting
influence on the preservice teachers supporting the idea that field experience
influences practice.
In a similar study that examined field placements in culturally diverse
settings, Wiggins and Follo (1999) investigated the impact of their program on the
commitment of undergraduates to teach in a culturally diverse setting.
Undergraduates at Oakland University were enrolled in an elementary education

35
program and spent a total of thirty hours in both urban and suburban placements. Of
the 123 first and second year undergraduate participants, 4.4% were minorities, 86%
were female. Data was collected using questionnaires and interviews. The students
reported they were well prepared to teach in culturally diverse classrooms, however,
they did not feel comfortable in cultural settings other than their own despite their
field experiences in two urban and two suburban settings. Factors that foster
readiness to teach in culturally diverse classrooms were related to experience, but
factors that constrain readiness to teach were not related. In fact, although increased
experience was related to ability to teach in diverse settings, it did not affect the
students’ desire or commitment to teach in those settings. Contrary to Groulx (2001)
whose study showed those who were not placed in urban minority settings were not
at all ready or willing to teach there, Wiggins and Follo (1999) found placement
made little difference in the students’ readiness to teach. This suggests that it takes
more than exposure in a classroom. Indeed, Wiggins and Follo went on to speculate
that the experiences might negatively impact the students’ commitment to teach in
culturally diverse settings. Unlike the Marxen and Rudney (1999) and Groulx studies
where debriefings and reflections were features of the preservice teachers’
experience, the Oakland preservice teachers did not have either as part of their
experience. Both the Marxen and Rudney, and Groulx studies noted shifts in beliefs
following field placements in urban, minority schools. They both used debriefings
and written reflections combined with an urban, minority field placement. The
combination appears to be a successful one for increasing teaching efficacy among

36
preservice teachers and developing more favorable attitudes towards teaching in
urban, minority settings. Wiggins and Follo’s (1999) results contradict the findings
of Groulx (2001) and Marxen and Rudney (1999), but the former researchers did not
employ the same methods, namely, reflection and debriefing. The authors’ work
does provide us with an example of what happens when reflection and debriefings
are not used, strengthening the case for using reflection and debriefings.
Using a different approach from Wiggin and Follo (1999), Groulx (2001) or
Marxen and Rudney (1999), Bondy and Davis (2000) looked at White, middle-class,
elementary preservice teachers in an early field experience in a culturally unfamiliar
setting. By looking at one-on-one tutoring versus a more traditional field placement,
Bondy and Davis (2000) concluded that compared to the fieldwork placements of
preservice teachers in classrooms with a cooperating teacher, a one-on-one tutoring
experience expanded the preservice teachers’ ability to “seek information, negotiate
plans, take the child’s perspective, withhold judgment, see strengths, and stick with
it…(serving) as access points to the concepts, values, and skills of culturally relevant
teaching” (p. 62). The study analyzed interviews of nine participants, all European-
American, two were male, and seven were female.
Despite initial negative perceptions of students, Bondy and Davis (2000)
found that through a community based tutoring program, preservice teachers gained
experience that resulted in attitudinal change and better relations with students.
Preservice teachers were able to overcome initial negative ideas by working closely
with a single student over a period of ten weeks. The authors attribute this change to

37
a number of factors; the strongest of which is the building of a relationship between
two people. Another explanation may be that these successful changes were the
result of coursework laying the foundations for approaching new and challenging
situations. For example, the preservice teachers stated that a number of factors
enabled them to respond to the student with culturally relevant teaching including the
use of the resources available to seek further information on the student, seeing the
situation from the student’s perspective, and acknowledging the student’s strengths.
The study’s strength is limited by its narrow data source, two interviews with each
participant; furthermore this study is useful in the context of this literature review as
an example a non-traditional field placement. A strength of this study is that the
authors outline the concurrent course enrollment of the preservice teachers where
tutoring was often discussed. This study is significant because the preservice
teachers were found to overcome initial negative ideas; however. the strength and
longevity of the shift is not known.
In a field experience study investigating the differences in reflections of
preservice teachers’ teaching effectiveness, Willard-Holt and Bottomley (2000)
found the preservice teachers’ amount and quality of reflection related to their
effectiveness teaching in the field experience. Twelve preservice teachers at the end
of their junior year participated in a unique field experience known as Kids College.
The preservice teachers developed their own interdisciplinary units for multi-age
groups; they were responsible for instructional materials, classroom management,
instruction and assessment. The camps operated for one week, three hours a day, five

38
days a week. With a hope that new perceptions would emerge, the participants wrote
daily reflective journals where they reconstructed and interpreted their experiences
and understandings. The preservice teachers’ effectiveness was measured by
observing professors using a Likert scale form. Willard-Holt and Bottomley (2000)
found that the more effective preservice teachers’ daily reflections were of a higher
quality, reflecting on problem-solving difficulties, trying out potential solutions, and
focused on the dynamics of the classroom. The least effective preservice teachers’
reflections focused on themselves and identified personal traits that hindered their
success.
Willard-Holt and Bottomley concluded that the field experience was
enhanced by the preservice teachers’ ownership of curriculum and instructional
decision making. However, the authors identify that the real factor for individual
success was the amount and quality of reflection engaged in by the preservice
teacher. This indicates that “systematic, guided instruction in reflectivity and
instructional problem solving in field settings may be crucial to the development of
teaching effectiveness.” (p. 86)
The logistics of the camp schedule are unclear; it is not possible to determine
if each preservice teacher had equal time with the students or how the pairs worked
together. The use of a Likert scale improves the integrity of the observations among
the professors and creates a standard for effectiveness. The study’s weaknesses
include its limited description of the participants, the general reference to “guided

39
reflection” as a factor in teacher effectiveness but no description or definition of the
guided reflections.
The Use of Reflection in Preservice Literacy Education
Dewey (1933) wrote that reflective thinking should inform future action, be
informed by evidence and should involve open-mindedness, responsibility, and
wholeheartedness. Since that time a great amount of thought has been focused on
what is involved in open-mindedness, responsibility and wholeheartedness, with
many academics attempting to define reflection and what it might ultimately mean.
This ambiguity is apparent in research on the teaching of reading instruction to
preservice teachers as the definition of reflection and its use are still not always clear.
Rodgers (2002) cautions there are problems associated with the lack of a
clear definition of reflection. Rodgers outlines these questions: First, how does
systematic reflection differ from other forms of thought; second, what is evidence of
reflective thought and practice; third, there is a lack of a common language regarding
reflection, is reflection the same as inquiry or critical thinking and metacognition;
lastly, how can research investigate the effects of reflection on teacher education and
professional development or its impact on teachers’ practice and student learning?
Indeed, there is a large and established body of literature surrounding reflection. In
an environment where measurable learning takes priority, the value of reflection can
be dismissed because nobody knows what to look for (Rodgers, 2002). As an
illustration of a variety of ways reflection is represented, one need look no further

40
than some limited selections from the work of Schön, (1983), Liston and Zeichner
(1991), van Manen (1977), and Korthage (2001).
As a means of improving their practice, Schön (1983) urged teachers to
reflect on issues and contexts that may affect the core of their practice. Schön
identified two types of reflection, the first, is engaging in reflection before or after an
action, “reflection-on-action”. This form of reflecting includes planning ahead as
well as looking back on one’s practices. The second, “reflection-in-action” is
reflection in the moment, reflection that actually guides decision making in real time.
For example, while teaching a lesson, reflection-in-action allows for an adjustment to
the action of teaching.
Liston and Zeichner (1996) categorize five traditions of reflection, each one
stresses a different feature of teaching and represents different beliefs of what
teachers should emphasize in their learning and practice. Liston and Zeichner
recognize that with the proliferation of interest in and use of reflection, there is often
little resemblance between one act of reflection to another. The academic tradition
focuses on subject matter reflection or what is being taught. The social efficiency
tradition focuses on the application of teaching strategies suggested by the research
on teaching. The developmentalist tradition examines the student’s needs, interests,
and motivations to understand the best teaching strategies. The social
reconstructionist tradition focuses on the social and political context of schooling and
the assessment of classroom actions for their ability to enhance equity, justice and
more humane conditions. Finally, the generic concept of reflection encourages

41
reflection without much attention to how the subject reflects or what they reflect
upon, without attention to the quality or substance of that thinking.
Van Manen (1977) describes three forms of reflection: “Technical reflection”
which assumes a set of agreed upon goals and involves consideration of means for
reaching those goals; “Practical reflection” which considers and questions both goals
and means; and “Critical reflection” which considers moral and ethical implications
of actions and events. Van Manen notes that most preservice teachers focus on issues
related to technical reflection (i.e. state mandates, class routines, procedures) when
not encouraged to reflect otherwise.
Korthagen (2001) proposed a process of reflection in their realistic teacher
education program that is based on the ALACT model (named after the first letter of
the five phases): (1) Action, (2) Looking back on the action, (3) Awareness of
essential aspects, (4) Creating alternative methods of action and (5) Trial. ALACT is
an inductive approach to reflection that vacillates between experiences and reflection
and builds on the prospective teachers’ own thinking and perceptions, their needs
and concerns. According to Kothagen, using reflection as a means to support
learning is based on the assumption that prospective teachers need to develop a
process of problem solving, since it is impossible to prepare teacher candidates for
every scenario they will experience throughout their careers as teachers. The goal is
to teach reflection to develop self-directed learners with teaching efficacy and a
professional identity.

42
Summary and Synthesis of the Research on Field and Course Based
Experiences and Reflection
There was great commonality among these studies. Almost universally, they
do not report detailed data on the participants, with the exception of Linek et al.
(2006), where detailed information is reported on nearly every aspect of critique
which the other studies failed to address; most are self-studies. Regularly these
studies do not provide even minimal data on the participants. Descriptions of field
sites are routinely reduced to “elementary school” or “diverse”. Studies that relied
on field placements for data routinely omitted descriptions of the classrooms, the
cooperating Teacher, mention of supervision and the nature of course assignments or
why the placement was selected. As found in a meta-analysis by Risko et al. (2008),
and Hollins and Guzman’s literature review of studies on preparing teachers for
diverse populations, these are standard omissions from reading teacher education
research and teacher education research in general. In terms of the use of reflection,
the literature reviewed is lacking in both definitions of reflection and means of
assessing reflection. The effect leaves the field void of any meaningful use of
reflection.
Other findings from this review suggest that when combined with guided
reflection, the foundation of coursework prior to fieldwork is beneficial in creating
disequilibrium and resulting in positive shifts in beliefs among preservice teachers.
The quality of field placements varies and is definitive of the field experience.
Within field placements, the setting of the placement (urban, suburban, culturally

43
diverse), the level of commitment from the cooperating teacher, the duration and the
type of placement (placed as a pair or as a single preservice teacher in one
classroom, or one-on-one tutoring, i.e. traditional or non-traditional) are all factors in
the preservice teachers’ development. The experience of a field placement increases
a preservice teacher’s readiness to teach in culturally diverse settings but not their
desire to teach in a culturally diverse setting. Both the field experience and the use of
reflection each can increase knowledge and create a shift in beliefs, replacing initial
perceptions with real experiences. Reflection contributes to the longevity of learning
outcomes that result from a field experience learning.
Each characterization of reflection reviewed here uses experience to promote
learning and improve practice. The use of reflection can generate hypotheses and
alternative actions. Having a model for reflection provides teacher educators a means
by which to assess preservice teachers’ reflections. In the studies reviewed in this
dissertation which use reflections as a data source (Linek, Sampson, Raine, Kakamp
& Smith, 2006; Marxen & Rudney, 1999; Willard-Holt & Bottomley, 2000; Street,
2003), only one, Willard-Holt and Bottomley, identifies a means for assessing the
quality of the reflections or defined what is meant by “guided reflection”. The
studies all mined the reflections for content but stopped the analysis there. Willard-
Holt and Bottomley use levels of reflectivity using categories developed by Ross
(1989) to specifically identify the amount and quality of analytical reflection as a key
factor among the more effective PSTs noting their reflections were more analytical

44
and problem-solving oriented. However, the authors did not relate why those few
preservice teachers engaged in more analysis and problem solving.
These conclusions and the noted weaknesses of these studies and are
consistent with a critical analysis of the research on learning to teach by Wideen,
Mayer-Smith and Moon (1998). They found that of 93 empirical studies examined,
most recommend the value of students examining their beliefs, and that the programs
should then build upon those beliefs. They concluded that the preservice teachers
hold a variety of ideas about teaching and learning and traditional programs were
found to have little effect upon the firmly held beliefs of beginning teachers. They
also found that cooperating teachers and supervisors are influential, and the faculty
of the university is virtually non-existent in the research on the student teaching
phase of teacher education. Faculty members figured nominally if at all in the studies
on field experience. Student teachers want to get a good grade in their program,
resulting in minimal risk taking. At the same time teacher educators want this time to
be one of practice and applying their theory. The authors critiqued the studies
examined for being self-studies, conducted by the teacher educators themselves and
for lacking comparative studies and quantitative analysis. In addition, they lacked
alternate explanations for their findings, and did not acknowledge bias or the
possibility of self-fulfilling prophecy in their work.
“Field placements” as a subject for study within teacher education research is
due greater emphasis. The studies reviewed here rarely contextualized the field sites
within a community, a city or population. These studies did not address the teaching

45
philosophies or orientations of the teacher education program studied or of the host
sites. When context is thin or missing it directs attention, perhaps disproportionately,
away from potentially informative data.
Early Literacy Experiences
Beliefs and Attitudes
Beliefs about teaching begin to form very early and are well established by
the time students enter college (Lortie, 1975). In this section I examine what is
known about preservice teachers and their early literacy experiences. The discussion
of the early experiences of teachers, preservice or in-service alike, frequently
includes the discussion of belief and the impact of belief on practice. This discussion
is not meant to be exhaustive of the account of beliefs but rather, merely illustrative
of the potential magnitude it represents framed within teacher education.
In a landmark sociological study of teachers and teaching, Lortie (1975) took
a multifaceted approach to his research. He used a historical review, national and
local surveys, direct observation and interviews collected in the 1960’s and 70’s as
data. He introduced the term “Apprenticeship of Observation”, referring to the
experience of school students observing the teaching profession for many years
before they become a member of the same profession, teaching. Lortie’s oft cited
term, “Apprenticeship of Observation” was used in his book Schoolteacher. By the
time a teacher earns a teaching credential they will have had approximately sixteen
years of observing the teaching profession as a student. “What students learn about
teaching is intuitive and imitative rather than explicit and analytical; it is based on

46
individual personalities rather than pedagogical principals” (Lortie, 1975, p. 67).
There are limitations to the Apprenticeship of Observation; the student sees the
teacher from a limited viewpoint, and the student’s participation is extremely limited,
the student is unaware of a pedagogical orientation; students assess teachers from a
personal and student-bases vantage point. Lortie cautions that these conditions of
transfer are not conducive to informed criticism, attention to specifics or explicit
rules of assessment (Lortie, 1975). He concluded that ‘training in pedagogy does not
seem to fundamentally alter earlier ideas about teaching” (p. 79). Without a method
of intervention between teachers’ schooling experiences, their beliefs and teacher
education, Lortie’s conclusion places a significant emphasis on the schooling
experiences of students as formative molds for future teachers. One of the significant
contributions of Lortie’s study is the identification of the concept of Apprenticeship
of Observation and its limitations.
According to Pajares’ (1992) literature review, not only do beliefs have their
roots in our youths, these early conceptions tend to resist change and “strongly
influence the processing of new information” (p. 317). Further, decision making
appears to be greatly influenced by beliefs. Pajares also determined that beliefs exert
a critical influence on classroom practice. If classroom practice is influenced by
beliefs and those beliefs have their roots in early experiences it becomes essential
then for teacher education programs to address both early learning experiences and
the beliefs of preservice teachers. Pajares states a need for these, “Belief
substructures, such as educational beliefs must be understood in terms of their

47
connections not only to each other but also to other, perhaps more central, beliefs in
the system” (p. 325), and these can be thought of as attitudes and values. Pajares
identifies these as determinates in the defining of tasks and determining the cognitive
tools we use to interpret, plan and make decisions.
Although Pajares presents a very compelling review, it is not presented as a
formal academic review with methodology and analysis. It is a discussion of the
status of what was known about teachers’ beliefs in educational research at the time
of publication. Despite the original publication date, the article remains a heavily
cited and continues to have relevance for current thinking.
Draper, Barksdale-Ladd and Radencich (2000) examined beliefs and habits
related to reading and writing of twenty-four preservice teachers. They used
interviews and surveys to collect data. No demographics on the participants were
reported nor was the context of the data collection described in detail. The survey
was administered in “three classes of students enrolled in a course on literacy in the
intermediate grades.” (p. 2). Through the use of interviews all students were found
able to articulate ideas for reading and writing instruction as taught in their university
methods course. All the participants intended to use the ideas taught in their reading
methods course in their future classrooms. Notably, not all of the participants
identified themselves as a reader or a writer. Despite feeling prepared to use the ideas
taught in their reading methods course, when asked how they would impart a love of
reading or writing to their future students, none were able to suggest any ideas.

48
Data from the home histories and of past learning experiences were found to
be influences on the preservice teachers’ perceptions of themselves as readers and as
writers (Draper et al., 2000). Yet, most of the participants could not recall much of
their early reading and writing instruction. Of those that did, five specifically
recounted negative experiences. Draper et al. found great variability and no pattern
regarding when or at what age participants identified becoming interested in reading
or writing. This finding opposes the idea that beliefs about reading and writing
generally form early and subsequently may be resistant to change. This finding
suggests that other opportunities for formative influences exist beyond the early
years of schooling.
Instructional Practice
Connecting early literacy experiences with instructional practice, Street
(2003) used a naturalistic inquiry to investigate the relationship between preservice
teacher’s attitudes towards writing and learning to teach writing in a year long
teacher education program. Using questionnaires, interviews, journals and field notes
of observations, Street (2003) captured the attitudes and beliefs of five student
teachers as they progressed into and through a language arts methods course and a
field placement. The participants were five females: three Caucasian, one Hispanic,
and one Asian; gender and age were not included. Street’s findings “suggests a
relationship between the teaching practice of these developing writing teachers and
the “beliefs, attitudes, and experiences” (p. 46) of the participants. Street (2003)
concluded that the early experiences of these student teachers learning to write

49
affected their identities as writers and subsequently, their instruction of writing. All
five reported having critical teachers identified as detrimental to their development
as writers. Each of the preservice teachers described the critical teachers as using a
prescriptive method valuing correctness over meaning and expression. All the
participants suggested they needed more support and validation by others in their
writing, agreeing that support was important to their development as writers and
subsequently their identity as writers. Street does not “outline” the type or form of
support being referred to. During the course of their student teaching, four of the
students experienced a change in their knowledge and values regarding writing. In
one student’s case their negative attitude towards writing was not altered by her
preservice education or her field experience. Street (2003) concluded that her
identity as a poor writer was fixed in her sense of self. The remaining four displayed
a change in their knowledge and values towards writing during the student teaching
period. The language arts methods course is credited with this change. There are no
details or descriptions of the methods course beyond the students acknowledging the
“support” they received from the instructor. Greater methods course information is
needed to fully understand the impact of the course on the students change or lack of
change. This study is significant because it associates teaching practices with values
and knowledge and documents these as being influenced by a language arts methods
course.
Norman and Spencer (2005) use grounded theory to examine the experiences
and beliefs of preservice teachers regarding the nature of writing and writing

50
instruction. In a traditional 5
th
year teaching credential program, the authors collected
autobiographies of their lives as writers from 59 preservice teachers, 69% Caucasian,
and 53 female. Most categorized themselves either as positive or negative, with more
positive views of self (58%). Just as Street (2003) found, Norman and Spencer found
the majority of preservice teachers (90%) had experienced a teacher with a powerful
influence on their image of themselves as a writer. Most experiences in elementary
school were positive, but experiences tended to become more negative in high school
and college as the teachers challenged their images of self as writer. Regarding
beliefs, 91% of the preservice teachers’ views about writing ability could be
classified as fixed or malleable; 63% said writing ability was a gift or talent, 36%
said it was malleable (Norman & Spencer, 2003). Those who saw writing ability as
fixed also did not view instruction as having a positive influence on writing
development. Their vision of an effective teaching centered around providing
students with opportunities to write and encouraging writers and writing. Lastly,
Norman and Spencer recommend encouraging PSTs to “critically examine their own
experiences and beliefs and the beliefs of their peers so that they understand how
their personal beliefs and experiences influence their leaning and their actual
teaching practices” (p. 38).
The Norman and Spencer study analyzed a single writing history of
preservice teachers and offers a small picture of their overall writing lives. The
writing histories were written in the second semester of a two-semester long

51
language arts methods course. The influence of the first semester methods course
instruction, as well as concurrent coursework was not considered in the analysis.
With regard to reading, O’Callaghan (2001) investigated the implicit literacy
theories and teaching metaphors of PSTs and what is the effect of narrative inquiry
on PSTs instructional strategies? O’Callaghan used narrative inquiry, to follow the
experiences of four seniors, all undergraduate, female preservice teachers, of diverse
descent, enrolled in a fieldwork based course on instructional strategies for reading.
Data sources included vignettes, think alouds, narratives, interviews, metaphors and
observations and a theoretical orientation to reading survey. At the conclusion of a
fifteen week long fieldwork placement the participants’ conceptualization of the role
of the teacher was based on the person they identified as responsible for their literacy
development and that preservice teachers’ orientation to reading reflected their
earliest schooling experiences of reading instruction. O’Callaghan’s work assumes
that “reflection upon action empowers preservice teachers to widen their repertoire
of instructional strategies and thus affects their choices of novel solutions for field
problems in teaching reading” (p. 266).
O’Callaghan’s work focuses on instructional strategies for reading and
identifies that both preservice teachers’ instructional practices and their theoretical
orientations are rooted in early experiences. In the findings, although a skills based
approach was the predominant approach to instruction, one student did shift in her
theoretical orientation from phonics to a skills based instruction, however, the
preservice teachers’ instructional strategies remained rooted in their own literacy

52
histories. O’Callaghan hypothesized that engaging in narrative inquiry increased
cognitive conflict resulting in changes in preservice teachers’ reflection and
procedural reasoning, not necessarily their practice. Suggesting that cognitive
conflict is a valuable feature of reflection, O’Callaghan’s work is significant in two
ways: first, because it identifies a cognitive conflict as a valuable feature of
reflection that can impact the procedural reasoning of preservice teachers; and
second, that the preservice teacher’s conceptualization of the role of teacher is based
on the person they identified as responsible for their literacy development. This
second finding reaffirms the significance of early literacy experiences.
Summary and Synthesis of Early Literacy Experiences
Both Lortie (1970) and Pajares (1992), as well as others discussed in this
review (Wideen et al., 1998) present a static view of beliefs. Alternatively, other
conclusions, support a less rigid outcome for beliefs and practice, yet, still agreeing
that early influences inform the beliefs and teaching practices of preservice teachers.
Others suggest that it is possible to continue to influence those beliefs and practices
beyond the earlier experiences of learners (Draper, Barksdale-Ladd & Radencich,
2000, Street, 2003, O’Callaghan, 2001).
Each of these studies uniformly agree to the influence of early literacy
experiences but approached the topic from different perspectives. Both Street (2002)
and Norman and Spencer (2005) looked at the attitudes the preservice teachers held
of themselves finding that early individual experience influences belief and practice.
O’Callaghan (2001) focused on preservice teachers’ beliefs about the teaching of

53
reading, finding that cognitive conflict in reflection brought about change in
procedural thinking but not teaching practice. In fact, the teachers’ instructional
practices were grounded in their early literacy experiences. Draper et al. (2000)
looked at both the preservice teachers’ attitudes and beliefs towards themselves as
readers and towards teaching reading, finding that not all preservice teachers see
themselves as readers or writers.
The influence of home and early formal instruction upon the identity and
attitudes of preservice teachers is significant. In many cases, a single person is
influential in the development of preservice teachers’ attitudes and beliefs about
reading and writing, either positive or negative. Experiences that preservice
educators categorized as negative were predominately associated with skills based
instruction and were mostly experienced in high school and college where the
challenges were greater. Again, lending support to the idea that opportunities for
influencing literacy beliefs extend into adulthood.
Although each study found that early literacy experiences were influential on
instructional practices, only Draper et al. (2000) noted there was no great pattern as
to when people became interested in reading, suggesting that reading instruction can
have an influence beyond the earliest years of reading acquisition. Also, Draper et al.
noted that the PSTs did not necessarily identify themselves are readers or writers.
These studies are relevant to this particular study because they identify early
learning experiences as influential on instructional decision making and teaching
practices. Those early learning experiences include the Apprenticeship of

54
Observation (Lortie, 1975), which arguably includes all early learning experiences
with literacy and subsequent instruction. These studies draw a causal link from
beliefs and attitudes of preservice teachers’ right to classroom instruction and
teaching practice. These studies also have inconsistencies that weaken that link. Data
such as participant demographics, detailed course descriptions, and general context
of the study are missing from most of these studies. These studies are brief,
conducted predominately using undergraduate participants.
Preservice Teachers' Processes of Learning and Development
Preservice teachers begin their education with a considerable amount of
knowledge, predispositions, beliefs and experiences as a result of primarily, an
Apprenticeship of Observation (Lortie, 1975). This complicates the efforts of any
teacher education program that fails to address these predispositions. As seen here
many efforts have been made to document the transformation from student to
teacher. This section explores preservice teacher learning in the broader literature on
how teachers process and learn, essentially, “what is going on in their heads” as they
forge their way to becoming a teacher.
In a landmark study, Frances Fuller (1969) examined the concerns of
prospective teachers. Collected in two separate studies, Fuller identified various
stages that teachers experience in their teacher education. Later, she regrouped
investigations collected over 36 years, with data collected across different states and
found they all confirmed one another. Essentially, new teachers are concerned with
self and with discipline while experienced teachers are concerned with pupils and

55
with pupil progress. Although deceptively simple, the concerns Fuller identified
remain stable in contemporary times. Since the publication of “Concerns of
Teachers: A Developmental Conceptualization,” some have elaborated upon Fuller’s
work (Hall & Loucks, 1977; Nias, 1989) while others have established entirely new
ways of thinking about the process of learning and development that teachers and
preservice teachers experience (Feiman-Nemser, 1983; Black & Amon, 1992;
Knowles, 1992).
In one of Fuller’s first studies with student teachers, data was collected from
two separate groups of student teachers from two separate semesters, with a total of
13 student teachers. The data is taken from group counseling sessions which met
weekly for 2 hour sessions for 11 weeks. In the early weeks the student teachers are
primarily concerned with self, subject-matter adequacy, fitting in, etc. By the end of
the student teaching semester, concerns had shifted to a greater concern with pupils.
Fuller’s developmental conceptions are useful for the analysis of the preservice
teachers in this dissertation study, they struggle with concerns over discipline and
classroom management. Fuller’s classic study places them exactly where they should
be.
Guillaume and Rudney (1993) addressed the concerns of student teachers as
well. In a qualitative study about student teachers’ concerns and the development of
those concerns over time, Guillaume and Rudney conducted a year-long study with
nineteen student teachers. The student teachers were part of a fifth-year
baccalaureate program, 17 women and 2 men, with one female being a member of an

56
ethnic minority. Overall they were of diverse ages and life experiences. As part of
the student teachers’ coursework, journal entries were required three times per week,
totaling 90 journal entries per student teacher. The structure and content of the
entries were left open so that student teachers could spontaneously express their
concerns. The journals were periodically read and responded to by supervisors,
responses were non-judgmental and included variables for the student teachers to
consider as they worked to improve their practice. Through the analysis of the
reflective journals the researchers documented several findings: first, how the use of
reflection improved the practices of the student teachers; second, that the student
teachers go through various stages of concern; third, the student teachers hold
multiple concerns at one time and; last, that these concerns shifted with time and
with experience. The authors identify the structured opportunities to reflect upon and
question their thought and practice in reflective journals as a key factor in the shifts.
These findings suggest that while student teachers can hold multiple concerns at one
time, the use of structured opportunities for reflection can be useful to promote
developmental shifts between stages and for improving the practice of student
teachers. Being able to identify the concerns of student teachers as predictable should
assist in those concerns being resolved. Guillaume and Rudney provide evidence for
the use of reflection as a means of providing student teachers a tool for potentially
resolving their concerns as they experience the various concerns of developing
teachers.

57
Not all preservice teachers’ development is limited to stages. Gould (2000)
notes development includes moving away from a personal and singular conception of
teaching to a more comprehensive concept of teaching. Gould (2000) describes
changes students made in their schema for understanding teaching during an
introductory teacher education methods course. Gould collected the portfolios of
thirty-four students, across three semesters from an introductory education course
called Classroom Processes and Instruction at a Southwestern University. The
students were predominately post-baccalaureate and non-traditional students seeking
their teaching credentials. Approximately 30% were bilingual Spanish speaking
students. The portfolios were a cumulative project based on the students’ 2 ½ hours
of fieldwork each week, 2 1/2 hours of lecture and 1 hour of lab each week. They
were analyzed for students’ use of metaphor to describe their conceptions of what
teaching is about. Students who used metaphor in their writing demonstrated a
marked and distinct change in the way they viewed teaching from the beginning of
the course to the end of the course. By the end of the semester students saw teaching
as more complex from when they began. The changes in metaphor were attributed to
the course experiences. Students began to make connections between their own
classwork and their observations of real classrooms, subsequently generating more
connections. Gould notes that as metaphors are generated and discarded, schema
begin to evolve. The students’ incoming and dominant schema for teaching were
challenged; presumably the experiences they had were powerful enough to make
adjustments in their schema. The author volunteered that over the course of one

58
semester it is not possible to determine if this change was incremental or
paradigmatic.
As recommended by Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1999); Gould (2000) begins
by recognizing students’ initial conceptions, an effort to prevent the risk of
reinforcing their misconceptions. Gould offers one of four reasons why coursework
will change schema: 1.) the coursework changes, enriches or redefines some of the
underlying concepts about teaching that they hold; 2.) the students added new
concepts; 3.) the connecting networks between concepts were changed or; 4.) new
linkages were added among the concepts. Gould’s work focuses on internal
processes of change in the students’ schema and does not offer information about the
course or the program which the course was a part of. Gould’s (2000) study provides
us with an alternative to understanding teacher development. The use of metaphor in
the field research has combined the act of reflection and the concerns others have
studied, but Gould uses metaphor to categorize and mark change. Gould suggests
using metaphor to capture beginning students’ current beliefs and then marking
growth by assessing the changes in metaphor.
Duffy and Atkinson (2001) describe the processes of elementary school
preservice teachers as they learn and continue to learn to teach reading, including
their beliefs, understandings and instruction of readers. The authors identified five
processes that preservice teachers experience. They followed 22 preservice teachers
for one year across two field-based reading methods courses. The participants
included 7 African Americans and 15 European Americans. Students had a one week

59
internship the first semester then a four week internship the second semester. From
the analysis of observations and course assignments including essays, literacy
autobiographies, learning logs, a reflection, and email Duffy and Atkinson’s (2001)
research indicated that over the course of one year, misunderstandings of
instructional practice were decreased, students increased their ability to critically
examine reading instruction and all experienced an increase in feelings of
preparedness for the teaching of reading. In the beginning of their coursework, 13 of
the 22 students relied exclusively on their personal knowledge to inform their
proposed reading instruction. The students were very accepting of the instructional
practices they observed, even though what they saw contradicted theory from the
coursework they were enrolled in. The researchers found that the students’ personal
knowledge and biases resulted in misunderstandings of instructional practice. For
example, a student teacher assumed that by third grade students will have already
learned to read with phonics and therefore, it will not be a part of her curriculum.
Another student teacher wrote “What many call Whole Language is actually a part of
phonics instruction.” Later, the same students were able to critique their fieldwork.
They were less accepting and more critical. Documenting their growth and
development over the year, Duffy and Atkinson, noted five processes that preservice
teachers experienced. As a result the preservice teachers felt more prepared than in
the beginning of the year, able to integrate their knowledge and experience to inform
their reading instruction and examine reading instruction critically. The preservice
teachers improved in their abilities to integrate their personal, practical and

60
professional knowledge to inform their actual or intended reading instruction. Their
self-perception of their ability to meet the needs of struggling readers increased, as
did their openness to assistance using assessment and/or instructional strategies with
all readers. Lastly, preservice teachers decreased in their misunderstandings
surrounding reading instruction principles, practices, and terminology.
The Duffy and Atkinson (2001) study documented that preservice teachers
early instructional practices were influenced by personal knowledge, consequently,
personal knowledge bias resulted in misunderstanding instructional practice and.
With experience, over the course of a year, the preservice teachers developed a more
critical stance, and were better able to integrate knowledge and experience to inform
practice. These processes are not mandatory experiences but they do represent the
variety of experiences preservice teachers bring with them into their programs. By
presenting these findings Duffy and Atkinson identify potential challenges for
teacher education programs.
In an early study of teacher education, Hollingsworth (1989) set out to
determine: the patterns of intellectual change from preservice teacher to beginning
classroom teacher, the personal, program, and contextual influences or constraints on
that change, the role of the cooperating teacher and university supervisor in
supporting intellectual change and, the nature of prior beliefs on identity
maintenance while learning. In a year long study of preservice teachers before,
during, and after a 5
th
year education program Hollingsworth collected data from
interviews, journal entries and observations of 14 elementary and secondary

61
preservice teachers enrolled in a graduate teacher education program. Different from
most teacher education studies where diversity is sought in the participants’
demographics, Hollingsworth sought diversity of thought selecting participants who
represented a wide range of incoming views about teaching and reading instruction.
Hollingsworth’s (1989) study concluded: preservice teachers’ prior beliefs
should be understood in order to inform supervision and university course design,
cognitive dissonance is important in practice teaching contexts, there is a need to
routinize classroom management knowledge before attending to subject-specific
pedagogy and finally, the importance of the academic task as part of the teaching
knowledge base. Other studies have agreed upon the influence of the cooperating
teacher (Goodman & Fish, 1997, Wideen et al., 1998) upon the student teacher.
Hollingsworth specifically recommended that student teachers should not be placed
with like-minded cooperating teachers. When PSTs are placed with a like-minded
cooperating teacher, there is no challenge to beliefs/practices, while it facilitates rote
copying of behavior and instructional practices. Hollingsworth’s study remains
relevant today as preservice teachers continue to struggle with classroom
management while trying to master pedagogy and struggle with cognitive dissonance
when making instructional decisions. Hollingsworth focused on change, the nature of
it, and what supports it. Although Hollingsworth does addresses prior beliefs and
change, the effect of prior beliefs on practice is not addressed.
In a longitudinal study, Levin (2001) collected interviews and classroom
observations from six participants six times from 1985 through 1999. In this update

62
Levin focuses on one participant, “Rick” who has been teaching for over ten years.
Levin concludes that development in teachers’ thinking is not linear or smooth. Nor
do they experience a “wash out” effect (Lortie, 1975) where the learning from the
teacher education program is “washed out” by the teaching environment. Rick did
not abandon any of his earlier thinking; he was able to include it in his more
advanced thinking as a result of his years of practice.
Levin’s study (2001) represents a single case from a longitudinal study
spanning two decades. Data sources include: transcripts of six clinical interviews
from 1985 through 1999, classroom observations from approximately the same time
as the interviews, additional interviews following the observations to check the
researcher’s interpretations of these lessons, response to open-ended interview
question in 1997 and 1999 (an additional question had been added to the original
protocol), and the researchers field notes. This study is significant because it does
defy the concept of a wash out effect; Levin is able to chronologically show that
Rick did not completely abandon his earlier ways of thinking; he included them in
his more advanced schema of pedagogy as it developed. If so, this lends support to
the idea that beliefs and attitudes are not only hard to change, in fact, they may not
ever change, it is the schema that adapts.
Summary and Synthesis of the Literature on Preservice Teachers Processes of
Learning and Development
During the process of teacher education, students experience one, none or
some of the following: growth, development and change. These processes and the

63
experiences of preservice teachers have been examined from different perspectives
by many researchers. As a result, many factors have been identified as being useful
in promoting these processes including: 1.) Recognizing students initial conceptions
when they enter a program; 2.) opportunities for students to examine the beliefs they
hold; 3.) the use of structured reflection; 4.) the use of metaphor; 5.) time; 6.)
creating cognitive dissonance; and 7.) challenging the dominant schema of teaching.
A combination of coursework and field experience enable students to move
from being naively accepting of cooperating teachers’ practices to being more
critical of cooperating teachers’ practices. Further, a source of misunderstandings of
instructional practice result from PSTs’ own personal knowledge and biases. By
examining prior beliefs, misunderstandings in instructional practice can be
decreased. Finally, teacher learing is not smooth or linear with multiple concerns
being held at the same time. Hollingsworth recommends rountinizing classroom
management before preservice teachers begin student teaching, potentially lessening
that as a concern for preservice teachers entering student teaching.
Summary
The process and means of transforming from student to teacher is complex
and has been studied for decades. Preservice teachers have much to contend with
when pursuing a profession that they have unofficially, and most, unwittingly, been
apprenticed to. Years of unconscious beliefs and attitudes have been accumulating
surreptitiously creating obstacles to what on the surface appears very accessible.
These obstacles are met with the standard tools of teacher education: coursework,

64
field experience and reflection. One of the biggest challenges facing teacher
educators is confronting the existing beliefs of preservice teachers.
The research on preservice teachers and reading teacher instruction identifies
early learning experiences as the basis for teaching beliefs, biases and
predispositions. Further it supports a theory that these beliefs inform instruction
(Street, 2003; MacGillivray, Rueda, Monzo, & Walker, 2001). Lortie’s (1975)
research showed that teachers’ instruction reflected the very same methods they had
been taught with, regardless of the relevance to the best practices encountered in
their teacher preparation programs. In order to uproot our earliest learning
experiences and shape them into teaching best practices of today, Pajares (1993)
recommends understanding the evolution of preservice teachers’ beliefs through
experiences and informed scholarship. The literature recommends the teaching of
(Linek, Sampson, Raine, Klakamp & Smith, 2006) and use of guided reflection
(Willard-Holt & Bottomley, 2000) and structured opportunities for reflection
(Guillaume & Rudney, 1993) in a purposeful and directed way to bridge all learning
experiences.
Coursework and Field experience are universally considered to be influential
for preservice teacher learning, resulting in shifts in belief (Linek et al., 2006),
increased knowledge (Nierstheimer et al., 2000), or both (Knudson & Maxson,
2001). Reflection is frequently a feature of coursework or included as an assignment
with field experience.

65
Many of these studies made recommendations for the use of reflection as an
agent of change for incoming PSTs’ beliefs as well as recommendations for
acknowledging PSTs’ incoming beliefs. Field experiences varied considerably and
had different results. A preservice teacher’s growth was either greatly enhanced or
limited according to the practicum site and the assigned cooperating teacher. Great
inequities were found among field placements (Goodman & Fish, 1997). It is
difficult to tell how widespread the finding is among other studies because one of the
most consistent and limiting gaps among this research is the omission of field
placement descriptions. Aside from those limitations, results were generally in
concurrence that field experience was a powerful influence for the preservice
teacher, resulting in cognitive dissonance, and contributing to shifts in knowledge
and belief.
From the literature reviewed here, a number of gaps in the extant scholarship
can be identified. As noted above, field experience has been identified as an
important factor in a preservice teacher’s overall experience. Despite this
acknowledgement of its importance, the research fails time and time again to address
it with the care and the attention it warrants. The literature also fails to provide for
descriptions of fieldsites. From a sociocultural perspective, the fieldsite is
representative of the surrounding community and the lives of the students and
teachers within that school. Greater descriptions contextualizing school sites, and
classroom placements are needed.

66
Limited and inconsistent participant data creates a gap in the literature. The
studies reviewed here inconsistently provide participant data beyond the number of
participants. At the outset of beginning research it is not necessarily possible to know
what data will prove informative. This premise supports the inclusion of greater data
descriptions. Other descriptors found in this review include, gender and ethnicity,
year in school, graduate or undergraduate, philosophical orientation to teaching, and
age. This information can enable participant data to be situated in a greater
description of the school, and the university or program that the participants exist
within. From the sociocultural perspective, greater descriptors are needed to
contextualize the results.
Each of these studies involved preservice teachers enrolled in a teacher
education program. Most of the research is set in a reading methods or reading
instruction course, with few exceptions. Students are rarely isolated as they
experience a course; they have outside influences, including other courses, not
necessarily all within teacher education. Students also have personal agendas that run
counter to the objectives of a teacher education program. Wideen et al. (1998)
acknowledge that students may forego risk-taking (opportunity for learning) in hopes
of obtaining a good grade. These may have been among the factors influencing the
individual results from these studies. Greater contextualization is needed to best
understand the results.
The literature does not do as thorough a job documenting the experiences of
second language learners, first generation immigrants and minority preservice

67
students. What is lacking is a picture of their experiences as they progress through
teacher education programs and specifically how they learn to teach reading and
writing and balance it with their own learning experience.
The standard data sources among the works reviewed in this chapter were
written survey’s and interviews. Larger studies relied on written survey methods and
smaller ones relied on interviews. Less common were observations and collected
documents of student writings, course syllabus or online discussions. Of these,
reflections dominated the student writings. Larger studies involved more than one
teacher education program, while the majority of the studies were conducted within
one teacher education program.
In the studies that did use reflection as a data source, only two studies directly
connected the use of reflection and improved practice (Willard-Holt & Bottomley,
2000; Linek et al., 2006). The term reflective practitioner is frequently used to
describe a desirable characteristic of a teacher; this makes sense in light of these
findings. However, of the nearly three dozen studies reviewed and mentioned here,
less than one third use reflective writings or reflective journals as a data source.
Teacher learning begins with examining and critiquing one’s own experiences,
assumptions and beliefs (Friere, 1970) it is critical for teachers to know their own
knowledge.
Amount and quality of reflection were identified as an indicator of success,
(Willard-Holt & Bottomley, 2000) but the measure of amount and quality went
undefined. When used for data, the terms reflection and journaling are ill-defined.

68
“Guided reflection” is a term found in studies listed here but is left undefined by
those studies. From these studies, reflection appears to have become a catch-all
phrase for thinking on paper. The use of reflection is a well-studied academic genre
that has been abused by casual use and interpretation within teacher education. This
creates an inconsistent interpretation and use of reflection. Greater definition of
reflection, its use and methods of analysis are needed to define the role of reflection
in teacher education.
Many of the studies reviewed here are self-studies, research conducted by
members of the teacher education profession on their own students within their own
teacher education programs. Typically, the principal investigator of the study is also
the instructor (Risko et al., 2008). Accessibility and convenience are features that
make these studies appealing to conduct. When narrowed to reading instruction and
preservice teachers, the nature of the research questions favors qualitative research,
mostly phenomenological. In a 2000-2001 article reviewing different
epistemological approaches to preservice teacher education research, Sleeter
critiques the phenomenological studies reviewed for not adhering to the conventions
of good phenomenological research. Her primary critiques include the researchers
lack of distance from their own programs they are studying and that they do not use
enough different methods of gathering data to support the findings. The research
reviewed here is subject to these same critiques including the disproportionate
examination of young, mainly white women.

69
Previously I stated that this dissertation was unique because of its design. The
current study documents the literacy learning experiences of six preservice teachers
as they participate in a reading and writing methods course, a practicum associated
with the methods course and two semesters of student teaching. The study involves a
diverse population of graduate students, including male and female preservice
teachers from different ethnicities, over a period of three semesters of study,
including a methods course and practicum and student teaching. Furthermore, this
study was conducted by an independent researcher.
The methodology of the study addresses many of the current gaps in the
literature on research of reading teacher education as identified in this review.
Participant features are described in detail. A variety of data sources was collected
and used for the analysis, including online reflective journals, interviews,
observations, and fieldnotes. The majority of the studies reviewed here used surveys
and interviews exclusively and one third used reflections. The use of reflection is
defined, structured and guided. Coursework is situated within the context of the
teacher education program goals. Field sites are described in detail. The questions
are designed to capture the experiences of preservice teachers in their field
experiences as they relate to their practice and thinking about literacy curriculum and
instruction. Lortie (1970) and Pajares (1992) have both written about the influence of
early experiences and beliefs over practices. This study addresses the gaps left by
examining the influence of the early literacy experiences of minority and male
preservice students as it impacts their reflection and practice. Others have examined

70
the preservice teacher practices and learning in a reading methods course and
practicum (Linek et al., 2006, Richards & Brumfield, 2003) or in student teaching
(Street, 2003), this study combines both a reading methods course and practicum
with student teaching to provide a more complete picture of the preservice teacher
experiences with literacy.

71
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
Introduction
Interest in the reading preparation of preservice teachers (PSTs) has grown
over the past decade (Risko, Roller, Cummins, Bean, Block, Anders & Flood, 2008).
In a recent analysis of research on reading teacher education, Risko et al. (2008)
noted that the research available to guide teacher education and course development
is limited. Their findings establish the relevance of this study. Of 82 studies reviewed
by Risko and colleagues, only five involved graduate students, 9% occurred during
one year or less, 19% were conducted by observer-participants or an independent
researcher. Of further relevance, 41% did not report the gender of participants, 64%
did not report race, and 70% did not report ethnicity. When reported, two-thirds of
the participants were white females. This present study was conducted by an
independent researcher with six graduate students, including two males and six
minority students over a period of three semesters.
Several research questions guided this study:
1. What are the influences that inform preservice teachers’ instructional
literacy practice?
2. What are the instructional literacy practices of preservice teachers?
3. What do the reflections of preservice teachers reveal about their learning
experiences as student teachers?

72
Study Context
The preservice teachers (PST) were enrolled in the inaugural cohort of a
Master of Arts in Teaching (MAT) and teaching credentialing program at a large
research based university in the western United States that specializes in urban
teacher education. The total enrollment of the first cohort in 2004-2005 academic
year was 42, 81% female. The MAT is a demanding, accelerated, thirteen month-
long program requiring students to enroll full-time. Students were discouraged from
working while enrolled in the MAT program because the time constraints of the
program were considered intensive. At the end of the MAT program, a successful
graduate will have completed 39 semester units of coursework and fieldwork.
This study followed six preservice teachers throughout their enrollment in a
MAT, in a multiple subject program (throughout this study the PST’s are referred to
using pseudonyms). The program included foundational core courses in Reading and
Writing Methods, Bilingual Education, Teaching and Learning in U.S. schools and
content-specific subjects. In the final two semesters of the MAT the PSTs completed
their student teaching while being concurrently enrolled in core and methods
courses. Each of the courses was designed to be theory rich, focusing on linking
theory to practice.
The MAT program philosophy is aligned with the university’s school of
educations’ four academic themes:

73
• Learning represents the core technical skill. The school’s graduates have
a deep understanding of the basic principles of how individuals learn and
how what they learn is incorporated into their daily lives.
• Diversity is the context within which educators operate, particularly in
urban areas. The School of Education seeks to understand the specific
strengths and needs of learners who differ in income, ethnicity, gender.
• Language proficiency, or disability, and to ensure that graduates
incorporate such knowledge and skills into their practice.
• Accountability comes from determining what should be learned and how
well it has been learned. The School of Education addresses indicators of
success such as systems coherence and support, evidence-based best
practices, processes of continual improvement and organizational
learning. The school’s courses and faculty research help leaders
understand who is accountable for what at each level of the system.
Accountability also means professionals who are held accountable to
receive the resources necessary to be successful.
• Leadership is : how we focus our educational systems on learning. The
School of Education focuses on enhancing the skills and knowledge of
people in the organization, creating a common culture of expectations,
fostering productive relationships within the organization, and holding
individuals accountable.

74
The reading and writing methods course for the MAT program was designed
to teach reading theory, assessment and intervention. The course presented
information through mini-lecture, course readings, small group seminars and twenty-
six hours of supervised fieldwork. The California Commission on Teacher
Credentialing requires students to have this field experience as “early field
experience” prior to beginning student teaching and requires that it is related to
reading and writing.
The student teaching component of the MAT program placed students in two
field placements. Students spent one semester in each placement. Two participants
from this study had three placements. The first was Becky, based on her reports and
concerns regarding the coordinating teacher (CT) it was determined to be a poor
placement, sending her mid-semester to a second placement. The other participant
with three placements was Eduardo. I was not able to ascertain the reason for the
third placement, All placements were selected in public schools that reflected the
diversity and needs found in the greater metropolitan area.
Risko et al. (2008) identified multiple limitations in the current literature on
reading teacher education; their findings underscore the need for this dissertation
study. Of 82 studies reviewed by Risko and colleagues, only five involved graduate
students, 9% occurred during one year or less, 19% were conducted by observer-
participants or an independent researcher. Of further relevance, 41% did not report
the gender of participants, 64% did not report race, and 70% did not report ethnicity.
When reported, two-thirds of the participants were white females. This study was

75
conducted with six graduate students, including two males and six minority students
over a period of three semesters.
The Design
Many studies of teachers have documented their processes of development
and of acquiring teacher knowledge (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Fuller, 1969;
Gould, 2000; Guillaume & Rudney, 1993; Levin, 2001; Richards & Brumfield,
2003). These studies found that teachers experience different levels of concern at
different stages of their careers (Fuller, 1969); that they are capable of holding
multiple concerns at one time (Richards & Brumfield, 2003); their concerns shift
with time and with experience (Guillaume & Rudney, 1993); and that teacher
conceptions for learning impact their practice (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999) as well
as pedagogy (Levin, 2001). These studies directly addressed growth and change as
well as capacity for growth and change. This study sought to understand how
preservice teachers developed those understandings in relation to teaching literacy.
From the preceding review of the literature on preservice teacher education,
there are three findings: 1.) attitudes and beliefs are influenced by early learning; 2.)
attitudes and beliefs are influenced by field experiences; and 3. ) that these findings
are commonly documented through the use of reflective writings, lesson plans and
interviews, surveys and questionnaires.
Because of the complex, process-oriented nature of the research questions I
employed a qualitative research design for this dissertation. The research questions
reflect the process-oriented nature of sociocultural theory. This context is well

76
suited to the qualitative research design that allows for deep description of process.
The research questions were successfully answered using a qualitative design.
I used interviews, observations, field notes, a focus group and weekly online
reflective journals, or structured guided journaling, as primary data sources for this
naturalistic inquiry (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). Structured guided journaling refers to
written reflection with a set frequency, e.g., once a week, with an assigned prompt. A
table illustrating all data sources by participant is found in appendix M. Interviews
were semi-structured based on current findings from the observations and previous
interviews. Field notes and memoing were used to capture the observations in formal
and informal settings as well as impressions, including ongoing analysis. The weekly
online reflective journals were an assignment from the reading and writing methods
course.
Prior to initiating this study, I approached the Director of Teacher Education
at a large research based university in the western United States to seek approval for
the project and gain access to students. Once I had the approval of the Director, I
secured permission to conduct the study from the university’s institutional review
board (IRB #04-11-343). With the approval by IRB, I contacted the instructor of the
reading and writing course to arrange for an opportunity where, in the deliberate
absence of the instructor, the researcher introduced the study to potential
participants.

77
Recruitment Procedures
Participants were selected using convenience sampling. All students enrolled
in an elementary reading and writing methods course were solicited for participation,
a total of thirty-eight students. The study was introduced to potential participants
with a letter of introduction from the researcher, a brief description of the
components of the study as well as the IRB consent forms. A total of five to seven
participants were sought. The researcher elected to have a small sample number
based on practicality; it was feasible that she would be able to conduct the study as
described with five to seven participants.
The introduction of the study included a brief description of the study, how to
complete the consent forms and answering questions from the students. Eight
students expressed interest in participating. After the introduction session the
researcher contacted those eight students via telephone to elaborate on the details of
the study and secure their participation. As a result of those conversations, seven
students self-selected to participate.
By agreeing to participate in the study, the participants gave permission for
the researcher to collect data via three methods. First, to observe them teaching
literacy related lessons in their assigned fieldwork three times. Second, to audio-
record three interviews. Third, to use any written assignments and reflections
required for both the university reading and writing methods course and student
teaching. No additional work was assigned to the participating students beyond what
was normally required from their coursework and student teaching. Failure to receive

78
permission from any participant on any level, or failure for an individual to progress
through the MAT program was predetermined as sufficient cause to seek a
replacement participant or drop them from the study. Seven preservice teachers
agreed to participate in the study, after participating in the focus group one
preservice teacher was dropped from the study because she did not meet the
requirements to progress on to student teaching. The remaining six participants
completed the study.
Study Participants
The six participants in this study, also known as preservice teachers (PSTs),
included Christina, a female Vietnamese-American age 27, Becky, a female
Chamorro age 24, Eduardo, a male Mexican age 25, Richard, a male European-
American age 33, Leann, a female Asian-American age 23 and Stephanie, a female
Asian-American age 23 also. The overall MAT enrollment was predominately
female, with a median age of 23, all ages ranging from 21 to 36.

Table 3.1: Demographics by Participant

Participant Ethnicity
English as
a 2
nd

language
First
generation
American Gender Age
Christina Vietnamese- American Y F 27
Becky Chamorro (Pacific
Islander)
F 24
Eduardo Mexican-American Y Y M 25
Richard European-American M 33
Leann Asian-American Y F 23
Stephanie Asian-American Y F 23

79
Each of the PSTs was working towards a multiple-subject elementary
teaching credential and Master of Arts in teaching degree. Each participant had three
field placements in the course of this study, each in an urban public elementary
school within the greater metro area of the University. Preservice teachers were
assigned a partner from their MAT cohort and placed in their field placements. PSTs
performed individual work but were encouraged to work with their assigned partner.
Field Placements
The PSTs field placements were assigned by the MAT program. As an MAT
student each participant was assigned a field supervisor and Cooperating Teacher.
A field supervisor supported the PSTs by guiding their lesson plans and reflections,
providing a group discussion format and evaluating the preservice teachers with
observed lessons according to the California State Teaching Strands. The
Cooperating Teacher hosted the PST in their classroom, demonstrating teaching
practices and acting as a mentor for a period of observation and participation.
The first field placement was a practicum experience associated with a
reading methods course that focused on emergent and elementary reading
development and methods. The PSTs were responsible for teaching two language
arts lessons during this practicum, completing a case study on a student and
otherwise acted as a participant observer the remainder of the time. The Cooperating
Teacher and the PSTs relationships varied from placement to placement. The degree
of responsibility of the participant varied as well. In some cases PSTs were leading

80
guided reading groups, working individually with students and assisting with lessons
where in other cases PSTs were more limited in their responsibilities.
The following semester, the preservice teachers were placed in urban public
elementary schools in the greater metro area surrounding the University for student
teaching. Again they were placed with a partner from their cohort and encouraged to
work together but were evaluated individually. A student teaching supervisor was
assigned to each preservice teacher to provide support, guidance and evaluations.
Each preservice teacher had two field placements, one in a primary grade, either first
or second grade, and a secondary grade, either fourth or fifth grade (A detailed table
outlining student teacher field placements in found in appendix I). The participants
spent half of the semester in each assignment working with the cooperating teacher
in those classrooms.
Data Collection Procedures
The data used to explore how preservice teachers previous literacy
experiences and fieldwork experiences influence their instructional practices was
collected over a period of three semesters. During that time the preservice teachers
were enrolled as MAT students. The data included a focus group conducted mid-
way through the MAT program, observations of the preservice teachers delivering
literacy related instruction in an elementary classroom, individual interviews, and a
document review. The document review consisted of the preservice teachers’
reflective online journals, lesson plan sharing and written lesson plans.

81
Focus Group
I elected to use a focus group for the reasons stated by Rubin and Rubin
(1995) “Focus groups are a form of evaluation in which groups of people are
assembled to discuss potential changes or shared impressions” (p. 27). The focus
group occurred after the close of the reading and writing methods course and at the
beginning of the first student teaching placements, a time of change in
responsibilities and focus for the MAT students.
Per the initial telephone conversation with the preservice teachers, the
researcher proposed three dates to each student for a focus group. By group
consensus, the focus group session took place on February 8, 2005. The focus group
session was held in a conference room on the University campus. The session was
audiotaped and lasted approximately 90 minutes in length. The focus group
questions related to the preservice teachers perceptions of the goals and purposes of
the MAT program, their perceptions from the reading and writing methods course as
well as their expectations for student teaching. All seven students participated in the
focus group; the seventh participant had not yet been declined advancement in the
program.
Observations
Once each participant had begun a student teaching placement, the researcher
telephoned each participants school site principal to obtain permission to observe the
preservice teacher on their campus. The researcher offered to contact the classroom
teacher and describe the study. In every case, school principals preferred to inform

82
the classroom cooperating teacher about the study. The researcher observed this
preference. To ensure support for the study, the researcher voluntarily contacted the
student teaching supervisors to inform them about the study as well. University
faculty members were also made aware of the study through an announcement made
at a faculty meeting.
Children were not involved in the study and their everyday experiences were
not altered beyond what is normally experienced during a student apprenticeship in a
cooperating teacher’s classroom. The cooperating teacher was not included in the
observations. Five of the participants were paired with a student teaching partner in
their field placement. These partners were not observed or involved with this study.
In many cases they were either not present or otherwise engaged during the
observations.
The majority of student teaching placements were in single grade classrooms
with individual cooperating teachers with the exception of Becky and Eduardo (See
Appendix I). Due to a series of mishaps half the participants were observed teaching
three lessons and half were observed teaching two lessons. Becky, Richard and
Eduardo were observed twice. Becky and Eduardo were removed from their initial
placement prior to our scheduled observations. This meant that both Becky and
Eduardo were placed in three schools while their peers were placed in two schools
(For more detailed description of placements see appendix I).
By the time they were settled in a new field placement and ready for a lesson
observation, the second round of observations had begun. During telephone

83
conversations with both Becky and Eduardo they had expressed concern for
completing all the necessary requirements for their student teaching in a shortened
time frame. Out of respect for their concerns I elected to forego the initial lesson
observations for them both.
Richard was difficult to schedule. My proposed dates were rarely convenient
for him, his cooperating teacher or the school schedule. He seemed to enjoy talking
about his personal life and asked many questions about my own personal life. I did
not like these extended personal conversations and found that I limited my time with
him to avoid personal conversations. I used email for communications which was not
a timely method for scheduling. These small events resulted in a loss of time
between observations and ultimately the lost opportunity for a third observation.
In the case of all observations I observed at the convenience of both the
cooperating teacher and the preservice teacher. Arrangements for the date and time
of each observation were made between the cooperating teacher and preservice
teacher according to classroom scheduling and instructional constraints. Instructional
constraints refer to the paced curriculum taught in the schools that dictated both the
content of lessons and when they were delivered.
The observations began in February and continued through mid-June. Each
student was observed approximately every six weeks, with observations lasting from
one hour to three hours. There are two reasons for the variation in observation times:
1.) Cooperating teachers controlled the flow of the instructional day limiting or

84
expanding the teaching responsibilities of the preservice teacher; 2.) the preservice
teachers varied in their interpretation of “Literacy related instruction.”
Each set of observations were completed over a two week period. In addition
to taking field notes, observations were recorded using a semi-structured form
focusing on three general areas: Lesson format, lesson content, and method of
teaching (see appendix D: Student Teacher Observation Guide). The same form was
used for all observations.
Interviews
As with the observations, preservice teachers were interviewed individually
three times, with the exception of one student who was interviewed twice. Interviews
were designed to help clarify the observations and make explicit the thinking and
decision making of the preservice teacher as they prepared their lesson as well as
during the lessons. Interviews were scheduled according to preservice teacher
availability. Generally, interviews took place immediately following each literacy
lesson observation. In three instances interviews occurred within five days of the
observation. Each set of interviews varied in length, lasting approximately thirty to
sixty minutes and were completed within a two week period.
Interviews were semi-structured with questions that were connected to the
student teaching requirements as well as the reading and writing methods course.
Content from the focus group, the participant’s prior interview(s) and content from
the researcher’s field notes of individual observations were used as material for
interviews. The themes and topics for the post-lesson interview emerged from the

85
previously collected data and were open to change with the development of the
study. From these sources, an interview guide was developed prior to each interview,
as described by Patton (1990), “in order to make sure that essentially the same
information is obtained from a number of people by covering the same material” (p.
283).
To add a deeper layer of personal information, individualized questions were
asked of each participant. The additional questions were developed as a direct result
of the most recent observed lesson and were germane to the instructional decisions
made by the participant in planning and implementing the observed lesson (see
appendix F for an example of the interview protocols.) In conducting the interviews I
remained free to follow any interesting or rich data that appeared (Tierney, 1991).
Within the context of these interviews, the participants spontaneously offered
their reflections. The subject of the reflections varied according to the interview
content. These reflections were treated the same as the preservice teachers’ written
reflections collected from their online reflective journals.
Permission to audio-record all interviews was obtained prior to the start of
data collection. In addition, prior to beginning each interview, I asked for permission
to audio-record the participant. All participants agreed prior to each interview. As a
result, audio-recordings were made of each interview and were professionally
transcribed for accuracy.
Interviews were held in school libraries, lunch areas, classrooms and in a
conference room on the university campus. Interviews were conducted in semi-

86
private settings. The interviews took place in the presence of a classroom teaching
assistant, a librarian, a fellow student teacher, other school staff and a cooperating
teacher. In all exceptions the participants expressed indifference to the company. The
researcher did not object as in each case the additional persons were engaged in other
activities such as group discussions, telephone conversations, instructing students or
preparing for students.
Of the six participants, Richard was the only preservice teacher that was not
interviewed three times. He was interviewed twice for the same reasons he had been
observed twice. Eduardo and Becky had been observed twice but were interviewed
all three times. The first interview for both Eduardo and Becky was not based on an
observation, however the same semi-structured interview format was used that was
used with the other participants for the first interview (see appendix F for interview
protocols).
Document Review
Three different sources of data were analyzed for content, the reflective
portion of online journals and lesson plan sharing, as well as written lesson plans.
Previous studies have analyzed reflections assigned during coursework to measure
the degree of change in beliefs, attitudes and perceptions of preservice teachers
(Groulx, 2001; Marxen and Rudney, 1991). This study examined the online
reflections of preservice teachers for the content. To what extent did the preservice
teachers’ reflections match their espoused beliefs in the interviews and their
observed practice when teaching lessons? The online reflective journals were a

87
weekly assignment, or “structured”, weighted less than 10% of the overall course
grade. Class participation and the online reflective journals were together worth 10%
of the overall grade assigned to the field experience. The weekly online reflective
journals were “guided” by a single question or statement determined by the
fieldwork supervisor. Using Blackboard’s discussion board feature the online
reflective journals were posted by the students themselves and available for other
members of their small group to view and comment on. Online reflections from the
Fall 2004 semester were analyzed.
Lesson plans were compared with the observed lessons and interviews, again
to match the content. To what extent did the lesson plan content match with the
preservice teachers written reflections and interviews? During the duration of the
reading methods course, preservice teachers were to prepare and teach two lessons in
their assigned fieldwork classroom. To prepare, each preservice teacher posted their
proposed lesson on Blackboard a week prior to teaching it, in order for the field
supervisor and classmates to provide feedback.
Lesson plan sharing occurred weekly during the fall 2004 semester. Each
week a pair of preservice teachers posted a proposed lesson online using Blackboard.
Their classmates had the opportunity to view the lesson and provide feedback.
Feedback instructions were minimal, at least two comments were asked of them,
“One to grow on, and one to glow on.” Lesson plan sharing feedback was used
similar to the online written reflections, for content checking.

88
Initially, it was my intention that written assignments from the reading and
writing methods course and lesson plans from student teaching were to be collected.
These included in-class writing, in-class group work, individual written assignments,
online reflections, and lessons plans. I had been provided access to the reading and
writing methods course online reflective journals, lesson plans and lesson sharing
feedback. I was able to retrieve these online documents from all but Leann.
However, I abandoned the idea of collecting in-class writings, group work and
written assignments other than the online work due to logistics. Collecting the in-
class writings required access to a copy machine at the close of each class and
returning the originals to the students. The logistics of accessing a copier and
returning the papers to the students eliminated this data source. Of these, I did collect
their lesson plans.
When the preservice teacher candidates transitioned to student teaching in the
second semester of this study I downloaded each of the preservice teachers posted
lesson plans, reflective journals and lesson plan sharing feedback they had written to
others with the exception of Leann’s. Leann had not participated in the online
reflective journals, or in the online lesson sharing feedback. Nor had she posted her
lessons online. The missing reflective journals and lesson plan feedback were not
damaging to the data analysis in that the other reflective journals and lesson plan
feedback provided written support of behaviors either I observed or that the
preservice teachers spoke of in interviews. However, because there was a great
amount of overlap between the preservice teachers’ experiences, Leann’s missing

89
documents did not create a noticeable hole in the analysis. Her interviews and
observations overlapped equally with the content of the other preservice teachers,
minimizing concerns that her online contributions would have differed greatly. (For
a complete data sources and type collected and analyzed see appendix M.)
During the data collection and analysis phases of this study I kept a journal of
my impressions and thoughts. My impressions and thoughts were used as an
informal check to the codes that emerged from using a grounded approach. Based on
my own notes I was able to ask and answer whether the data made sense. The journal
was useful because it filled in gaps of information that had been shared in confidence
and were not appropriate for use as data in the final analysis.
Missing Data
In all, three observations (Eduardo, Becky and Richard), one interview
(Richard) and one complete set of online documents (Leann) were missing from the
data. Had I eliminated participants based on the missing data and only kept
participants with complete data sets, I would have been left with two participants.
Since all the existing data was consistent I was not concerned that any one piece of
data not collected would be unique or unusual from the others. Aside from Richard, I
had very strong communication with the preservice teachers and in our informal
communications nothing ran contrary to what had been documented.
The Role of the Researcher
When introducing the study to potential participants and in interacting with
the selected participants I was mindful of my role as a researcher and cognizant of

90
my former status as a fieldwork supervisor and teaching assistant at the university. I
repeatedly stated my interest was in the participant’s individual experiences learning
about teaching reading and writing, emphasizing I was not going to give lesson
feedback or make judgments regarding teaching competence. Despite these caveats,
once the study was underway, the participants repeatedly asked for my opinion or for
help with their lessons. Sometimes I shared anecdotes from my own experience as a
teacher. Usually I turned the question back on them and added a bit of what I had
observed them doing.
When I was asked for teaching advice or support I was conscious of my
position as a researcher but foremost I was aware of myself as an educator. I was
trained as a teacher at the demonstration school of a small liberal arts college in
Southern California. Constructivist teaching methods were taught and practiced
under the shadow of the college where Quaker principles continue to be observed
today. My five years teaching and the two years spent as a teaching assistant working
with literacy students and supervising literacy practicum make-up my perspective on
teaching and who I am. It was never an option for me to refuse the preservice
teachers questions on the grounds that it would influence my research. I did engage
in those conversations sharing personal teaching anecdotes and listening to their
stories. These conversations were not documented, tape-recorded or included in my
data collection. I felt the preservice teachers were giving their time to my study and
by listening to their stories and by being available I was giving something back to
them.

91
Data Management and Storage
Copies of all data were made and stored at my residence. All data was
catalogued and labeled by date and source. To ensure confidentiality participants
were assigned pseudonyms at the start of data collection and were used throughout
data collection and analysis. Data linking the participants’ names to their
pseudonyms were password protected on all computer files containing it.
The data was organized by participant in individual notebooks labeled with
the contents, and kept locked in my residence. Password protected electronic files for
each participant were maintained on my personal computer. Back-up of all
documents, data, and analysis were regularly copied and stored on CD’s. To prevent
loss of data in the event of a catastrophe the back-up CD’s were then mailed to a
secure off-site facility. Only I and my dissertation chair had access to the full data.
The data will be kept for four years after the acceptance of the dissertation.
Trustworthiness
Multiple sources were used to establish the findings and to establish
credibility. I used the interviews, the observations, the field notes, and the student
made documents for triangulation. Yin (1994) discusses this as construct validity, or
using multiple sources to establish findings.
I engaged in peer debriefing as described in Lincoln and Guba (1985). I
conferred with peers, other graduate students, and graduate advisors. I conferred with
them on methodological concerns, my hypotheses as they developed, and sought
guidance from them when needed.

92
Data Analysis
Interviews, observations, field notes, the focus group and reflective journals
were the primary data sources for this naturalistic inquiry (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
Interviews were semi-structured based on current findings from observations. Field
notes and memoing were used to capture the observations in formal and informal
settings as well as my impressions, including ongoing analysis.
To capture what Rogoff (2003) describes, as the three inseparable planes
where learning and development occur: the personal plane, the social plane and the
community-institutional plane the I employed a form of deductive coding to identify
instances of the planes and the activity setting in which they occurred. The activity
setting was the classroom field experience. Both the observations and the interviews
occurred within the context of the field experience. Within the activity setting each
of the three planes coincided with one another.
Prior to coding, interviews and fieldnotes were professionally transcribed. All
data, including interviews, fieldnotes, reflective journals and lesson plans, were then
coded using the constant comparative method (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). As in the
Richards and Brumfield (2003) study, I used a grounded theory and Creswell’s six
step procedure for analyzing qualitative data (2003). After the necessary transcribing
was complete, I read through each document twice: once to familiarize myself with
the content and breadth, and again to identify salient information. Salient information
was considered anything related to a preservice teachers learning and development of
how to teach reading and writing. These were highlighted then organized into a very

93
detailed list of 47 recurring themes, topics and categories. Again I read through the
transcripts holding my research questions in the fore. This lead me back to the
activity setting. I repeated the process with an emphasis on the activity setting of the
field experience and with the intent of capturing learning and development within the
three planes as described by Rogoff.
All the documents were loaded into computerized coding software,
HyperResearch. Using the initial codes I began to catalogue the data. From this I
developed a fluid coding system that reflected my developing understanding of the
data across participants. The original 47 codes began to merge into one another and
in some cases the original codes were no longer relevant and were discarded. As the
data were coded, repeated incidents confirmed the coding. Validation came from
using the constant comparative method (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
I was able to begin grouping the codes into categories that I had derived from
my research questions using axial coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). I found that
individual codes held multiple meanings across the three planes, the social, the
personal and the community-institutional. Consequently, single codes were used in
multiple categories. This reflects the interconnected and inseparable fibers that
weave the fabric of the activity setting. For example the category of literacy practice
includes two codes; Student Teacher literacy practice in the classroom and lesson
planning. The code Student Teacher literacy practice in the classroom was also
combined with Instructional decision making and lesson style used in fieldwork to
create a category labeled Student Teacher literacy practice in the classroom. In the

94
first instance the Student Teacher literacy practice represents the Student Teachers
behaviors of preparing for a lesson and the practices they used in the classroom,
whereas the second instance of coding emphasizes the thinking behind making those
decisions.
Codes
The codes that were ultimately used for this analysis are defined in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2: Master Codes

Code Definition
Reading and Writing
for Elementary
Teaching
Used to describe the methods course, critique it, when the teachings from it
were applied or discussed.
Cooperating Teacher A professional credentialed teacher assigned to a student teacher. The
cooperating teacher is acting as a Master of the profession and the student
teacher’s role is that of an apprentice.
Curriculum ST comments on the quality of, the learning consequences of the existing
curriculum in the field placement classrooms, including materials.
Field Experience –
Expectations
Used when the ST refers to their expectations of what they expected from
the student teaching placements and experience. Their pre-conceived ideas
of what the field should be like including academic and behavioral
expectations of the children in the classrooms.
Field Experience –
General Description
of
Broadly describing the conditions of their placements
Field Experience –
with Literacy
Broad description of classroom practice, their experiences from literacy
taught in the classroom, what they have learned, struggles with the
classroom practices, description of how instruction went.
Instructional
Decision Making
The thinking behind lesson planning choices, usually in the form of
reflection on their choice. This is a deeper level of thought than the
superficial lesson planning code. It includes lesson planning references to
diversity or differentiated instruction.
Lesson Planning Used when discussion the superficial logistics or practicalities of lesson
planning I had to do X because of Y, I was told to do…
Lesson Style used in
Fieldwork
The type of instruction used and/or the reasoning behind the lesson format.
E.g. Whole group, small group, student centered, etc.

95
Table 3.2, continued

Cooperating teacher
– Feedback
Communication between the CT and ST regarding teaching practices
Observations of CT This code is used whenever a reference is made to how a CT ran the
classroom, managed the students, etc..
How the ST describes what the CT does in the classroom, what the ST sees
including any commentary or opinion the ST has on how or what the CT
does.
MAT Program All Concerns related to MAT experience not directly related to literacy in
the classroom: opinions about partners and collaborating, the goals, stigmas
among students, conflict between teaching and practice, the multimedia
component, coordinators, student teaching, the demands, use of self-
reflection.
Personal Growing up
Experiences
Refers to how the ST says they learned as a child, their experiences that
impact them now as teachers and people.
Personal Literacy
Experiences
Used when the ST refers to, recounts a literacy memory or literacy
experience as well as discusses their current literacy practices.
Personal Values and
Beliefs
Examples and /or illustrations or stated beliefs/values in relation to
education and curriculum and learning. Including personal theories or ideas
about how children learn and managing a classroom.
Student Teacher
Aha’s
Used when the speaker is discussing a moment of clarity or a specific
learning experience that is influential in their understanding and learning.
Realizations.
Student Teacher
Field Placements
Used when referring to the field placements – critique of the CT, the MAT,
Policy, good and bad comments, challenges with the placement.
Student Teacher
Literacy practice in
classroom
Describes what they do in the classroom and sometimes why.
Student Teacher
opinion on classroom
literacy practice
The ST opinion on what the CT does re: the teaching of literacy –
frequently it is the curriculum being critiqued.
Student’s literacy –
empirical evidence
What the children in the classroom did in regards to literacy. Behaviors or
actions they had that revealed what they know about literacy.
Theory Illustrations of, or expressed opinions of theoretical preferences and
practices. Some of these are highly inferential.

96
As described, individual codes may appear in multiple categories, depending
on their context. The categories developed from the original research questions. Data
relevant to answering the research questions was categorized according to key words
associated with each particular question. The categories are shown in Table 3.3.

Table 3.3: Categories

Category Definition
Field Experiences F.E. expectations, Descriptions of, literacy specific field
experiences, observations of the CT, CT feedback, ST
placement logistics
Related Pedagogy Reading and writing methods for elementary teachers,
lesson style used in fieldwork, theory
Personal literacy
experiences
Literacy experiences, growing up experiences related to
learning
Preservice teacher
literacy Practices
ST literacy practice in the classroom, lesson planning,
instructional decision making and literacy practice in the
classroom.
Literacy curriculum
and instruction
Curriculum, literacy practice in the classroom

97
CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS
This study examines the field experiences, literacy experiences and
reflections of preservice teachers (PST) as they develop their literacy instruction
practice. In this chapter I begin with a brief summary of the design and analysis of
the study followed by an in-depth discussion of the results and findings.
This chapter is arranged into three sections, each addresses a research
question by presenting the findings followed by an analysis of those findings. Within
each section are categories of codes which supply the activity setting for analysis.
The first section identifies the influences operating on preservice teachers’ reading
instruction practice. The second identifies the reading instruction practices used by
preservice teachers while in their student teaching placement. The final section
discusses the preservice teachers’ reflections from their student teaching component
of the fieldwork, including their reflection on curriculum and instruction.
Listed within each primary section are sub-categories. These categories are
made-up of individual codes from the data analysis and are represented in tables. The
tables quantify the qualitative data by frequency distribution. Each table displays the
codes comprising the category, the frequency of the code (f), the percentage of the
code in the category and an example from the data sources illustrating the code.
Summary of the Study, Design and Analysis
The context for this inquiry was a Masters of Art in Teaching program
(MAT) and combined credentialing program at a large research based university in
Southern California as well as multiple public elementary schools within the greater

98
metropolitan area. The purpose of this study was to examine certain experiences of
six preservice teachers (PST) in relationship to the development of their literacy
practice and thinking as well as their thinking about literacy curriculum and
instruction. The objective was to better understand how emergent educators develop
their understandings of how to teach literacy. This study used online reflective
journals and online feedback from preservice teachers to preservice teachers about
lesson plans they were preparing for their reading practicum, transcripts from a focus
group and a series of personal interviews as well observations of literacy related
instruction as the primary data sources.
All data was catalogued and labeled by participant name, date and source. In
accordance with the Institutional Review Board case #04-11-343 each of the six
participants were assigned a pseudonym. The participants in this study included:
Christina, a female Vietnamese-American age 27, Becky, a female Chamorro age 24,
Eduardo, a male Mexican age 25, Richard, a male European-American age 33,
Leann, a female Asian-American age 23 and Stephanie, a female Asian-American,
also age 23. During this study the MAT program enrollment was predominately
female, with a median age of 23, all ages ranging from 21 to 36. The MAT
enrollment represented a wide variety of ethnic and minority groups.
Each candidate represents a data set. The data sets included an average of
three individual interviews, three observations, one focus group and 11 online entries
with the exception of Leann who had no online entries, online reflective journals or
lesson sharing feedback. The total number of individual data points analyzed was

99
1400 with an average of 233 data points per data set. The individual interviews
provided the greatest single source of data seconded by my field notes of
observations.
All data were coded using the constant comparative method (Lincoln &
Guba, 1985). As in Richard’s and Brumfield’s (2003) study, content analysis began
with the highlighting of salient information. I developed a fluid coding system that
reflected a developing understanding of the data across participants. Categories and
themes emerged as the data was coded and repeated incidents confirmed the coding.
Data is analyzed using sociocultural theory guided by Barbara Rogoff’s three
planes of learning and development: the personal, the social and the community-
institutional (2003). The activity setting provides us with the basic unit of analysis as
it contains all three planes (Rogoff, 2003).
Influences on Preservice Teacher Literacy Instruction Practice
As established in the literature the origins of reading teachers reading
instructional practices has been traced to individuals own learning experiences, their
schooling and their formal teacher preparation. The findings of this study support
those findings as well. In the following pages, I describe the field experiences,
related coursework experiences, and the personal literacy experiences practices of
the six preservice teachers. These are followed by a comprehensive analysis of those
experiences as they relate to the literacy practices of the preservice teachers. Field
experience is a category of data used here to refer to preservice teacher time spent in
the classroom as a guided observer and active participant. The preservice teacher’s

100
spent two separate periods of time in the classroom. The first semester’s field
experience was a practicum of twenty-two hours supporting a reading methods
course titled Reading and Writing Methods for Elementary Teaching. In this first
reading methods field experience the preservice teachers observed the cooperating
teacher, the classroom and the students. In cooperation between their coordinating
teacher, a university teaching assistant and the reading methods professor, the
preservice teachers prepared and taught two lessons. One lesson was with the whole
class, the other was a small group lesson. The capstone assignment from the course
was a student profile, including multiple assessments and lesson plans designed for
the profile student. The second period of field experience was student teaching. The
student teaching period spanned two semesters and two different grade levels,
culminating in a week of “all days’ where the preservice teacher is responsible for a
classroom all day. Regular student teaching responsibilities varied by site and
included, but were not limited to, delivering a daily lesson, working with groups of
students, working with students individually, assisting the cooperating teacher with
lessons, and supporting classroom management. The ‘all day’ responsibilities
included preparing and delivering the daily lesson plans for the week, classroom
management and administrative tasks such as attendance. Coursework refers to the
category related pedagogy, or the teachings from the reading methods course.
Personal literacy experiences captures literacy related memories and experiences
both past and current. Practices reference the literacy practices the preservice

101
teacher’s were observed using in the classroom as well as what they reported doing,
this data is captured in the category of preservice teacher’s literacy practices.
Each category, Field Experiences, Related Pedagogy, Personal Literacy
Experiences, and Practices is discussed separately and in detail using individual
codes from each category for specific points and examples. The final category
Practices discusses the relationship of field experience and related pedagogy to the
preservice teachers’ instructional practices.
Field Experiences
The first field experience of each preservice teacher that was studied was a
practicum associated with the methods course, Reading and Writing Methods for
Elementary Teaching. The practicum included twenty-two hours of observation and
participation in the fall of 2004. Data include online reflections and lesson sharing
feedback. The second field experience included two semesters of student teaching in
spring and early summer of 2005. These were recorded with observations and
interviews. Placements were at a wide variety of elementary schools located among
three large urban school districts in Southern California. Each preservice teacher had
an average of three different school placements across an average of two different
grade levels with the exception of Becky and Eduardo. Both Becky and Eduardo
were removed from their first student teaching placement and re-placed at new
schools in new classroom placements. As a result, both Eduardo and Becky are
missing observations from their initial student teaching placement. The preservice
teachers were pulled from their placements because they were determined to be

102
unsuitable once the semester began. Becky’s first placement had the effect of
reinforcing her belief in the value of classroom community. For Eduardo, in his
subsequent placement he focused his attention on his meeting the Cooperating
Teachers’ expectations. For example, he had elected to plan his first lesson to
accommodate his Cooperating teachers (the placement was with two teachers in one
classroom) rather than the goals set forth by the MAT program, “I just wanted to
accommodate my teachers in any way possible.” In his third placement, Eduardo
expressed a greater comfort level with the cooperating teacher and spoke more about
the students and lesson planning than he had in his first interview which was
dominated by his discomfort at his first two placements.
The preservice teachers’ expectations of the field experiences ranged from
those feeling the weight of No Child Left Behind and accountability for student
learning, “It’s scaring me, what if they don’t learn anything?” to those who were
more idealistic and optimistic about their time in the classrooms, “I’m sure in our
short time being in the classroom we’ll be able to see the students’ growth, just
because they are receiving such encouragement and reinforcement.”
The preservice teachers expressed surprise at the volume of administrative
responsibilities teachers manage, “Student teaching is showing you all the little
things that you don’t learn in class like all the paperwork you have to do and the way
you have to keep track of, like, all the different little things (Christina).” The
preservice teachers were surprised by the academic realities of the students, “I was
just shocked because I couldn’t believe it. How does this child get to fifth grade and

103
cannot read?” Towards the end of their student teaching experience, the preservice
teachers were expressing surprise at their exhaustion; one noted being surprised by
the hard work. Only one student expressed any expectations for literacy practice, she
expressed surprise to see her cooperating teacher not use grouping as an instructional
strategy.
Once in the classroom, student’s experiences varied and with it, their focus of
attention. For Becky, she focused on the students. She describes an event from her
first placement in a fifth grade classroom:
One of the boys touched the white board as they were walking out to recess,
and he (the cooperating teacher) flew off the handle. He grabbed him, and he
shook him at the shoulders, and he said, “Don’t you ever touch my white
board! Don’t you ever! That is my white board! Not your white board! It’s
my white board!”
Becky

Becky’s initial focus was on the negative learning environment and the abusive
cooperating teacher. In that setting her sense of purpose was challenged; Becky’s
comment reflects a desire to protect the students with no thought about the impact on
her field experience:
Our main concern, well, my main concern, I should say, was with the kids.
That was the reason why I did not want to be pulled from the room, because I
felt like I could work through and be professional and do what I could in that
space. But, I didn’t want to abandon the kids because they have no choice.
They can’t leave.
Becky

104
Two months elapsed from Becky’s first report to her supervisor describing
the conditions in the classroom to her reassignment to another school. She remained
at the first placement until she was pulled from the site and reassigned. Subsequent
interviews from her second and third placements reflect Becky’s growing
commitment to community building in the classroom. Her interest in community
building began during her undergraduate experience which included an emphasis on
community building and Becky worked at an on-campus center for social justice. In
her first interview she expressed a desire to incorporate community building into her
lessons which supports the findings of Goodman and Fish (1997) who found that
field experience can reaffirm previously held beliefs.
At different times during their field experiences, every preservice teacher in
this study expressed feeling limited by existing classroom practices, the existing
curriculum and their responsibilities to the MAT program. They were subject to the
curricular demands of the school, the preferences of their cooperating teacher, and
the course requirements of student teaching. Some reveled in the freedom and space
allotted by cooperating teachers, “our teachers are so flexible, like they’re so
easygoing. They let us just do our own thing, and like they have faith and confidence
in us.” While the same circumstance was lamented by others, “It’s scary and difficult
because I go in there and I’m like, I look at it and it just seems so overwhelming to
me as to what I’m going to do. I still like the training wheels telling me, okay, just
stay within this area.”

105
Only Becky and Eduardo described placements where their teaching was
strictly limited to the demands of the cooperating teacher. Becky’s first cooperating
teacher limited her relationship with the students, denying her proclivity towards
inclusion and community. Eduardo’s second cooperating teacher limited the length
and content of his lessons, tightly controlling lesson time and the curriculum to the
extent where his cooperating teacher’s prematurely ended one of his lessons.
Something that I did not observe anywhere else, nor did I hear about from the other
students. In contrast, the other preservice teachers described environments where
their input was valued and their ideas for lessons and experimentation were generally
welcomed. That type of involvement, ownership in curricula and instructional-
decision making, Willard-Holt and Bottomley associated with the most effective
preservice teachers (2000).
Each placement offered different nuances to the preservice teacher, which
held the potential for long term influences. In Becky’s case, her first placement
strengthened her belief in the value of classroom community. Goodman and Fish
(1997) note that inequalities exist among field placements and that preservice
teachers growth was either greatly enhanced or limited according to the practicum
site and the cooperating teacher assigned to the student.
A significant concern among the preservice teachers was the poor literacy
skills of their classroom students and their own inability to effect immediate or
tangible improvement. During the individual interviews, each of them identified
literacy as the single most valuable area for students. Reading at grade level was

106
repeatedly identified as the one skill that crossed all areas of the curriculum and was
the most debilitating when not present. During an interview Mary said, “It all comes
down to literacy. The only reason those kids are struggling is because they cannot
read.” Mary’s statement reflects the sentiments her of peers who equally observed
the foundational necessity of knowing how to read.
The preservice teachers frequently referred to their classroom students as
able, but lacking in literacy skills. Mary explained, “they can do the math, but when
it’s a word problem, then they can’t… literacy is huge.” And within the same
thought she identifies her classroom students as fluent readers but lacking
comprehension, “for the most part, they’re fluent readers, but then we found out with
vocabulary is they don’t know what they are reading…” Frequently, preservice
teacher’s confused fluency and comprehension, discussing concerns for students’
fluency in terms of vocabulary or grammar usage. In these cases, all expressed
feelings of doubt and of feeling ill-prepared to address the specific problems:
Last semester, I used a lot of my notes. I tried to use my notes (this semester).
I remembered I learned it and it’s probably there somewhere. The handouts
were really helpful, you know like for the definitions for certain things. And,
strategies like vocabulary building and like front-loading. Those were
helpful, just the different strategies. I feel as if I’m ill-prepared for- I know
it’s sad, but I really do feel that way.
Stephanie

Stephanie’s comment above acknowledges that “I learned it.” But her words also
reveal that she is not confident in her ability to apply what she had learned. She
expresses a desire for “strategies” something in the form of a handout that could be

107
quickly implemented. However, she also expresses feeling ill-prepared for the task
before her.
The one exception (to feeling a lack of confidence) was a preservice teacher
who felt secure in her ability to improve upon the established classroom practices.
Her assessment of her classroom students was that their reading comprehension was
poor as a result of weak vocabulary skills. She felt confident that a more efficient,
whole group, teacher direct method was an appropriate strategy to improve their
reading comprehension:
We’re going to be even more efficient, and each table’s [group of students]
going to look up one word [from the reading vocabulary list], and then
they’re going to put them [the definitions] on the board . They’re going to
share them all, with everybody else, so only one- you’re only looking up one
word…and I’ll explain it in kid terms, or like real-life terms [Christina will
translate the definition into colloquial terms].
Christina

The preservice teachers spoke of their literacy practices in terms of what was
established practice in their host classroom. “It’s very teacher-centered. It’s very
direct instruction. I mean, that’s just how it is. She (the cooperating teacher) did a lot
of modeling, but to the point of copying.” In the last of the personal interviews,
Stephanie reflected on why she made certain instructional decisions in the classroom;
She said it was probably her indifference and lack of energy to think that made her
accept her cooperating teacher practices without question, “I just feel like I’ve been
in that classroom for so long, in that environment, that I feel like maybe I’m slowly
becoming less idealistic or less in tune with what a quality teacher is.” Others were

108
inspired by their Cooperating teachers, “she’s very good about having them also
learn through discovery, like don’t tell them so much…”. “Through discussion and
with the fieldtrip the following day, (the cooperating teacher) helped the children
form a personal connection with the reading.”
When faced with lesson planning difficulties, the preservice teachers initially
turned to their cooperating teachers with different degrees of success. Most
cooperating teachers gave parameters or guidelines to the preservice teachers prior to
their lessons, the difficulty was how far in advance the parameters and guidelines
were given. Often the preservice teachers said they had a few days to plan the lesson
and get feedback from the cooperating teacher. The feeling was that these few days
were not sufficient time given the preservice teachers’ other obligations to other
courses and their personal lives. One preservice teacher reported her cooperating
teacher refused to give feedback after she had drafted a lesson, on the grounds that
feedback was reserved for after a lesson had been delivered. The rationale being, that
giving feedback before a lesson would be akin to doing the preservice teacher’s work
for them. A more typical response about a cooperating teacher was “she gave a little
feedback before we actually did it (taught the lesson), but other than that, every time
she just sees it and she’s like, okay.” Time spent in discussion with the cooperating
teacher was very highly valued but very infrequent. As one preservice teacher’s
expressed it, “I had to refer to my (EDPT 511) notes and to the handouts (the
professor) gave us, which was helpful. But it would have been helpful to have a
teacher telling me, oh, you know, like what I am doing in the class is appropriate or

109
not appropriate and things like that.” The idea of spending time discussing teaching
with a more knowledgeable person is a scenario that would represent Vygotsky’s
(1986) Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). In this instance, the preservice
teachers are aware that this potential relationship exists but found that the setting did
not support that potential from being realized.
In summary
The field experiences provided the preservice teachers with their first formal
and extended look at the operations of a classroom. The field placements varied in
quality, with some preservice teachers requiring a change in placement, while some
preservice teachers had more autonomy in their work than others. They were
surprised by the range of literacy skills found in the classroom. They recognized the
essential role of literacy in all subject areas. They were stressed by lesson planning:
particularly the aspects of how to address the literacy needs of the students as well as
finding the time and support to prepare for their lessons. The preservice teachers
were overwhelmed with their prior learning from the methods course and struggled
to apply it, expressing a lack of self-efficacy, particularly when they felt they were
not adequately supported by the cooperating teacher.
Six codes capture the data related to field experience: field experience
expectations, descriptions of field experience, literacy specific field experience,
observations of the cooperating teacher during field experience, cooperating teacher
feedback and field placement logistics. Examples of each code are illustrated below
with a quote taken directly from a preservice teacher.

110
Table 4.1: Field Experiences: Codes, Frequencies, Percentages and Examples

Code F % Example
Field experience
expectations
25 10.7 It’s scaring me, what if they don’t learn
anything? Christina

I’m sure in our short time being in the classroom
we’ll be able to see the student’s growth just
because they are receiving such encouragement
and reinforcement. Stephanie
Descriptions of
field experience
30 12.8 And again, being that it’s the first lesson, I just
wanted to accommodate my teachers in any way
possible. Eduardo
Literacy specific
field experience
50 20.6 It all comes down to literacy. The only reason
those kids are struggling is because they cannot
read. Mary

They have their fluency program, and they sit
there and do twenty minutes every morning and
everybody is reading out lout, blah, blah, blah,
blah, blah. Stephanie
Observations of
the Coordinating
Teacher
71 30.47 It’s very teacher centered. It’s very direct
instruction. I mean that’s just how it is. She did a
lot of modeling, but modeling to the point of
copying. Becky
Coordinating
Teacher feedback
17 7.3 But it would have been helpful to have a teacher
telling me, oh, you know, like what I am doing
in the class is appropriate or not appropriate and
things like that. Stephanie
Student teacher
placements
logistics
42 18.02 One day she (the CT) was just not there and
there was no substitute. (my partner) and I were
alone, which I think is illegal. Stephanie

111
Coursework
Coursework content, coursework requirements and the preservice teacher
understanding of the content and theory of coursework are also associated with the
preservice teachers’ literacy practices. Coursework content refers specifically to
Reading and Writing Methods for Elementary Teaching, a literacy methods course
which provided the preservice teachers with their first semester of twenty-two hours
of literacy focused field experience. Data collected from the individual interviews,
the focus group and the online reflective journal were analyzed for content on
pedagogy related to literacy.
As neophytes, the preservice teachers relied on specific ‘strategies’ and
discreet knowledge. “The handouts were really helpful, you know, like for the
definition of certain things. And strategies like vocabulary building and front-
loading. Those were helpful. Just the different strategies; I feel as if I’m ill-prepared
for.” With the exception of one preservice teacher, they did not use the resources
from previous classes: “I haven’t gone over my notes, to be honest, about what was
said, but just from my own memory I can’t remember if that’s a good method or not
and why or why not.” This statement reflects a poor understanding of course
materials. Hollingsworth (1989) encountered a similar situation where a preservice
teacher’s reading methods course corresponded with the first semester of student
teaching. The preservice teacher had little use of the material from the reading
methods course in the placement where the students read relatively well.
Consequentially, in the second semester student teaching placement with struggling

112
readers, the preservice teacher needed the information from the reading methods
course, but had “apparently forgotten that information.”
A similar instance arose in the focus groups. In discussing the literacy course,
Reading and Writing Methods for Elementary Teaching, the preservice teachers
established a description of the course with content that ranged from assessment
strategies and cueing systems to addressing diversity and diverse students.
Disagreement began when others suggested that content was from one of two other
courses. It became apparent that there were some discrepancies among the students
as to what the focus or content of specific courses were. The course content of three
separate courses was indistinct just one month after they ended. Their confusion
suggests a poor grasp of the course contents or being overwhelmed with too much
information: “talking about literacy, and talking about specifics, we had that literacy
class last semester, but I left that class, and here I am this semester and in all
honesty, I can’t say what I’m applying from my last class to this class.” According to
Hollingsworth (1989), a lack of experience and application of course teachings may
account for the forgetfulness of the students. Alternatively, the content of the MAT
courses may be so tightly integrated so that it resulted in a morass of material the
preservice teachers were not able to effectively translate into best practices or
simply, that the course material was not well understood.
The preservice teachers were still clarifying their understanding and use of
theory. When asked directly if they related to any particular theory or relied on one,
three of the six identified a theory by name in their response. Others were less

113
articulate speaking of the role of the teacher and the role of the student, but were
unable to reference a specific theory. One preservice teacher demonstrated
comprehension of various theories by critiquing the teaching methods of his
Cooperating Teachers, but did not identify with any one theory. Ironically, Richard,
observed “They’re (the professors and the coursework) really theory based. You
need to know the theory to teach.” However, he did not identify a theoretical
approach to teaching that he himself related to.
Studies have found that among PSTs the transfer of theory to practice is
“meager or even non-existent (Korthagen, 1991).” On the other hand, Zeichner and
Tabachnick (1981) found that many notions and educational conceptions, developed
in preservice teacher education, were "washed out" during field experiences. Their
study reveals that very little theory is understood while enrolled in teacher education
and student teaching; a point that Levin (2001) disagrees with.
Levin (2001) found that the “wash out effect” was not in evidence and that
teachers do retain their earlier thinking and incorporate it into their professional
practice. Duffy and Atkinson’s (2001) findings concur, with time and experience
preservice teachers improved in their abilities to integrate their personal, practical
and professional knowledge to inform their actual or intended reading instruction.
This literature supports the use and knowledge of educational theory in preservice
education. The fact that the PSTs did not all identify with a theory reflects their
different stages of teacher development. Table 4.2 illustrates the PSTs theoretical
identity as expressed during an interview in the final semester of student teaching.

114
Table 4.2: Preservice Teacher Theoretical Identity

Stephanie “I see myself definitely more as constructivist…but coming to first
grade, I’ve become more behaviorist.”
Becky “I think I know who I am as a teacher, but not necessarily as by
theory…”
Christina “I would say, like I am a big multiple intelligences type of person.”
Eduardo Did not specify any one theory. Rather Eduardo identified and
critiqued the theory he identified his cooperating teacher’s use in his
placements.
Richard “So, the teacher’s job, the teacher’s role is to provide instruction that is
comprehensible to the students, that is presented in a way that they can
relate to and that engages them. I need to be sure when I’m teaching
that I can develop curriculum that is meaningful for them, not just
some arbitrary thing that they need to learn and don’t know why.”
Leann “I am a strong advocate of constructivist learning.”
“I find myself referring to Vygotsky a lot.”

The data from the preservice teachers’ observed lesson plans document
lesson styles and instructional methods used in their fieldwork that could only be
described as teacher centered. In this category, Coursework, 77% of the data
addressed the lesson style or type of instruction used by the preservice teachers
during the observed lessons. Of 131 data points, 94 were coded as either teacher
directed and/or whole class instruction. In addition to the lesson plans, classroom
management was similarly influenced; the preservice teachers’ default mode was a
form of direct instruction where student choice and student voices were limited,
again not representative of the preservice teachers statements on theory.
Based on the interview comments from the preservice teachers, and my
classroom observations, the preservice teachers’ choice of lesson style is a reflection

115
of established classroom practices in their field placement. As Becky stated, “All of
my lessons are direct instruction in that classroom because, that’s the way, the
environment. That’s the way it’s taught here.” Hollingsworth (1989) found that in
cases where the preservice teachers’ beliefs conformed to those of the cooperating
teacher, the preservice teacher was uncritical and accepting, resulting in a
reinforcement of those beliefs. Other studies have confirmed the role of the
cooperating teacher as an influence on preservice teacher teaching practices
(Wideen, Mayer-Smith & Moon, 1998; Goodman & Fish, 1997). An alternative
explanation for a preservice teacher’s uncritical behavior may be a desire to conform
in hopes of receiving good marks (Wideen, Mayer-Smith & Moon).
In Summary
The preservice teachers struggled with translating their coursework into
lesson plans as well as with understanding theory in a purposeful way. Table 4.3
illustrates examples from the codes that form the category of related pedagogy
which was discussed in this section. From the data it is not clear why the course
contents were not better used. The literature suggests that the content were somehow
not relevant to the preservice teachers’ experiences. The preservice teachers’ lessons
were overwhelmingly teacher directed and/or whole class instruction, in contrast to
their personal theoretical preferences. The preservice teachers defended their
instructional choices by pointing to the instructional models of their cooperating
teacher, which previous research has shown influences preservice teachers’ practice
(Wideen et al; Hollingsworth and; Goodman & Fish, 1997). These results must be

116
tempered with the knowledge that the school districts where the preservice teachers
were placed used a teacher-directed and scripted reading program. The fidelity of
implementation of the reading program varied from site to site. The strict use of a
scripted reading program would limit the ability of a cooperating teacher or
preservice teacher to deviate from the script. The degree to which the field
placements practiced the scripted reading program was not documented as part of the
data collection for this study. None of the previous literature reviewed here
addressed fidelity of implementation. Only during this analysis has it emerged as a
factor influencing the learning and development of preservice teacher practices.

Table 4.3: Related Pedagogy: Codes, Frequencies, Percentages and Examples

Code F % Example
Reading and
Writing
Methods for
Elementary
Teaching
14 11.5 We had that literacy class last semester, but I left that class,
and here I am this semester and in all honesty I can’t say
what I’m applying from my last class to this class.
Richard

I haven’t gone over my notes, to be honest, about what was
said, but just from my own memory I can’t remember if
that’s a good method or not and why or why not.
Stephanie
Lesson Style
used in
Fieldwork
93 77 All of my lessons are direct instruction in that classroom
because, that’s the way, the environment. That’s the way
it’s taught here.
Becky
Theory 14 11.5 I think I know who I am as a teacher, but not necessarily as
by a theory, or based off of a theory, or you know. But I
know certain things work, and I know certain things don’t.
Becky

117
Personal Literacy Experiences
Personal literacy experiences were a factor in the preservice teachers’
practices. Overall, relatively few learning experiences were discussed in the data, not
just literacy related learning experiences. The code “growing up experiences
(learning related)” was used to capture any mention of a home or school learning
related memory. These were entirely unprompted and volunteered by each
participant in the context of their personal interviews.
The following experiences were shared in the context of self-reflection either
written in the online journal or within an interview, or they were shared to convey
the reasoning behind their practices. In the focus group, which was held early in the
student teaching experiences, Leann reflects on her first practicum observations in
the field, “I guess prior to that class (Reading and Writing Methods for Elementary
Teaching), I wouldn’t have thought of reading but not knowing (lack of
comprehension) what you are reading, because I always knew what I read. I am just
learning that not everyone was taught the way I was taught.” She demonstrates a
degree of self-awareness by admitting, “It’s challenging for me to not impose that on
my students.” Leann had strong childhood memories of reading and writing. She
described herself as an active journal writer.
Stephanie sought to establish book clubs in her field placement although she
had no personal experience with book clubs. However, she expressed a great distaste
for the truncated anthologies used in her field placement and understood from her
reading methods course that book clubs were a way to bring something she valued

118
into the literacy curriculum. “I just love the idea of reading books. That’s how I
learned to read, too, you know, from books, not from anthologies.” Stephanie had
fond memories from many years of reading serialized stories as a child. In this way
her own personal literacy experience influenced her choice of reading instruction.
Without a personal working knowledge of book clubs, she relied on her reading
methods class notes and textbook to instruct her. “I didn’t really have the means to
understand it, the impact of it. I didn’t have any experience on my own with it.”
Stephanie may not have had the specific personal experience to work from, but her
early literacy experience and her personal love of books and of stories leant her
enthusiasm and confidence when she began the book clubs. Stephanie was the only
preservice teacher to identify a scenario where the content from the methods course
was used.
Unfortunately for the students, Stephanie’s implementation and oversight of
the book clubs was also affected by her personal literacy experiences in
unanticipated ways. Her personal experience as a reader was primarily as a
motivated solitary reader; from that viewpoint she had assumed the students would
come prepared and be engaged in the book clubs. Her expectations of the students
were for them to come prepared and independently discuss the book clubs, she had
not envisioned a role for herself within that scenario. Consequently, she was
surprised to find that the students did not do the reading and needed modeling to
support book discussions.

119
For others, instruction was also influenced by lack of understanding. Becky
knew she didn’t fully understand how to use a graphic organizer and she attempted
to avoid using it. She became resistant to using it and frustrated by the demands of
her professor and her student teaching supervisor to use ‘bubble maps.’ Becky
explored possible explanations for her resistance during a personal interview, “I
haven’t hit it ‘right-on’ quite yet, so, I’m still learning the concept of a bubble map.
So, it’s a little different than…maybe that’s why [she is having trouble learning the
bubble map], because it’s different from the way I learned them.”
Eduardo appeared to be very aware of why he approaches his literacy
practice the way he does, relating it directly to his own learning. He stated that
“Everything I’ve done by myself is something I always remember.” It is a statement
he repeats in various ways throughout his interviews and writings. He believes that
children are capable learners and should be encouraged to develop their
independence as learners. Eduardo’s personal story included overcoming learning
disabilities and learning to read late in elementary school.
Christina’s first years in school were on U.S. military bases where she did not
recall much of what she had learned but had memories of order in the classroom
order: “My biggest fear in going into teaching is being able to execute effective
classroom management without turning into a dictator; purely because that is all that
I was accustomed to growing up, in the classroom and in my own home.”
Lastly, in response to the online journal prompt: “Describe your earliest
literacy experiences.” Richard relates this, “I remember telling everyone I could read

120
as I repeated the story back, and turned the pages. I remember my mother and
grandmother laughing and saying that I wasn’t reading, I had just memorized the
story.” It is Richard’s only reference to early literacy experience. His personal theory
of learning was one that included empathy and sensitivity, this was also a feature he
expressed in his journals as well.
These early memories are informative when placed in the context of the
preservice teachers’ ability to critique in their reflections, and their identity with a
learning theory. The PSTs who shared the more elaborated memories were more
likely to have stated a learning theory they identified with, and more likely to engage
in their reflections.
In Summary
Each of the preservice teachers shared their early literacy and learning
experiences, either in response to a prompt or in the act of self-reflection during an
interview. Overall five of the preservice teachers were able to identify their early
learning experiences as something to overcome or as something to build on, all
unprompted (Table 4.4 provides excerpts and examples of data coded as ‘literacy
experiences’ and as ‘growing up experiences’). These findings are supported by
earlier work done by both Lortie (1975) and Pajares (1992) where the early learning
experiences of teachers influenced their instruction. Richard is the exception; he
shares a memory free from analysis or emotion, not attempting to relate it to his
literacy practice. Conversely, his peers were at various stages of relating their
personal experiences to their classroom practice. (See following page):

121
Table 4.4: Personal Literacy Experiences: Codes, Frequencies, Percentages and
Examples

Code F % Example
Literacy
experiences
22 51 “In my earliest experience, I was around three years
old, and was sitting in my grandmothers lap and
reading a story about the junkyard and cars and
trucks. I am not really sure about the story, but I
remember telling everyone that I could read as I
repeated the story back, and turned the pages. I
remember my mother and grandmother laughing
and saying that I wasn’t reading, I had just
memorized the story.” Richard
Growing up
experiences
(learning
related)
21 49 “And I never seem to hit it right on. Haven’t hit it
right on quite yet. So, I’m still learning the concepts
of a bubble map. So, it is a little different than,
maybe that’s why, because it’s different from the
way I learned them. So, adjusting to this…” Becky
N=43 100

Instructional Literacy Practice
This paper sought to identify the instructional literacy practices used by
preservice teachers. This section presents the observed and self-described practices
of the PSTs. The category Preservice Teacher Literacy Practices’ includes analysis
of the PTSs’ observed and stated practice in the classroom, their stated practices for
lesson planning and their discussion of instructional decision making specific to their
own literacy practice in the classroom. Data sources include student teacher lesson
plans, observations, and interviews. The category combines the codes, student
teacher literacy practice in the classroom, lesson planning, and instructional
decision making & student teacher literacy practice in the classroom. The last code

122
is a combination of two separate codes that were collapsed to capture the data which
represented both instructional decision making and student teacher literacy practice
in the classroom. The following sections describe the reading instruction practices of
the preservice teachers. They are grouped by topic, where multiple data sources
confirmed each other.
Classroom literacy practices
The preservice teachers’ literacy practices in the classroom range from
exemplary to very poor. Often exemplary practice was combined with less desirable
practices. The preservice teachers practices are influenced by their own learning
experiences and beliefs (Lortie, 1977; Pajares, 1993). They were still early in their
learning process and their personal knowledge and biases resulted in
misunderstandings of instructional practice (Duffy & Atkinson, 2001), or they were
preoccupied with issues of classroom management, or “forgot” the better methods
(Hollingswoth, 1989), or were concerned only with getting through the lesson and
not with the quality of the students learning (Fuller, 1969). Below are fieldnotes
taken from is one of Becky’s observed literacy lessons which illustrate the variation
within a single lesson:
• Becky asks many questions of the students.
• She answers all of her questions herself.
• She corrects (their reading) without invoking any strategies, e.g. “does
that make sense?” or “try it again.”

123
• She stands at the front of the class by the white board for the duration of
the lesson.
• She uses large photographs to illustrate the vocabulary.
• She writes select words on the white board.
Becky asks her students many questions but when students answer
incorrectly, she does not use any strategies that could support their own critical
thinking such as asking them to support their answer with facts from the reading text.
Rather, she supplies the correct answer. She stays grounded at the front of the room,
never moving among the students. A non-verbal cue such as walking among them
can achieve many goals; creating a conversational environment, a subtle method of
keeping students on task, removing herself from the focus of the room and allowing
the subject material to be central. The use of non-verbal behaviors or cues can
support a safe and orderly classroom environment (Eggen & Kauchak, 1997).
Another preservice teacher, Eduardo, describes how during one of his first
writing lessons he had poor results. He made the children write him an apology letter
for their poor cooperation because, he rationalized, the point of the lesson had been
to get them to write, this was how he was going to get the writing in:
(I told them) everybody has to write me an “I’m sorry” letter. I gave them the
format. …and knowing that they weren’t used to this, I only asked for a
paragraph.
Eduardo

124
Eduardo’s rationale was that as a natural consequence for poor writing, he would
assign, punitively, more writing. A clear reflection of his own early learning
experiences where that he highly prized the ability to write and read well.
English Language Learners
English language learners (ELL) were given little to no consideration during
instruction. “That’s the ELL support handbook, and I don’t even look at it because
for me, we go over the vocabulary words once and I feel like they really have a good
understanding of what these words mean, then we read.” This quote was from the
same student teacher who did not have a type-written lesson plan in advance of her
observations and who did not identify a lesson objective or standard on those
occasions either. The school site was a title I school in a Spanish speaking
neighborhood. Other subject areas were not the focus of this study, so it is not known
if the other content areas experienced the same treatment as the literacy lessons.
Regardless, the result is that at least three of observed literacy lessons were taught
without prepared lesson plans. The majority of the preservice teacher’s were
prepared with written plans including objectives and standards but not necessarily to
any greater effect. The observed literacy practices were the same regardless.
This instance of a preservice teacher not using an ELL handbook or other
accommodations for ELL students may reflect the preservice teachers’ inability to
recognize a need for it. As in Marxen and Rudney’s (1999) study where graduates
did not apply the course teachings on diversity, where they did not perceive it as
needed, this preservice teacher also did not perceive a need for language support.

125
Many preservice teachers spoke of the affective filter and of being sensitive to the
emotive influence on student learning. This took the form of an awareness of calling
on students to read aloud or answer questions in front of the class. “Students are
asked if they want to read, but are allowed to decline.” Other preservice teachers
would tap students prior to calling on them by name to see if they were willing to
participate. Typically, this was a behavior observed during various forms of group
reading.
Each of the preservice teachers relied on either the exclusive use of oral
instructions or the combined use of oral and written instructions. All of the
preservice teachers were observed using a written visual as an aid during a lesson at
least once. When written instructions were used they were universally hand-printed
in small sized letters on small poster board or construction paper written in black ink.
From my vantage point in the back of the classrooms and wearing corrective lenses I
was never able to read the visual aids. I suspect the same was true for many students
also in the back of the room.
Group Reading
Despite some preservice teachers’ acknowledging that group reading
(popcorn, choral, individual turn taking) was not a preferred method to cover reading
material, most of them used it at least once during their observed lessons. Again,
from my fieldnotes I write: “Richard repeats many of the words as the students do
the reading. There are many pauses (in the reading) to answer student questions.
Richard answers them all himself.” While another PST relates a different

126
experience, “So I said, Okay, next time, we’re all going to read together. Because
then at least I know that you’ve read it. And then the next time I did it that way, it
was just excruciatingly painful, and long, and I felt like I was loosing some of the
students.”
Grouping
Small groups were recognized as a valuable forum for teaching by the
preservice teachers, but a difficult one to manage in a large classroom. Unless a
cooperating teacher had already established the use of small group instruction prior
to the preservice teachers’ field experience it was not used by the preservice
teachers. Guided reading was an exception. Guided Reading as taught in small
groups was common in the lower grades. For those who did use small group
instruction, the results were satisfying, “I did a small group setting in language arts,
and because I am doing it in group, I’m phasing each group in so eventually I can do
the whole class, just to get everybody to have a better understanding of the book
we’re reading. I’ve done it twice, and already, I feel like there is a massive
improvement.” Preservice teachers directed the majority of their lessons from the
front of the classroom to the whole class. Only a small handful of lessons used small
groups, individual work or partner work.
Type of Instruction
As discussed earlier in this chapter, direct instruction and whole group
instruction were favored by this group of preservice teachers (see Table 4.5 for a
table outlining the type and number of lessons of observed). During the student

127
teaching phase of their field experiences, the preservice teachers were required to use
a variety of different lesson styles from the models of teaching. Despite this exposure
to the models of teaching and the encouragement to vary their lesson format, they
invariably returned to teacher-directed, whole group instruction when given the
opportunity.
Most preservice teachers planned classroom discussions in their lessons. In
practice, the format tended to be whole class and directed by the teacher. Within this
format, there was great variation as to the type of questions asked. For example, in
my fieldnotes I had written: “Stephanie stops and asks questions as she reads. She
engages the students in discussion. Her questions range from recall, to
comprehension, to critical thinking and deductive reasoning.”
Table 4.6 illustrates the type of instruction used by the preservice teachers
during their observed lessons. At ten minute intervals, one point was marked in each
column of the observed instruction type. This table is summative of all three
observed lessons, with the exception of Becky, Richard and Eduardo who were
observed twice. A single lesson may have begun as whole class and switched to
small group. Also, at the same ten minute interval a lesson could have been recorded
as both teacher directed and partner work.

128
Table 4.5: Type of Instruction Observed at 10 Minute Intervals

PST
Student
centered
Teacher
directed
Whole
class Individual Partner
Small
group
Total
observation
points
Becky* 0 9 8 3 0 0 20
Christina 1 13 12 6 0 0 32
Eduardo* 1 4 5 0 0 1 11
Leann 2 9 10 4 2 6 33
Richard* 0 10 9 3 0 1 23
Stephanie 1 3 2 1 0 5 12
Total 5 48 46 17 2 13 131
*observed twice

Lesson Planning
A separate act from delivering a lesson is the act of planning and preparing
for the lesson. The preservice teachers were required to plan and write out their
lessons. Ideally lesson planning is done in advance and reflects a teacher’s
knowledge of the subject matter and student needs and interests. In the MAT
program preservice teachers were required to write out their lesson plans in a
prescribed format per the style of lesson used. The lessons were to be approved by a
cooperating teacher prior to delivery. This requires a combination of elements to be
met; the preservice teacher must have advance notice and information regarding the
lesson, the preservice teacher must have provided their master teacher with a copy of
the lesson prior to the start of the lesson and enough notice must be given so that the
cooperating teacher is able to provide feedback on the lesson in time for the

129
preservice teacher to incorporate it prior to delivering the lesson. This ideal scenario
should transpire over a period of several days if not longer. However, in practice the
preservice teacher’s manage their lesson planning in less than ideal circumstances, as
revealed by the quotes below:
I think we are supposed to plan it a week in advance, yeah. We haven’t been
doing that, so basically the morning of, we just say (speak with the master
teacher), like, this is a run down of what we are doing, and then she’ll say
like, oh, would it work better this way, or if I have a question, like what do
you think about that and how would it run smoothly and which students to
pick for my group.
Stephanie

On why she consistently did not prepare a written lesson plan Leann said:
I feel like I’m thinking in the lesson plan format anyways. So, the act of
typing it out and printing it out isn’t really for me because when I’m thinking
of, okay, how am I going to teach this to them right now, I’m thinking in my
head, how am I going to introduce it to them so it’s interesting. How am I
going to have them practice it with me and without me. So, it’s more of a
mental thought process.

When asked how they prepare their lessons the preservice teacher’s responses
aligned well with their stated theoretical identity or showed sensitivity from their
own literacy learning experiences:
I think about how I can relate something to their level. I think about what
connections I can make, to make them understand, to make them interested. I
think about what things, what can I pull out of the reading or the writing that
are actual, like reality I can bring in that can show them, and give them more
of an interest.
Christina

130
What I learned from Mr. Manzo and from the bilingual coordinating coach,
always tie it back to them. Tie it back to them no matter what subject.
Eduardo

Christina had identified with Constructivist learning theory. Her explanation
of how she plans a lesson reflects addressing the learners’ interests. Eduardo, a first
generation Mexican-American whose first language is Spanish, shows his awareness
of SDAIE (Specifically Designed Academic Instruction in English) learning
principles. Eduardo was the only preservice teacher to be placed in a Spanish
speaking classroom.
When asked how they made their instructional decisions, time and
organization became factors in how lessons were developed. “Wish I could have
taught about symbols and myths in a different way. And if I had access to enough of
those books, I probably would have.” Then later, this same preservice teacher
continues talking about the lesson planning process, “I would like it to be more them
(more student centered). In fact, I was going to do a group investigation instead of
advanced organizer at the time, but like I said, I couldn’t come up with enough
pictures to create a puzzlement.”
When planning for lessons, the preservice teacher’s spoke a great deal about
the activity associated with the lesson. The activity was their greatest concern; the
teaching standard was rarely mentioned. When standards were referred to, they were
referred to as something open to manipulation, or even incidental to the lesson.

131
Well, I looked for activities…activities that, and things that I know have
worked in the past. Things that I’ve seen done, just from my prior
knowledge. Things that I’ve seen friends do, or that I even did with fifth-
graders, I did today with first-graders...but (I use) the internet, a lot.”
Becky

How can we fit our idea into the standards? How are we going to make this
work? Because we think the ideas are really important. And so, yeah, we do it
backwards.
Christina

Others used less substantial reasoning for selecting materials relevant to the
lesson. On why a preservice teacher selected a poem to illustrate a lesson on personal
narrative, “it’s like a personal narrative, it’s very descriptive.”
Lesson Plan Feedback
Cooperating teachers are expected to provide feedback on lesson plans and
after a lesson has been taught. According to the preservice teachers, lesson planning
was frequently abbreviated due to time constraints, limiting the amount of feedback
possible from the cooperating teacher. Likewise, the preservice teachers said the
cooperating teacher was not available for prolonged feedback.
The preservice teachers described lesson planning as an inconvenient process
that required time and cooperation from the cooperating teacher. Feedback was
usually given prior to a lesson with little opportunity to be incorporated. Written
feedback was welcome but, was perceived as benign or supportive, not instructive.
For example,

132
“She (the cooperating teacher) gave us a little feedback before we actually
did it. But other than that, every time she just see’s it and she’s like, it’s
okay.”
Eduardo

Depending on the nature of the feedback, the PSTs may have been resistant to
accepting the feedback, especially if the feedback was severe or critical. As Becky
said, “Part of me looks at it and thinks, okay, well, that’s valid. And the other part of
me was like, well, that’s the way you would have taught it.”
Despite the lack of success with timely feedback, the preservice teachers had
a strong desire to spend time discussing lesson plans, planning and teaching with
their cooperating teachers. The preservice teachers identified time as the main
constraint. There was no predictable or appointed time for them to sit and discuss
with their cooperating teachers. One preservice teacher observed that the only time
the cooperating teacher had available to talk was during lunch time, a time the
cooperating teacher expressed was set aside for smoking.
Subject Matter Knowledge and Lessons
When given free reign to teach ‘anything’, a preservice teacher chooses to
teach haiku, traditionally a highly structured poem about nature. The preservice
teacher opted to teach haiku because, “I thought it would be fun.” After I observed
the lesson I asked why the selected examples of haiku did not follow the traditional
format she had taught the students. The preservice teacher answered, “I honestly
didn’t pay attention. But I thought that it was good, but it didn’t (follow the
traditional format).” To rationalize the error the PST explained, “I guess why I read

133
it (the non-traditional haiku) is because, at the end, the end assignment is write your
own about something, and it doesn’t have to be about nature. So, just allowing them
to see flexibility and everything… and it’s poetry. Maybe a sonnet has to be,
whatever, but the rules are just kind of gray. They can be gray sometimes. And I
want them to feel okay with that.” Rationalizing that poetry needn’t follow rules,
then citing a sonnet as an exception, reifies this preservice teachers misguided
lesson. This example exposes two features that impact the finished lesson plan, first,
subject matter knowledge and second, a lack of supervision. The concern is not
whether it is possible to teach haiku using non-traditional examples. The concern is
that the preservice teacher was not aware the examples were non-traditional; thus the
classroom students just learned about non-traditional haiku without knowing it, and
no one had noticed.
A lack of familiarity with a subject limits the possibilities for student learning
and for teaching the subject matter. Richard described a time when he did not display
a full understanding of simile versus metaphor. During a lesson on literary devices
“(My cooperating teacher) waves me over and says, don’t forget ‘like’ or ‘as’. Simile
has to have ‘like’ or ‘as’. And in my mind, I’m like, “no, I can make a comparison
without like or as.” In hindsight, Richard admits, he wishes he’d done more research,
had he more time. Richard had planned a lesson on simile that did not include the use
of “like” or “as”. Had the lessons been prepared in advance and approved by the
cooperating teachers? In both cases, the lessons had been approved in concept only.
The preservice teachers had not presented a written plan in advance of the lesson.

134
Without a detailed written lesson plan, cooperating teachers may not be able to catch
errors of subject matter knowledge or provide other helpful feedback.
Richard was the same student who invited me in to observe a lesson on the
writing process. I observed a lesson on the use of adjectives. After the lesson I asked
him to relate to me how the lesson featured the writing process. He answered, “The
writing process? Those were my words? You know, I guess the writing process was
simply the physical writing of the sentences and just the rote-ness of it.”
This illustrates a potential limit in my research. I had instructed each of the
six participants, as a group and individually, as well as in writing, that I only wanted
to observe “literacy related lessons.” I repeated this like a mantra throughout the
course of the data collection. I would confirm with the preservice teacher’s prior to
my observations that the scheduled lesson was “literacy related.” At no time did I
define what this meant, or attempt to define it for them. Frequently they expressed
concern about the appropriateness of the lesson. At those times, I would ask them if
they thought the lesson was literacy related, and if so, it would be fine. There were
occasions when the preservice teacher would opt to reschedule for a more
appropriate lesson. Time and time again, I found myself observing social studies,
grammar and science lessons. Rare was the straight reading or writing lesson. This
reflects what the preservice teacher’s describe in their interviews, often with
reverence, that during the course of their various fieldwork experiences, they had
recognized literacy as the universal element that wove through all subject matter.
Other possible explanations could include, they were sincere in their interpretation of

135
‘literacy related’, the participants were eager to fulfill their agreement and were
offering up what lessons were available or they had little regard for the research, or a
bit of each.
Analysis of Practices
The reading instruction practices of these preservice teachers was strongly
affected by their field experiences, including the influence of the cooperating
teacher, and their own personal knowledge, or learning experiences. The methods
course, The Reading and Writing Methods for Elementary Teaching, was less
informative.
The findings from this study support Goodman and Fish’s 1997 results. The
field placements presented inequalities that served the preservice teachers in both
positive and negative ways. Goodman and Fish identified inequalities in placements
and the assigned cooperating teacher as either enhancing or limiting the growth of
the preservice teacher. Where some preservice teachers spoke of the freedom their
cooperating teacher gave them with appreciation, others were daunted by the open-
ended aspects of taking on so much responsibility. Willard-Holt and Bottomley
(2000) associated ownership of curricula and instructional decision making with the
most effective preservice teachers in their Kids College study. Depending on where
the preservice teacher is in their personal knowledge and experience, unchecked and
poorly supervised ‘ownership in curricula’ and ‘instructional decision making’ may
reinforce poor instructional practice. Richard and Christina were given great latitude
in terms of lesson planning with limited feedback from their cooperating teachers.

136
The results were lessons containing errors and misrepresentations. In Richard’s case,
his cooperating teacher corrected the error during the lesson. For Christina, she was
not conscious of the discrepancy until after the lesson had been taught. The danger
lies in establishing bad practice for the preservice teacher and in poor instruction for
students.
From the data it is evident that the preservice teachers are operating
somewhere between their personal ideas of how to teach literacy and their
understandings of MAT course teaching. Most were aware of the influence of their
own literacy experiences on their practice. Stephanie provides the most concrete
example of personal literacy experience informing her reading instruction practice.
She had identified a weak feature of the reading curriculum (comprehension), she
stated why she thought comprehension was weak (the use of condensed anthologies),
and identified an alternative (book clubs). She believed from her own experiences
that reading literature vs. anthologies was an access point to improved
comprehension. She consulted her methods course notes and discussed her concern
with her cooperating teacher who then recommended the use of book clubs. She did
not have any personal experience with book clubs but recalled from her methods
course that they were a way to introduce literature into the classroom.
Consequentially, Stephanie’s personal experience and beliefs also impacted her
implementation and planning for book clubs. She did not plan for book clubs, or read
the assigned books. She also expected the students to participate with the same
enthusiasm she had for books at their age. From my observations, the book clubs

137
needed Stephanie to model how to talk about the books and how to participate in a
book club.
Among the preservice teachers in this study, Stephanie’s example is singular.
The others had not attempted to apply the pedagogy of the MAT program to their
field experience in the same active way. Two factors separate her from her peers, she
identified having had a positive early literacy experience to draw upon and she
identified herself as a reader. Just as Street (2003) concluded that the early
experiences of preservice teachers learning to write affected their identities as writers
and subsequently, their instruction of writing, the data from Stephanie supports the
same for reading and reading instruction.
Of the four other preservice students who shared early literacy experiences,
two had elaborate memories which I characterized as strong literacy experiences.
Those two, Eduardo and Leann, both had well articulated philosophies for teaching
that were informed by their early literacy experiences. Of those that had weaker
memories, Becky and Michael, they experienced more difficulties with the technical
aspects of teaching such as understanding how to use particular strategies and subject
matter knowledge.
The methods course had an assigned practicum of 22 hours that placed the
preservice students directly into urban, public elementary schools for the first time.
The focus of the practicum was literacy. Later when the preservice teachers
transitioned to student teaching, they were not able to transfer the learning
experience in overt or meaningful ways. The preservice teachers claimed they could

138
not remember what they learned, nor did they, with one exception, attempt to access
it by re-reading class notes or texts. Hollingsworth (1989) documented the same
phenomena with a student who “had apparently forgotten that information by the
second semester when she needed it” (p. 179). The preservice teachers
acknowledged having learned methods that could serve them in student teaching but
that they had forgotten them. The preservice teachers spoke of the stress and
demands of their accelerated program. Their journals and interviews reflected
concerns with their ability to teach and manage the students. As a group they were
very much in the early stages of teacher development and not yet in a position to
focus on curriculum and student learning (Fuller, 1969; Duffy & Atkinson, 2001).
This may explain why their understanding and retention of methods was so weak.
The reading instruction practiced by the preservice teachers during their field
placements was predominately large group and teacher directed instruction
regardless of their espoused theoretical orientation. So much reliance on a single
instructional style suggests that the preservice teachers felt most comfortable with
that style or it was the accepted model used by the cooperating teacher. Content
knowledge impacted preservice teachers’ lessons and student learning. Two lessons
were observed where erroneous information and modeling was presented to students.
Lastly, access to quality materials limited the lesson planning intentions of
preservice teachers, especially in cases where materials could be used to address the
needs of ELL students or students with learning accommodations.

139
The findings from the analysis of field experiences, related pedagogy and the
preservice teachers’ literacy practices tell us that field experiences and classroom
courses on literacy do impact preservice teachers’ literacy practices. In some cases
the coursework was acknowledged as useful and was referred to. In some cases the
coursework was referred to for lesson planning but only superficially, when the
students were looking for activities to use during a lesson plan. Theory was not
referenced and time constraints held back others who expressed a desire to refer to
their coursework notes but did not have adequate time to do so. Others recalled some
things from the coursework, but did not have a complete understanding to implement
them. The preservice teachers did observe good practices that they admired and
wished to emulate their cooperating teachers in some cases. However, more vocal
were those who disagreed with their cooperating teacher or the curriculum of their
placement.
Field Experience and Reflection
In the student teaching phase of this study content from the preservice
students post-lesson interviews constitute reflections. During the interviews the
preservice teachers were asked questions about their instructional choices and about
the content of their lessons, for example, “How does this lesson make students better
readers or writers?” Their responses can be characterized as “reflection-on-action”
(Schön, 1983). At times they spontaneously reflected on an element of their field
experience, without an interviewer prompt. The reflections discussed here are taken

140
from the interviews that occurred during the student teaching phase of the MAT
experience.
Reflections on practice taken from the interviews were coded either as
curriculum or literacy practice in the classroom. The code curriculum was applied
when the preservice teacher referred to the quality of, the learning consequences of,
or the materials from the existing literacy curriculum in the field placement
classrooms. The code Literacy practice in the classroom are self-descriptions of
what preservice teachers did in the classroom (both observed and self-reported),
occasionally including why.
On Curriculum
Most of the preservice teachers expressed a dislike of some element of the
literacy curriculum of their field placements. Explicit comments were far more
common than implied regarding curriculum: “The whole thing about the Newport
Anthologies, I hate it because they only get segments of a book and it’s totally out of
context.” Leann valued the use of literature to teach all elements of language rooted
in her own love of reading. She envisioned literature as the basis for all instruction,
… if it were up to me and I had the choice, I would prefer them know these
words and the function of parts of speech through reading….These parts can
all be imbedded in reading and writing and I wish that we had the luxury of,
you know, really exploring that a lot, like getting to know our reading,
getting to know our books and our literature and knowing all of the different
things that pop out from it. You basically teach, if you have one good book,
one good piece of reading, that’s really all you need.
Leann

141
The subject of the literacy curriculum was usually mentioned in the context
of critique and targeted at classroom literacy practices. The preservice teachers were
vocal about their opinions of classroom literacy practices. In response to the
question, “what do you think you’ll remember from Mrs. R’s classroom?” One
preservice teacher answered, “It’s a lot of stuff not to do.” Another preservice
teacher, Christina answered, “I think the great thing that I observe in Mrs. C’s class
is that she facilitates listening and speaking strategies for the student’s different
levels along with holding high expectations for them.”
Leann’s assessment of the anthologies her school used was that the abridged
reading is de-contextualized and boring for students. Essentially, the anthology was
not motivating for students to read. Her critique reflects her belief about students,
“They [the children] should enjoy reading. I think that’s really important. They
should be, you know, self-motivated.” As she critiques what the reading program
lacks she is alluding to how it is harmful to the students learning, namely, it does not
support comprehension, “[the reading program] emphasizes a lot more phonetics
rather than the writing process.”
Others, like Becky, uncritically accepted the literacy curriculum of their
student teaching placement. She was aware which practices were preferred by her
student teacher supervisor but admits that if her cooperating teacher had not wanted
the lesson done a certain way she’s not certain she would have changed it. In the
follow-up interview to her second student teaching lesson observation, Becky said
that during the lesson she thought to herself, “I bet Betty wouldn’t like what I’m

142
doing right now, but the teacher wants it so I did that. Not that I know if I would do
things differently. I’m not sure about that.” The lesson was part of the Open Court
series, where playing a tape recording of the story being studied was an option.
Becky’s cooperating teacher had encouraged her to use the recording. Becky
admitted making the choice to please the cooperating teacher, however, she also
admits she had not examined the instructional value of doing it versus not. Her
instinct was that her Student Teaching Supervisor would disapprove of it because the
recording narrated the story quickly, which Becky thought would be difficult for her
ELL class to keep up with. She rationalized that the value of the recording modeling
the correct pronunciation of words was worth the risk of loosing some students due
to the rapid pace of the recording.
Eduardo critiqued the school curriculum of one of his student-teaching
placements for not integrating subject matter across the curriculum. “They have a lot
of art, they have a lot of poetry, those big shiny books, but … I never saw integration
between the subjects.” He believed that engaging students was essential to their
learning. He frequently spoke of the importance of finding how to engage students.
For Eduardo, his student teaching field experience produced two “ah-ha” moments
which summarize his teaching philosophy: “But I really learned through student
teaching that reading is just everywhere.” And later, “ I learned that reading is
integrated in all subjects.”
All of the preservice teachers were able to articulate an appreciation for the
integral role literacy plays in all learning across the curriculum. Specifically in

143
science and math, the Preservice teachers recognized the importance of literacy for
learning. Explaining that with limited time for exploring concepts, such as through
the use of manipulatives, reading is an efficient way to convey information,
“…There’s almost no time for actual exploring or science in most classes. It’s just a
hassle to do the whole manipulative thing, and so literacy comes into much
importance (Eduardo).” Others identified literacy as the basis for all subject learning.
Across the curriculum Tracy identified poor literacy skills as the single greatest
factor holding children back, “It all comes down to literacy. The only reason those
kids are struggling is because they cannot read.”
Based on their reflections, field experiences established the role of reading as
the foundation for learning in school. Their recognition of this was a direct result of
their student teaching experience. The degree to which they critiqued the literacy
curriculum appears to be related to their knowledge of theory and the strength of
their own literacy related learning experiences (Lortie, 1975). Of the preservice
teachers that critiqued the curriculum they were able to name a learning theory they
identified with and in the course of their interviews and from online written
reflections had shared extended literacy learning experiences (either positive or
negative).
On Practice
In this program there is a huge emphasis on you need to reflect on yourself as
a teacher, and if they’re (the students) not understanding it (the lesson), then
you need to re-evaluate how you taught it and then you need to teach it again-
you need to teach it better as opposed to placing the blame on the student.
Becky

144
Moments of self-reflection, offered spontaneously in the interviews, reveal
the most evidence of critical thinking. The preservice teachers were able to critically
examine their own practices and at times, even propose solutions or improvements.
However, they were not always able to do so with great effect. For example, in
Stephanie’s newly formed book clubs she thought that adding the use of a map while
reading the Laura Ingel’s story of crossing the country in a covered wagon would
add depth to student comprehension and increase the interest level. At our next
interview, six weeks later, I asked her if she had been using a map with that book
club. She had not. Stephanie’s self-reflection meets VanManen’s (1977) criteria as a
Critical reflection. Her reflecting at all is still considered valuable; the structured use
of reflection has been shown to improve the practice of preservice teachers
(Guilluame & Rudney, 1993).
For others, reflecting on their reading instruction identified characteristics
that helped them through an experience; humility and patience:
Today we were talking about the model of instruction that we had actually
used but didn’t even understand. And I was just sitting there like, oh my god,
I am so – like I can’t believe it. I can’t believe I went in there thinking I knew
and I didn’t know. It’s really humbling.
Leann

…the most frustrating thing is that, when you’re trying to teach a child, you
know, because you’re an adult, so you know, and you’re just like, why aren’t
they getting it? Why are they getting it? So just being patient. I didn’t realize
how patient you had to be, you know. You have to be really patient. It
doesn’t matter if they are in the first grade or the fifth grade.
Christina

145
Depending on the subject of a reflection, the outcome could vary among an
individual. Above, Christina successfully calms herself by remembering to be patient
with her students. In a separate reflection, Christina offers no rationale for her
opinion supporting a pull-out program her students went to, “Because that’s the way
I did it.” She also spoke about her love of books, her memories learning to read and,
of looking up words in the dictionary. She recognized that her students lacked
practice with open-ended questions and with critical thinking, “I’ve found whenever
I use open-ended questions with them, I don’t get the responses I am looking for.”
She found her students struggled when faced with ambiguous instructions, “they
freak out.” Christina wished to bring them along so that open-ended questions would
prompt rich conversations between the students. Through her scattered reflections,
Christina is able to identify areas for improvement in instruction. However, in this
example her assessment and her implementation do not match, yet, she asserts the
problem will be solved. Christina identifies comprehension as a problem but
efficiency became the goal.
They’re memorizing definitions and they know what the definition is, but
they don’t understand what it means. So then, during my all-days, I guess two
weeks ago, I was like, this is what we’re going to do. We’re going to be even
more efficient, and each table’s going to look up one word, and then they’re
going to put them on the board. They’re going to share them all, with
everybody else. And then I’ll go through and I’ll explain it, in kid terms. Or
like real-life terms.
Christina

Of all six preservice teachers, only two recognized their teaching had an
effect on student learning. Similar to Becky in the opening quote, Leann said

146
students will learn anything as long as “I do a good job explaining it or showing it
and illustrating it.” Through reflection, Leann observed that implementing her
learning was challenging: “Its’ like you learn about it and you read about it and you
…totally agree with it, but when it comes down to doing it, that’s hard.” Regardless
of her reflection, she often failed to plan lessons ahead of time and frequently relied
on her love of literature to see her through a lesson.
The student teaching field experience provided many opportunities for
reflection. Unlike their reflections on curriculum which had a unifying theme of
literacy, the reflections on instruction varied considerably. Not only did they vary on
subject but also in how they reflected.
At times reflections from the same student could be categorized as Practical
reflection and at other times as Technical reflection (Van Manen, 1977). (See Table
4.6 for examples of reflections on curriculum and literacy practice in the classroom.)
This demonstrates that preservice students can hold multiple concerns at one time
(Richards and Brumfield, 2001) and according to Lortie (1975) and Pajares (1993), a
preservice teacher’s perception is filtered through their own learning experiences.
Their ability to reflect on any given subject will depend on their experiences;
producing uneven levels of reflection as the subject varies. The use of structured
reflection promotes shifts between the stages and for improving the practice of
preservice teachers (Guillaume & Rudney, 1993).

147
Table 4.6: Reflections on Curriculum and Classroom Literacy Practices: Codes,
Frequencies, Percentages and Examples

Code F % Example
Curriculum 11 6.28 “I didn’t realize people actually practice
fluency.” Stephanie
Literacy practice
in the classroom
164 93.71 On why she always writes out the
students requests for spelling words, “I
think I do it because my cooperating
teacher does it.” Stephanie
N=175 100%

Analysis of Field Experiences and Reflections
In terms of what the preservice teachers’ reflections reveal about their student
teaching , it is important to recall the value of the use of reflection. Guillaume and
Rudney (1993) found the use of structured opportunities for reflection can be useful
to promote developmental shifts between concerns and improve the practices of
student teachers. Using guided reflections, Willard-Holt and Bottomley (2000) found
that the quality and quantity of reflection was associated with successful preservice
teachers. Together, these results suggest that the use of structured opportunities for
guided reflection can promote improved practice for preservice teachers. These
reflections were structured, but highly infrequent, three times over a twenty week
period. Independent from this research project, the preservice teachers were
concurrently responsible for reflections assigned by their MAT instructors. The
research suggests that weekly reflection is more effective, in some cases, three times
a week, although no set amount was established.

148
The preservice teachers varied in both what they reflected on and how they
reflected, evidence of their own varied personal knowledge (Duffy & Atkinson,
2001). Through the use of reflection, the preservice teachers were: Developing their
ability to critically examine both the curriculum, and instruction, and better integrate
their personal and professional knowledge (Duffy & Atkinson). Lastly, the field
experience established reading as the most important skill for school students. This
data was collected from the student teaching field experience and not from the first
semester practicum which focused on reading and writing methods. This suggests
that the first field experience had successfully become a part of their personal
knowledge and was informing their reflection during student teaching.
Field experience introduces new experiences that are filtered through existing
personal knowledge and biases, often resulting in cognitive dissonance. Linek et al.
(2006) found that the field experiences of preservice teachers created cognitive
dissonance. The instructors of the students in the study cited the guided reflections
for pushing understanding and challenging the students thinking. The use of
structured and guided reflection has been effective to resolve it. In this study the
preservice teachers’ personal knowledge and biases influenced their concerns and
how they were able to reflect. The field experience provided the material for the use
of structured and guided reflection, which is associated with improved preservice
teacher practice.

149
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to examine the literacy and learning
experiences of preservice teachers (PST) in relation to what informs their
instructional reading practices development of both their literacy practice and their
thinking about literacy curriculum and instruction. The objective was to establish a
better understanding how PSTs develop their understandings of how to teach
literacy. Data was analyzed using sociocultural theory guided by Rogoff’s (2003)
three planes of learning and development: the personal, the social and the
community-institutional. The activity setting was used as the basic unit of analysis as
it contains all three planes.
This study used PSTs reflective journals, lesson-sharing feedback, transcripts
from a focus group and a series of personal interviews as well as in-classroom
observations of literacy related instruction as primary sources. All data were coded
using the constant comparative method (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). As in Richard’s and
Brumfield’s (2003) study, content analysis began with the highlighting of salient
information. A fluid coding system that reflected a developing understanding of the
data across participants was used. Categories and themes emerged as the data were
coded and repeated incidents confirmed the coding.
The results of this study were discussed in detail in chapter four of this
dissertation. In chapter 5 I discuss insights gained from the analysis of the data and
the implications for the field of teacher education. I begin with a summary of the

150
findings, and then discuss implications in practice, including suggestions for
improvement of the program used in this study, followed by recommendations for
future research.
Summary of the Findings
The PST’s developing literacy practices are primarily influenced by their
early literacy experiences, their field experiences, the literacy practices observed
from the cooperating teacher (CT) and, to much lesser extent, coursework, including
the understanding and use of theory. The reflections in the form of semi-structured
interviews during student teaching were infrequent but did establish, albeit weak, the
preservice student’s ability to critically examine the curricula and instruction and
better integrate their personal and professional knowledge. More important to the
scope of their future as teachers was their recognition of the overall fundamental
importance of reading as essential to school success.
The early literacy experiences of the PSTs influenced their theoretical
perspectives and their classroom instructional practice. Those PSTs with the weakest
or missing articulation of early literacy memories had the weakest application of
coursework and relied the most on their CT for instructional literacy practices. Those
with the strongest literacy memories expressed stronger teaching philosophies.
The influence of the field experience on PST practice cannot be
underestimated. The existing literature agrees that the field placement is influential.
Kauchak and Burbank (2003) and Goodman and Fish (1997) both identify the field
placement as a significant factor in the development of the preservice teacher. In this

151
study it is clear that the field experiences of the PSTs in this study were influenced
by both the field placement and the CT. The analysis of the data shows that the CT is
influential in cases where the PST has not articulated any early literacy memories
and/or any early learning experiences. In this study, of the six PST participants, three
articulated early learning experiences, one identified becoming a reader and writer in
junior high school, and two did not articulate any early literacy experiences.
The preservice teachers in this study were subject to their CT’s instructional
practices. This has been established in prior research, in a study describing
preservice teachers’ selection and use of specific vocabulary and comprehension
strategies, the CT was the most dominant influence in strategy selection (Bean,
1997). The author found that the preservice teachers’ perceptions of the CT’s desires
affected their use of strategy. The motivation behind the PSTs choices was not
always as clear as Eduardo’s admissions; he said his instructional practices were
exactly what the CTs wanted. The Bean study provides an alternative explanation,
where the PSTs practices reflect what they think the CTs want. In a separate study
Wideen, Mayer-Smith and Moon (1998) similarly found that the CT and the student
teaching supervisor are influential elements of the field experience. For example, the
PSTs wants to succeed with a good grade and so takes minimal risks in their student
teaching hoping compliance will ensure a good grade.
Specific features of the student teaching experience left the PSTs wanting.
Time for lesson planning and time for deep reflection and conversation with the CT
were features missing from their student teaching experience and exactly what they

152
were hoping to achieve. They wanted more time spent in conversation with the CT.
The reading methods course did not place a great enough emphasis on critical
reflection of practice. The reading methods course did not successfully convey to the
student teaching experience for all of the PSTs. This last finding was most evident
among those who did not identify with their early learning experiences. The research
on preservice teachers and fieldwork is silent on this topic. The studies included in
the literature review do not address lesson planning or the role of the CT in lesson
preparation. This is an area for further study.
Coursework failed to make a memorable impression on the preservice
teachers. They could not recall specific strategies or methods, or theory from their
reading and writing methods course. This is not unprecedented. In the literature
review I discuss Hollingsworth’s 1989 study where Hollingsworth speculates that
such ‘forgetting’ reflects the students lack of recognizing the relevance of the
teaching at the time of teaching. Especially since the PST’s knew the answers they
sought had been covered. In essence the PSTs did not retain what they did not
perceive as relevant. For those PSTs with strong memories from their early literacy
experiences and growing up experiences, they referred less to their reading course as
beneficial to their field experience. Based on Duffy and Atkinson’s (2001)
conclusion that the PSTs personal knowledge and biases resulted in
misunderstandings of instructional practice, I suggest that their personal knowledge
and biases could also result in misinterpreting the relevance of reading instruction
practice and theory.

153
Alternative explanations for poor implementation of coursework teachings
may reflect finding from a study of 39 in-service elementary school teachers which
used interviews and observations to determine the relationship between teachers’
beliefs about the teaching of reading comprehension and their classroom practices
(Richardson, Anders, Tidwell & Lloyd, 1991). The authors concluded that where
teachers failed to implement an attempted teaching practice, they were also not able
to express an understanding of the underlying theory. Just as in the research
literature, the PSTs in this present study also struggled with the understanding and
application of theory.
The reflections of the preservice teachers were not distinct from those
documented in previous research. The research on reflections is very broad and
covers many different aspects of reflection in terms of preservice teacher
development, which the findings of this study conform to. These findings did
confirm that the preservice teachers held multiple concerns at one time (Richards &
Brumfield, 2001), and they did confirm that a preservice teachers perception is
filtered through previous learning experiences (Lortie, 1975 and Pajares, 1993).
However, unlike the research reviewed here, this study examined the reflections of
preservice teachers for what they revealed about the learning experiences during
student teaching. The reflections revealed that the preservice teachers acknowledged
the centrality of reading to all learning. I suspect that this realization was
intimidating to them in light of some of their admissions that they did not fully
understand the content of their reading methods course. This illuminates a possible

154
application for the content of the reflections, namely that the instructors could use
the reflections to inform future lessons with the students. A second aspect of their
recognition of reading as foundational to all learning is that it was a revelation at all.
It was a though they were discovering this for the first time as student teachers. The
previous two semesters had been filled with reading and theory courses that all
taught from a perspective that reading is foundational. Why were there gaps in
learning between their coursework, theory and their field experiences?
Hollingsworth (1989) and Duffy and Atkinson (1975) offer us possible
explanations. Hollingsworth found that the relevance of the material taught assisted
it being retained and used. As Fuller (1969) observed, the PSTs “learn what they
want to learn and have difficulty learning what does not interest them” (p.208).
While Duffy and Atkinson note that prior learning and biases can result in
misunderstandings of practice. The content taught in the MAT program was
carefully designed to be relevant specific to the urban environments the program
sought to prepare its students for. Considering the work of Hollingsworth, the
observation of Fuller and the work of Duffy and Atkinson (2001), the PSTs may not
have perceived the teaching relevant because existing personal knowledge and biases
interfered with their ability to understanding and incorporate what was being taught.
If a PST had strong early literacy experiences, those became the filter of all MAT
instruction. If the teaching of theory didn’t agree with their experiences the theory
piece would not be considered relevant. Additionally, they were able to remain aloof
from their coursework during their earlier practicum, perhaps because their personal

155
responsibility for critical thinking and planning was tightly controlled and
prescribed. Not until the student teaching phase did they spend extended hours in the
classroom where they were increasingly responsible for student instruction.
Relevance is not the only factor to be considered. The social context within
the practicum and student teaching setting influenced the overall experience of the
PSTs. During early practicum experiences the PSTs are at times observers or
participants. In the reading methods course the PSTs spend the first weeks as
observers in the classroom, gradually moving to a more interactive role. Many CTs
are reluctant to ‘hand over’ their pupils to unproven PSTs. The CTs had agreed to
take a PST into their classroom and allow them to work with students and perform
evaluations on them. However, when the time for implementing evaluations or
completing PSTs assignments with classroom pupils, the Principal or school office
would intervene and stop the work. Sometimes the evaluation or forms needed to be
approved by a central office or translated into a different language. Some PSTs had
no difficulties with their practicum site and completed all assignments, while others
were plagued by administrative difficulties. The degree of cooperation from a CT
dramatically impacted a practicum. Some CT’s were very open to PSTs assisting in
the room while other CTs were more cautious with instructional time.
Implications in Practice
Here I present the general implications that this study has for the field of
teacher education. These implications represent the findings of only one teacher
education program and may not be generalizable to other programs. Following the

156
discussion of the implications and limitations of this study are recommendations for
future studies.
Teacher education programs need to evaluate the role of reflection, and both
the type and degree of reflection currently practiced. Marxen and Rudney (1999)
attribute PST success to debriefing sessions and the use of reflection during an
intensive field experience. Willard-Holt and Bottomley (2000) found that more
effective preservice teachers reflected more than their less effective peers. Guillaume
and Rudney (1993) found that reflective journaling improved the practices of student
teachers. Friere (1970) tells us that teacher learning begins with examining and
critiquing one’s own experiences, assumptions and beliefs. Teacher education
programs should incorporate reflective journals and debriefing sessions into the
curriculum and these practices should be held accountable for developing effective
teachers. The type and quantity of reflection used in this study suffered the same
limitations as did the studies reviewed in chapter 2. The role of reflection was poorly
defined as was the expectation for what the reflections were to accomplish.
Inequalities among fieldsites and cooperating teachers become less
problematic in light of the finding that structured and guided reflective practice
promotes improved reading instruction practice. Willard-Holt and Bottomley’s
(2000) study established that those PSTs with more critical reflections were more
successful. Regardless of field placement, and the qualities and differences in PST
responsibilities and autonomy in their field placements, reflection allowed these
PSTs to engage in critical thought, reflective analysis and envision change in

157
themselves and their students. Teacher education programs should incorporate
critique into the structured and guided reflections of PSTs.
Capturing the learning experiences of PSTs and deconstructing those
experiences per best practices and current theory can provide a base upon which
PSTs can build their pedagogy (Hollingsworth, 1989; Lortie, 1977; Wideen, Mayer-
Smith & Moon, 1998). It has been recommended that preservice students examine
their beliefs, and they should be understood by the teacher education program with
the program then building from those beliefs (Hollingsworth, 1989; Wideen, Mayer-
Smith and Moon, 1998). Recognizing that formative learning experiences are not
limited to the early years of learning but are present at all stages of life should
broaden the content taught in teacher education programs. Reading method courses
should address all ages of learners regardless of the teaching credential sought.
Access to the Cooperating Teacher was limited. The PSTs wanted more time
with their CT for the purpose of both preparing lessons and discussing the classroom
day and events. The CT is an influential person in the preparation of preservice
teachers (Wideen et al. 1998), in both a positive and negative way. Having a
routinized time for the CT and PST to meet may serve as a debriefing which Marxen
& Rudney (1999) identified as a key feature of PSTs in their study replacing their
initial ideas with positive knowledge and understanding. Vygotsky’s (1986) theory
of Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) asserts that learning can be scaffolded
through a learner’s collaboration with a more knowledgeable person. The co-
existence of a PST and a CT in the same classroom does not define collaboration.

158
More opportunities to reflect and discuss with knowledgeable others are necessary to
fulfill the elements of the ZPD. The use of language and shared experience is
essential to using the ZPD as a learning tool.
The CT is a considerable influence in the student teaching scenario of teacher
education. To recognize the role of the CT fully would be to embrace this influence
and strengthen the association between the teacher education program and the CT. A
second option would be to eliminate the role of the CT and pursue alternative
methods of teacher preparation and induction.
Associated with limited time with the CT is the process of planning and
preparing lessons. Having limited notice to prepare lessons stressed the PSTs
resources for material and substance. In their review of contemporary research on
effective literacy teachers, Williams and Baumann (2008) found that, among other
traits, successful teachers had prepared and detailed lesson plans, used multiple
materials, strategies and integrated instruction. The PSTs limited time and resources
were not preparing them to practice as effective literacy teachers.
During the interviews and sprinkled in the online journals, the PSTs revealed
bits and pieces of their beliefs and values as related to literacy, to learning and
children’s abilities. Half of this data was related specifically to classroom
management. These findings echo Hollingsworth’s (1989) who recommends that
classroom management knowledge be routinized – allowing PSTs to focus on their
content rather than on classroom management. Successful literacy teachers use a

159
variety of management routines, effectively increasing instruction time (Williams &
Baumann, 2008).
In light of the work done by Williams and Baumann (2008), identifying 17
behaviors of effective elementary literacy teachers, the findings of this study do not
appear to support the development of effective elementary literacy teachers. The
PSTs in this study relied on repeated use of whole group instruction, limited
students’ choices and limited class discussion. The environments in which they
observed in and participated in as student teachers had great variability in terms of
supportive environments and student work. But clearly, the social context of the
practicum site had a greater influence on the PSTs than did the coursework at the
university.
Ultimately, these preservice teachers were novices indicating more learning
is necessary. Their learning beyond the university with formal or informal support
can assist their application and deeper understanding of their practice. (Duffy &
Atkinson, 2001).
Suggestions for Improvement within the MAT
Among this group of PSTs three problems emerged as impediments to their
teaching success. The first was the failure of their prior beliefs and experiences to be
effectively mined and utilized as part of their overall growth and learning. The
second, being closely related to the first, is the failure of the program to be relevant

160
and meaningful. Last, the PSTs were not taught to effectively reflect and critique
their own experiences, limiting their potential for growth and success.
The use of a cohesive and comprehensive system of reflection throughout the
MAT program would address each of the above three problems. As seen in the work
of Gould (2000), a form of reflection can effect changes in thinking. Over a period of
three semesters PSTs were taught the use of metaphor as a means of reflection,
resulting in PSTs incoming and dominant schema for teaching being challenged and
ultimately changed. Gould’s use of metaphor could be used as a means to uncover
PSTs prior beliefs and learning experiences and transform them, over time, into
constructive assets. Additionally, practicum experiences and coursework teachings
could be better integrated through the guided use of metaphor. The phenomena that
coursework and practicum are not relevant could be minimized with the practice of
reflection through the use of metaphor.
In these and the many other studies discussed throughout this paper, no
specific timeframe is given for the development of a teacher, no list of prescribed
experiences necessary for progressing from one stage of teacher concern to the next
and no checklist for achieving perfection. They do use journaling or a form of
reflection as well and challenged PSTs established thinking.
Fuller notes that with the increase in teaching responsibilities from practicum
to student teaching, the concerns of PSTs shift and at the end of student teaching

161
extend beyond concern with self to concern with pupils. Over a period of one year
Guillaume and Rudney (1993) were able to improve the teaching practices of student
teachers using structured opportunities for reflective journaling and document the
shift in teacher concerns over time. Despite inconsistencies in the use of and goals of
reflection and that the means, methods and frequency of reflection differed from
semester to semester, the use of a form of reflection, in association with a teaching
course or field experience was consistently associated with challenging PST thinking
and shifts in thinking.
It is important to remember that each PST begins in a unique place of
understanding (Knudson & Marxen, 2001) and multiple social factors contribute to
the development of each PST (Lortie, 1975). The end point of development for each
student is difficult if not impossible to predict. A more practical goal then is to teach
the practice of reflection. It is recommended that the MAT program adopt a proven
method of reflection, such as reflection-on-action (Schön, 1983), that will support
the development and use of critical thinking.
Limitations
This study is limited by several caveats. First, it is a study of a single teacher
preparation program, during its initial year of operation with a particular design. The
analysis did not include a review of the responses made by course instructors, or the
university field supervisors who provided guidance to the teacher candidates during
their field-related program experiences. Additionally, since the onset of this study,

162
the program faculty have conducted assessments of the program and made program
changes to reflect teacher candidates’ needs. Accordingly, the results cannot be
generalized to the teacher education field as a whole.
Additionally, this study did not follow the teacher candidates into their first
years of teaching. Nor did this study include the teacher candidates’ voices in the
form of member checking. In terms of specific data limitations, I did not interview
the course instructors or cooperating teachers. Again, this study was of a single MAT
program that may not be generalized to teacher preparation programs with differing
models and foci.
My own position as a participant-observer influenced, and by definition,
limited, data collection, the analysis of the data and the findings. Prior to conducting
this research project I had been a teaching assistant to the reading methods course. I
was a familiar face to the PSTs, although none had been my students, they first knew
me as a teaching assistant. With each observation and interview the PSTs asked for
my opinion or help with their lessons. Sometimes I shared anecdotes from my own
experience as a teacher. Usually I turned the question back on them and added a bit
of what I had observed them doing. Our relations were friendly, never strained or
difficult. Our sessions together always began with small talk about our weekends,
family or work.
Recommendations for Future Research
Suggestions for improvement detail the use of reflection for the development
PSTs who can be both self-aware and critical thinkers. None of the literature

163
reviewed in this study identified the consistent use of reflection as a unifying feature
of instruction within a teacher education program. Based on the results of success
with reflection over shorter periods of time and within the context of a single or few
courses one of the recommendations for practice outlined in this paper is the
adoption of a comprehensive system of reflection within an MAT program.
Likewise, it is recommended for future studies to review such a program and its
effectiveness.
The current body of reading instruction research is limited by the omission of
or limited inclusion of informative data. Recent studies are identifying the limitations
of reading instruction research as: limited data of the participant, limited
contextualization of the community and classroom, limited descriptions of the
courses, the university, the instructors, the cooperating teacher and supervisors to list
a few (Hollins & Guzman, 2005; and, Risko, Roller, Cummins, Bean, Block, Anders
& Flood, 2008). Without including complete descriptions, the value of research
findings has limited perspective.
A second equally significant recommendation for future research is to
incorporate pupil achievement in the evaluation and study of preservice teachers. It
seems that by not documenting the intended goal of teachers, which is presumably,
student education, we are establishing from the earliest experiences an unintended
passive acceptance of the results.
This present study followed a group of students for less than one year, a
period of three semesters. A limitation of this study is that it did not follow the PST’s

164
into their first teaching positions or beyond. The extent of the influence from the CT
and its duration may be altered or solidified in the early months of in-service
teaching. Future studies should focus on documenting the beliefs and preconceptions
of teaching practices and on literacy as they enter teacher education programs and
follow them throughout their school experience well into their teaching careers.
Future research is needed to identify what components contribute to
successful lesson planning for the PSTs and how they can be nurtured.
The PSTs in this study describe their field placements as “good” and “bad”.
The research on preservice teachers and field experience frequently refers to quality
field placements but fails to articulate what that means. Research examining the
characteristics of field placements, for example, fidelity of implementation of
programmatic curriculae, and the impact those characteristics is needed to inform
field placements for practicum and student teaching as well as maximize their
usefulness.
The PSTs in this study who had clear recollections of literacy experience
expressed strong teaching philosophies. Those that identified as a reader or writer
expressed high expectations for their students. Street (2003) has shown that teacher
identity informs practice. Future research should investigate the relationship is
between teacher identity and practice to discern how successful literacy practices can
be achieved by all types of teacher identities.

165
Conclusions
As a former first grade teacher who struggled with making literacy accessible
to all of my students I wanted this research project to shed light on how emergent
educators develop their understandings of how to teach literacy. The literature
review identifies early experiences, field experiences and reflection as influences on
these developing ideas and practices. This study confirms that early experience is
influential, but also later learning experiences can be equally formative of our
understandings of how to teach literacy. Unexpected findings include the lack of
access to the CT and the impact it has on lesson planning. The role of reflective
thinking in an online journal emerged as a relatively important and underused tool. I
set out to learn more about how PSTs learn to teach literacy and have discovered that
field experience and methods courses are only as effective as the PST is receptive.
This elevates the role of reflective thinking from a percentage of a participation
grade to a critical component of growth and learning. To paraphrase, teacher learning
begins with examining and critiquing of one’s own experiences, assumption and
beliefs (Friere, 1970). It is the job of teacher education programs to nurture and
propel those examinations and critiques into successful teachers.
The PSTs limited repertoire of lessons and use of strategies is further
evidence of new teachers’ need for support and continued in-service learning. As
newly-minted teachers, these PSTs had 13 months of teacher preparation behind
them. Issues of language, administration, parents and guardians, school safety and a
great many more will meet these educators, possibly before they ever plan their first

166
reading lesson. As incoming novice teachers, they must also be met with a support
system that will continue their teacher education as long as they teach.

167
REFERENCES
Arroyo, A.A., Rhoad, R., & Drew, P. (1999). Meeting diverse student needs in urban
schools: Research-based recommendations for school personnel. Preventing
School Failure, 44(4). 145-153.

Bean, T. (1997). Preservice teachers’ selection and use of content area literacy
strategies. Journal of Educational Research, 90(3), 154-163.

Black, A., & Ammon, P. (1992). A developmental-constructivist approach to teacher
education. Journal of Teacher Education, 43(5), 323-335.

Bondy, E., & Davis, S. (2000). The caring of strangers: insights from a field
experience in a culturally unfamiliar community. Action in Teacher
Education, 22(2), 54-66.

Calfee, R. & Drum, P. (1985). Research on teaching reading. In Merlin C. Wittrock
(Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching, (pp.804-849). New York:
Macmillan.

Cochran-Smith, M. (1991). Learning to teach against the grain. Harvard Educational
Review, 61(3), 279-310.

Cochran-Smith, M. (1995). Color blindness and basket making are not the answers:
Confronting the dilemmas of race, culture, and language diversity in teacher
education. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 493-522.

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1999). Relationships and Practice: Teacher
Learning in Communities. Review of Research in Education, 24, 249-305.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of
state policy evidence. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1).

Davis, E. A. (2006). Characterizing productive reflection among preservice
elementary teachers: Seeing what matters. Teacher and Teacher Education,
22, 281-301.

Deering, T.E., & Stanutz, A. (1995). Preservice field experience as a multicultural
component of a teacher education program. Journal of Teacher Education,
46(5), 390-394.

Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Boston: D.C. Heath. (Original work published in
1910).

168
Doyle, M. (1997). Beyond life history as a student: Preservice teachers’ beliefs about
teaching and learning. College Student Journal, 31, 519-532.

Draper, M.C., Barksdale, M.A., & Radencinch, M.C. (2000). Reading and writing
habits of preservice teachers. Reading Horizons, 40(3), 185-203.

Duffy, A.M., & Atkinson, T.S. (2001). Learning to teach struggling (and non-
struggling) elementary school readers: An analysis of preservice teachers’
knowledges. Reading Research and Instruction, 41(1), 83-102.

Duncan, Arne (2009, June 17). Turnarounds Should be the first option for low-
performing schools. Edu Week, p. 36.

Eggen, P. & Kauchak, D. (1997). Educational Psychology: Windows on classrooms.
3
rd
Ed. Merrill, Columbus, Ohio (p.41).

Feiman-Nemser, S. (1983). Learning to teach. In L.S. Shulman & G. Sykes (Eds.),
Handbook of teaching and policy (pp. 150-171). New York: Longman.

Florio-Ruane, S. and McVee, M. (2000). Ethnographic research. Re-printed in
Kamil, M., P.D. Pearson, R. Barr & P. Mosenthal (Eds.) Handbook of
Reading Research (4th Edition). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Friere, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. (M.B. Ramos, Trans.). New York:
Seabury Press.

Fullan, M.G. & Miles, M.B. (1992). Getting reform right: what works and what
doesn’t. Phi Delta Kappan, 7(10), 744-52.

Fuller, F. (1969). Concerns of teachers: a developmental conceptualization.
American Educational Research Journal 6(2), -207-226.

Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York. Basic Books.

Goodman, J., & Fish, D.R. (1997). Against-the-grain teacher education: A study of
coursework, field experience, and perspectives. Journal of Teacher
Education, 48(2), 96-107.

Gould, L. (2000). Changes in preservice teachers’ schema for understanding
teaching. Action in Teacher Education 21(4), 90-100.

169
Grisham, D, Berg, M., Jacobs, V. & Mathison, C. ( 2002). Can a professional
development school have a lasting impact on teachers’ beliefs and practices?
Teacher Education Quarterly, 29(3), 7 – 24.

Groulx, J.G. (2001). Changing preservice teacher perceptions of minority schools.
Urban Education, 36(1), 60-92.

Guillaume, A. M. & Rudney, G. (1993). Student teachers’ growth toward
independence: an analysis of their changing concerns. Teaching & Teacher
Education, 9(1), 65-80.

Haberman, M. (1991). Can cultural awareness be taught in teacher education
programs? Teaching Education, 4(1), 25-31.

Hall, G.E., & Loucks, S. (1977). A developmental model for determining whether
the treatment is actually implemented. American Educational Research
Journal, 14(3), 263-276.

Hefland, D. (2000, July 30). EDUCATION/An exploration of ideas, issues and
trends; Reading Taught the Scripted Way; L.A. Unified has adopted Open
Court, a detailed, step-by-step phonics program that promises to boost
reading scores among elementary students. But some teachers say it stifles
creativity. The Los Angeles Times, p. B2

Hollingsworth, S. (1989). Prior beliefs and cognitive change in learning to teach.
American Educational Research Journal, 26 (2), 160-189.

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.477-548). Mahwah, New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Hutchinson, C, & Allen, K. (1997). The reflection integration model: A process for
facilitating reflective learning. Teacher Educator, 32(4), 226-233.

International Reading Association (2003). Prepared to make a difference: Research
evidence on how some of America’s best college programs prepare teachers.
Newark, DE, Commission on Teacher Excellence in Elementary Teacher
Preparation for Reading Instruction.

170
Jordan, M.L.R. (1995). Reflections on the challenges, possibilities, and perplexities
of preparing preservice teachers for culturally diverse classrooms. Journal of
Teacher Education, 46(5), 369-374.

Kane, R., Sandretto, S., & Heath, C. (2002). Telling half the story: A critical review
of research on the teaching beliefs and practices of university academics.
Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 177-228.

Kauchak, D. & Burbank, M.D. (2003). Voices in the classroom: case studies of
minority teacher candidates. Action in Teacher Education, 25(1).63-75.

Knowles, J.G. (1992). Models for teachers’ biographies. In I. Goodson (Ed.),
Studying teachers’ lives (pp. 99-152). New York: Teachers College Press.

Knudson, R.E., & Maxson, S. (2001). How students learn to teach beginning
reading. Reading Improvement, 38(3), 125-131.

Korthagen, F. A. (2001). Teacher education: A problematic enterprise. In F.A
Korthagen (Ed.), Linking Practice and Theory: the Pedagogy of Realistic
Education (pp. 1-19). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Levin, B. (2001). Lives of teachers: update on a longitudinal case study. Teacher
Education Quarterly, 28(3), 29-47.

Liston, D. & Zeichner, K.1996. Reflective Teaching: An Introduction. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Liston, D. & Zeichner, K. 1991. Teacher education and the social conditions of
schooling. New York: Routledge.

Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA. Sage.

Linek, W., Sampson, M., Raine, I.L., Klakamp, K., & Smith, B. (2006).
Development of literacy beliefs and practices: Preservice teachers with
reading specializations in a field-based program. Reading Horizons 46(3),
183-213.

Lortie, D.C. (1975). Schoolteachers: A sociological study. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.

171
MacGillivray, L., Rueda, R., Monzo, L., & Walker, N.T. (2001, December). Early
language learning and literacy experiences: How they impact current
ideology and teaching practices of Latina teachers and paraeducators. Paper
presented at the meeting of the National Reading Convention, San Antonio,
TX.

Marxen, C.E., & Rudney, G.L. (1999). An urban field experience for rural preservice
teachers: “I’m not afraid-should I be?” Teacher Education Quarterly, 26(1),
61-74.

Minor, L., Onwuegbuzie, A., Witcher, A., & James, T. (2002). Preservice teachers’
educational beliefs and their perceptions of characteristics of effective
teachers. Educational Research Journal, 96 (2), 116-127.

Nias, J. (1989). Teaching and the self. In M. Holly & C. McLoughlin (Eds.),
Perspectives on teacher professional development (pp. 155-172). London:
Falmer Press.

Nierstheimer, S., Hopkins, C., Dillon, D. & Schmitt, M.C. (2000). Preservice
teachers’ shifting beliefs about struggling literacy learners. Reading Research
and Instruction, 20 (1), 1-16.

O’Callaghan, C. (2001). Social construction of preservice teachers’ instructional
strategies for reading. The Teacher Educator, 36(4), 265-281.

Parajes, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a
messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62, 307-332.

Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2 ed.). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.

Richards, J.C., & Brumfeild, D. (2003). Three steps forward, one step back: Two
preservice teachers learn to teach in consecutive, field-based literacy courses.
Reading Research and Instruction, 42(2), 63-84.

Richardson, V., Anders, P., Tidwell, D., & Lloyd, C. (1991). The Relationship
Between Teachers’ Beliefs and Practices in Reading Comprehension
Instruction. American Educational Research Journal (28), 559-586.

Risko, V., Roller, C., Cummins, C., Bean, R., Block, C., Anders, P., & Flood, J.
(2008). A critical analysis of research on reading teacher education. Reading
Research Quarterly, I43(3), 252- 288.

172
Rogoff, B. (2003). The Cultural Nature of Human Development. New York, New
York, Oxford University Press.

Ross, D.D. (1989). First steps in developing a reflective approach. Journal of
Teacher Education, 40(2), 22-30.

Rueda, R. & Dembo, M. (1995). Motivational processes in learning: A comparative
analysis of cognitive and sociocultural frameworks. Advances in Motivation
and Achievement, 9, 255-289.

Schön, D.A. (1983). Reflective practitioner: How professionals think in practice.
New York: Basic Books.

Sleeter, C.E. (2000-2001). Epistemological diversity in research on preservice
teacher preparation for historically underserved children. Review of Research
in Education, Vol. 25, pp. 209-250.

Spradley, J.P. (1980). Participant Observation. London, UK. Thomas Learning.

Street, C. (2003). Preservice teachers’ attitudes about writing and learning to teach
writing: implications for teacher educators. Teacher Education Quarterly,
30(3), 33-50.

The California Commission on Teacher Credentialing
http://www.ctc.ca.gov/SB2042/TPA_FAQ.html

Tierney, W. G. (1991). Utilizing ethnographic interviews to enhance academic
decision making. New Directions for Institutional Research, 72, 7 – 21.

Van Manen, M. (1977). Linking ways of knowing with ways of being practical.
Curriculum Inquiry, 6(3), 205-228.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). L.S. Vygotsky, Collected works. Vol. 1. (R. Rieber & A. Carton,
Eds; N. Minick, Trans.). New York: Plenum. (Original work published in
1934).

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Whitney, L., Golez, F., Nagel, G., & Nieto, C. (2002). Listening to voices of
practicing teachers to examine the effectiveness of a teacher education
program. Action in Teacher Education, 23(4), 69-76.

173
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.

Wiggins, R.A., & Follo, E.J. (1999). Development of knowledge, attitudes, and
commitment to teach diverse student populations. Journal of Teacher
Education, 50(2), 94-105.

Willard-Holt, C., & Bottomley, D. (2000). Reflectivity and effectiveness of
preservice teachers in a unique field experience. Action in Teacher
Education, 22(2), 76-89.

Williams, T.L. & Baumann, J.F. (2008). Contemporary Resarch on Effective
Elementary Literacy Teachers. In Y. Kim & V. Risko (Eds.), 57
th
National
Reading Conference Yearbook (pp.357-377). Oak Creek, WI:National
Reading Conference,Inc.

Zeichner, K.M. & Liston, D. P. (1987). Teaching Students to Reflect. Harvard
Educational Review 57 (1) 23 -48.

Zeichner, K., & Tabachnik, B. R. (1981). Are the effects of university teacher
education washed out by school experiences? Journal of Teacher Education,
32, 7-11

174
APPENDIX A: IRB CONSENT FORM
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education

INFORMED CONSENT FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

******************************************************************

CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH

The influence of field experiences on preservice teachers’ understandings of literacy
instruction - Phase II Student Teaching

You have been asked to participate in a research study conducted by Dr. Gisele
Ragusa and Kimberly Hanson Hill Shotwell, from the Rossier School of Education at
the University of Southern California. Results from this study will contribute to Ms.
Shotwell’s doctoral dissertation. You were selected as a possible participant in this
study because you are currently enrolled in student teaching and completed EDUC
511 in Fall 2004. Your participation in the study is voluntary.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The purpose of this investigation is to explore how fieldwork influences the
development of effective reading teachers enrolled in the Masters of Arts in
Teaching (MAT) Program at the Rossier School of Education at the University of
Southern California.

PROCEDURES

If you volunteer to participate in this study, we would be requesting that you
participate in the following research activities:

Observations
• Be observed on three occasions while performing regular student teaching
activities within the student teaching placement.

Interviews
• Participate in individual interviews. Participants will be interviewed three
times, once following each observation of student student teaching. Each
interview will last approximately 45 -60 minutes. Interviews will be
scheduled according to student availability and course deadlines. Interviews
will be semi-structured with questions that are based on individual

175
observations and shared experiences revealed in the focus groups, as well as
content connected to class requirements. An audio digital recording will be
made of all interviews for accuracy. It is not required that participants
consent to being audio-taped to be considered eligible for these interviews,
handwritten notes will be taken in place of a recording.

Focus Groups
• Participate in a focus group that will meet twice held on the USC campus.
The first focus group session will occur during the first four weeks of student
teaching, the second session will occur upon completion of student teaching.
Each focus group will be audiotaped and last approximately 60 to 90 minutes.
These focus groups will relate to student learning and experiences as they
relate to their learning to teach reading. Participants are not eligible to
participate in the focus group without consenting to be audio-taped.

Data Collection
• Provide Ms. Shotwell permission to access to materials produced in relation
to student teaching. Materials may include class journals and group work,
online reflections and writings, field experience observation records, lesson
plans, lesson plan reflections, raw video footage of field experiences filmed
for student teaching purposes, and correspondence relating to class content
and processes.

POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS

• This study requests that students spend additional time discussing course
products and activities beyond the course requirements.
• At no time will student teaching evaluators be aware of who is participating
or who has chosen not to participate.
• Participants may not answer questions that make them feel uncomfortable.
• You may choose not to be audiotaped in still remain in the study, excluding
focus group meetings.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY

• You will not directly benefit from participating in this study.
• Knowledge gained from this dissertation will benefit reading research
practice. This study may aid educators to better plan and design courses and
learning experiences for future educators. Reading instruction has been
identified as central to enabling children’s school success. Identifying
successful aspects of reading instruction induction may improve children’s
opportunities for academic success.

176
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION

You will not receive monetary compensation for participating in this research study

CONFIDENTIALITY

Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be
identified with you will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your
written permission or as required by law.

When interviews or focus groups are audio-taped, participants will have the right to
review all applicable the tapes. The audio tapes will be erased within a year of study
completion. All written materials, including audio-tape transcriptions, will be
maintained in a locked, secure environment accessible only to the co-Investigator for
a period of seven years. Only the co-Principal Investigator will have access to the
audio-taped information. The investigator’s notes will only be viewed by the
Principal Investigator and co-Principal Investigator. All information related to the
study will be kept in secured files in the co-Principal Investigator’s university office.
The Principal Investigator will not have access to the data until grades have been
assigned for EDUC 511.

When the information is shared for educational purposes, confidentiality with be
preserved. Names and additional identifying factors of study participants will be
changed. Pseudonyms will be assigned for all study participants.

When the results of the research are published or discussed at professional
conferences, no information will be included that will reveal your identity. If
photographs, videos, or audio-tape recordings of you will be used for educational
purposes, your identity will be protected or disguised.

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL

You can choose whether to participate in this dissertation study. If you volunteer to
participate, you may withdraw from the study at any time without consequences of
any kind. You may also refuse to answer any questions you are uncomfortable with
and remain in the study. The investigator may withdraw you from this research if
circumstances arise which warrant doing so.

IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS

If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact
Dr. Gisele Ragusa, Principal Investigator at the University of Southern California,
Rossier School of Education, Waite Phillips Hall, 1003B, Los Angeles, CA 90089-

177
4031, telephone number: 213-821-4137, email ragusa@usc.edu, or Kimberly
Shotwell, Co-Investigator, at the University of Southern California, Waite Phillips
Hall, 1002A, Los Angeles, CA 90089-4031, telephone number: 562-424-0530.
Please not that you need not be a participant to inquire about the research being
conducted in your course.

RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS

You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation in this
study without penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies
because of your participation in this research study. If you have questions regarding
your rights as a research subject, contact the University Park IRB, Office of the Vice
Provost for Research, Grace Ford Salvatori Building, Room 306, Los Angeles, CA
90089-1695, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu.

SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH SUBJECT, PARENT OR LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVE.

I understand the procedures described above, and I understand fully the rights of a
potential subject in a research study involving people as subjects. My questions have
been answered to my satisfaction, and I agree to participate in this study. I have been
given a copy of this form.

I agree to be audio-taped I do not agree to be audio-taped

I release all materials produced in relation to student teaching including class
journals and group work, online reflections and writings, field experience
observations, lesson plans, video, lesson plan reflections and correspondence relating
to class content and processes.

I do not release all materials produced in relation to student teaching, including
class journals and group work, online reflections and writings, field experience
observations, lesson plans, video, lesson plan reflections and correspondence relating
to class content and processes.

Name of Subject

Signature of Subject, Parent or Legal Representative Date

178

SIGNATURE OF INVESTIGATOR

I have explained the research to the subject or his/her legal representative and
answered all of his/her questions. I believe that he/she understands the information
described in this document and freely consents to participate.

Name of Investigator

Signature of Investigator Date (must be the same as
subjects)

179
APPENDIX B: FOCUS GROUP PROTOCOL
Focus Group 1 (February 8
,
2005) - Protocol

Instructional script: Thank you for agreeing to participate in this focus group. I
want to remind you that our group this afternoon is being tape recorded. If you do
not wish to be recorded, your comments will be removed from the transcript. All
names will be changed and your confidentiality protected. Does anyone have any
questions regarding the confidentiality? I want to hear about your field experiences
and your learning about literacy.

Opening: Tell us your name, where you are student teaching and what grade you are
teaching in.

Transition: I’d like to begin by having you think about the MAT program in
general.
• How would you describe the programs vision (its philosophy)?
• Specifically, what kind of messages do you get about students and
learners?
• Not just the official party line, but what you actually experience in your
classes and from your professors.

Transition: Think about the classroom you are in now.
• What do you anticipate from your student teaching?
• What are you hoping for, if anything?

Transition: Think back to the Fall: Your reading methods course.
• If 510 had a philosophy or a vision, what would it be?
• What were the messages from there?
• Does 510 help you now in student teaching?
• How, in what way?
• Does 510 make it harder?
• How, in what way?

Do elements of the MAT program support your student teaching experience?

Do elements of the MAT program challenge your student teaching experience?

Can you think of anything you’ve learned at USC that just doesn’t make sense
now that you are in a classroom each day?

Has anything gone exactly as you thought?

180
Summary: (I will summarize what was said and ask them if they would add
anything/change anything.) Thank you again. I will be around for a while if anyone
wants to stay and hang-out, or talk more.

181
APPENDIX C: FOCUS GROUP SAMPLE DATA
Table C.1: Focus Group Sample Data

Category Sample of Data
Field
Experiences
I just hope that I get a better understanding of how to continually
improve and fix it along the way when we do start, you know,
teaching on our own.

So, now I see this whole social work mentality that goes along
with being a teacher, because now you’re not just teaching them,
you have to dig and find out what’s going on so you can combat
that to be able to teach them better.

I guess all in all, what I’m hoping to take away from student
teaching is not just an idea, but I guess a better grasp on the
whole – teaching as a whole. A better grasp of the things that I
can do better for the students…I’d like to say, oh, by the time I
finish, I hope I moved from the novice state to an expert teacher
by the time I get there in August.

He said those on the border (of achievement) we can push up.
Those are the ones you want to focus on.
Related
Pedagogy
I’ve heard it said by several professors that to be an effective
teacher, you must know and understand the theory.
Personal
literacy
experiences
I always knew what I read… I am just now learning that not
everyone was taught the way I was taught.
Preservice
teacher literacy
Practices
It is definitively humbling. I think. …My first lesson that I did, it
was like so challenging, but I thought – I went it thinking, oh, we
got this, you know, this is no problem. Then, today, we were
talking about the model of instruction that we had actually used
but didn’t even understand. …. I can’t believe I went in there
thinking I knew and I didn’t know. Its really humbling. It’s
really humbling.
Literacy
curriculum and
instruction
Now that we’re expanding our lesson planning horizon and
doing a lot more, you see how literacy is so important in those
other (areas)-like, math, doing word problems.

182
APPENDIX D: OBSERVATION DATA COLLECTION TEMPLATE
Observation of (Name):
Day/date: Lesson
Format/Activity:

School
events:
(e.g., minimum day, rainy day schedule, fire drills, etc...)

Classroom
environment:
(description of sights, sounds, smells in classroom:, e.g., leaf
blowers, band practice, bird caught in classroom)

Lesson
content:
(attach
lesson plan)
(objective, standard, assessment)
Time
(documented
in 10 min.
increments)
Events/interaction (e.g., where is the student
teacher in relation to the students, seating
arrangements, materials used-school or
student generated, who is talking, etc... )

Researcher
notes/comments
Start time: whole class small group individual
teacher directed student centered

Time: whole class small group individual
teacher directed student centered

183
Time: whole class small group individual
teacher directed student centered

Time: whole class small group individual
teacher directed student centered

Time: whole class small group individual
teacher directed student centered

Post observation reflections/comments:

184
APPENDIX E: OBSERVATION GUIDE SAMPLE DATA
Table E.1: Observation Guide Sample Data

Category Sample of Data
Field Experiences N/A
Related Pedagogy N/A
Personal literacy
experiences
N/A
Preservice teacher
literacy Practices
The ST opens the lesson by sharing what she did over the
weekend.

The ST checks for understanding. She gives positive
feedback to those who participate.

So much time is spent on management and organization
and explaining the lesson. Not the same time is spent
doing.

Tracy draws a foot and asks for the sound. She draws
another picture, “what’s this? What sound do you hear?”
Literacy curriculum
and instruction
N/A

185
APPENDIX F: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
Interview #1

Standard:
1. Describe your school to me.
2. Describe your students.
3. What does reading/writing look like in your cooperating teacher’s class?
4. How did this lesson develop?
5. What did you use (rely on) to develop this lesson?

Example of Questions based on lesson observation:
1. Tell me how the book club idea came up
2. How did you plan for the club (did you plan with partner and/or cooperating
teacher)?
3. How did you select the books?
4. Do you think you book talk was influenced by your own preferences?
5. Have you been in a book club before?
6. What did Mora-Flores teach about book clubs?
7. What did you whisper to each child when they finished?
8. Why do they read at the table?
9. Tell me about the map idea?

Interview #2

Standard:
1. What has been happening with you since our last interview?
2. You are doing your “all-days” now. Tell me what that has been like for you.
3. Tell me about the lesson(s) I saw today.
4. How did you develop this lesson?
5. How did you decide to approach the planning?
6. Do you have a favorite type of lesson or area that you like to plan for? (a least
favorite?)
7. When planning your lesson(s), do you have any special considerations that
you keep in mind?
8. How would you characterize your lessons today– student centered? Teacher
directed?
9. What is your role in the classroom?
10. What is the student’s role?
11. You have just __ weeks left at this school; what more do you hope to
accomplish while you are here?

186
Examples of Questions based on lesson observation:
1. Tell me about the students reading aloud… How did you select that?
2. When the students were reading the passages and made a miscue – you called
out the correct word. Tell me about that.
3. You brought up some photographs (copies of pictures) during the Cheyenne
lesson, of the Plank House and the prayer wheel, what made you go them?
4. (I believe the lessons were teacher directed and whole group based on
that…)
Why whole group? Why teacher directed?
5. For the Cheyenne piece you had the students use a “circle map” – How is it
used? (How is it different from other graphic organizers? Why use it and not
another?)
6. After your lesson you commented to me that you wish you didn’t have to
teach that lesson. What did you mean?
7. I noticed that the Open Court lesson you had planned is entirely pre-reading.
Is that your idea, part of Open Court or cooperating teacher’s way?

Interview #3

Standard
1. What has been happening with you since our last interview?
2. How do you identify yourself theoretically?
3. How does this support the development of literacy?
4. How has your practice matched with your theoretical identity?
5. What has been your experience with the Models of teachings?
6. What models of teaching do you see your cooperating teacher use?
7. What have you learned about teaching reading and writing?
8. Define literacy?
9. During this period of student teaching, what have your relied on to prepare
for your literacy lessons?
10. How would you characterize your cooperating teacher’s theoretical
orientation?
11. Is there anything else I should ask you?

Example of questions based on lesson observation:
1. You used a ___ model of teaching, why that one?
2. Which model of teaching have you used the most?
3. Which do you like the best, the least?
4. How did you determine this topic, this lesson content?
5. How does this lesson make students better readers or writers?
6. What was your goal for this lesson?
7. Tell me about Placement #1 vs. Placement #2.
8. What have you learned about reading and writing?

187
9. What has been the greatest influence on your lessons? (on planning,
implementing)
10. What has been the greatest influence on your ideas of reading and writing?
11. In terms of reading and writing, any similarities among grade levels?
Differences?
12. On the telephone last night, you described this lesson as not very exciting
because “That is how it is here at Kelso,” tell me more.
13. The Guided Reading lesson integrated lang. arts and social studies, say more.
14. During Writers Notebook, students asked for help with their spelling, you
wrote the words on the board, is that normal? When would your response to a
request for it differ?
15. Tell me about the stickers your cooperating teacher gave you.
16. I notice you call on the same 5 students over and over again. Tell me about
that?

188
APPENDIX G: INTERVIEW SAMPLE DATA
Table G.1: Interview Sample Data

Category Sample of Data
Field
Experiences
I find it frustrating (to not have a partner), because, that was one
of the benefits of this program…I don’t have someone to
communicate (with) and just sort of run ideas by.

He (the CT) gave me a book and said I could use the book (for
language arts lessons) but I didn’t have to stick to the book, but
basically said, go, and its up to me.

I have a hard time with the language arts. Like, honestly, that’s
the subject I’ve taught least, or maybe the social studies.

I just don’t see much incidence of that (individual assessment &
record keeping) in the classroom. And I don’t think that I can
do much to it because I’m only there for a short period of time
and it’s not like I’ll have access to those opportunities, you
know?
Related
Pedagogy
I was reading about co-reading and I’m thinking like I don’t
know how I feel about that. When you’re with a group that’s
small enough to manage, co-reading isn’t a bad thing.

It’s a job for me to go back to my notes and dig it out. It takes
me a long time. I’ve done that a couple of times, like for
writers’ workshops, I had to refer to my notes and to the
handouts that she gave us, which was helpful.

Concept attainment for example, we weren’t presented these big
pieces where we have to bread it down and come up with a
simplified solution. I mean, we’re not used to thinking that way.

I find myself referring to like, Vygotsky a lot and how you have
to, like, kids can, they have like a certain zone of development,
and some things they can do – they need to do with other people
in order to get where they ultimately-where you want them to be
and where they can be.

189
Category Sample of Data
Personal literacy
experiences
I would always have difficulty. At home I did. My parents
would get mad, because I was doing bad. And I just had to
figure stuff how to do it by myself. Mostly it was difficulty with
language.

I just remember doing grammar exercises. I had pages and
pages to do.
Preservice
teacher literacy
Practices
I think spelling bee’s are great because it’s important to be able
to present yourself in front of the classroom.

We pretended to be seeds that were sprouting from the floor of
the classroom. And we did this a couple of times to a point
where they knew and they could use the word (sprout)
comfortably by themselves.

And so we got a bunch of books and we looked through all of
them and we individually chose a book for each student for a
certain reason based on their level, their reading level and their
interest.

For the most part, I use the books (classroom textbook) for the
reading and then I create my own activities and assessments
apart from the (text) book.
Literacy
curriculum and
instruction
Because its so short (abbreviated stories in the school readers),
they haven’t had exposure and experience with stories, even real
short stories. The concept of a hallucination is something they
might not be familiar with, or a flashback.

I look at open court as a weeklong… this is my interpretation of
open court. A weeklong guided reading lesson.

The (text) book really, for me, is only for the reading and maybe
guidance as to how I might relate it to the standards.

I always want to try to incorporate literature with them because
I mean, there’s never such a thing as having too much or enough
(of literature)

190
APPENDIX H: RESEARCH METHODS TIMELINE
Table H.1: Research Methods Timeline

Research Activities
November 2004
December
January 2005
February
March
April
May
June
July
Aug
Recruitment of
participants
X
Focus Group X
Set I: Student Teaching
Observations/ Interviews
X
Set II: Student Teaching
Observations/ Interviews
X
Set III: Student Teaching
Observations/Interviews
X
Document Collection
pending
proposal
approval

191
APPENDIX I: SCHOOL PLACEMENT INFORMATION: SCHOOL, GRADE
LEVEL, COOPERATING TEACHER GENDER.
Table I.1: School Placement Information: School, Grade Level, Cooperating
Teacher Gender

MAT
student
First observation site Second observation
site
Third
observation site
Becky No observation was
completed at this site.
La Cresenta
Elementary
Male CT
Grade 5
Bernstein Elementary
Female CT (day of
observation, substitute)
Grade Not recorded
Sea View
Elementary
Female CT
SAS class
Grade 1
Christina Key Elementary
Male CT
Grade not recorded
Same as first
observation
La Cresenta
Elementary
Male CT
Grade 1
Eduardo No observation was
completed at this site
Douglass Elementary
Female CT
Grade not recorded
Advanced Charter
Female co-teachers
Grade K-1
Bernstein
Elementary
Male CT
Spanish speaking
instruction
Grade 4
Leann Lincoln Elementary
Female Co- teachers
Grade 4
Same as first
observation
Jefferson
Elementary
Female CT
Grade 2
Richard Catalina Elementary
Male CT
Grade 6
Bernstein Elementary
Substitute teacher
No grade recorded
No observation
was completed
Stephanie Ellington Elementary
Female CT
Grade 4
Same as first
observation
Adams
Elementary
Female CT
Grade 1

192
APPENDIX J: WEEKLY REFLECTION WRITING PROMPTS FROM READING
AND WRITING METHODS FOR ELEMENTARY INSTRUCTION
September 22
Describe your earliest literacy experiences. Use the Quickwrite we passed out in
class to generate ideas. Remember you only have to respond once to Blackboard this
week.

October 4
Share with everyone what struck you from your first week at your school site. It can
be anything – instruction, management, the environment…

October 11
This week please take notice of the reading and/or writing process happening in your
classroom. In particular pay attention to any prereading/prewriting strategies your
cooperating teacher may use.

October 18
Are any SDAIE (Specifically Designed Academic Instruction in English) strategies
used in your classroom? If so, how?

October 25
How does your cooperating teacher incorporate phonemic awareness, phonics, and
word study into their classroom literacy program?

November 1
Look at the section titled “Listening and Speaking” and “Speaking Applications” in
the California Standards for your grade level. How do you see these standards
incorporated into your classroom?

November 8
How does literacy assessment, both reading and writing, take place in your
classroom? Can you give examples of formal and/or informal assessment used?

November 15
Is grouping used as an instructional strategy in your classroom? How are groups
formed? In what setting are they used? What do you think about grouping? Do
groups have merit or not?

193
November 22
What do you know about ELL (English Language Learner) students that you perhaps
hadn’t fully realized at the start of this class? What are some modifications that you
have seen or think would benefit ELL students (as well as the rest of the class)?

November 29
Based on your recent experience in a California classroom, what do you see as the
strengths and/or weaknesses of a comprehensive Language Arts program (Houghton
Mifflin/Open Court)? Does it address the needs of excelling/struggling readers and
writers? ELL students?

194
APPENDIX K: WEEKLY REFLECTION SAMPLE DATA
Table K.1: Weekly Reflection Sample Data

Category Sample of Data
Field
Experiences
I was really struck by how well the students respond to their
teacher. She allows them certain freedom to talk and work at the
same time.

I did not see any multicultural literature in the classroom library
or any type of multicultural teaching tools present throughout the
room. Then again, there have only been 15 days of school.

All in all, the first week was a totally positive experience.

Through this read aloud (the CT) engaged the whole class by
seeking the children’s input and accessing their prior knowledge,
as well as linking concepts, such as animals and colors.
Related
Pedagogy
N/A
Personal
literacy
experiences
I don’t have any memories from any earlier than that or of
anyone reading to me. I had to be about 6 at the time.

Sadly, I don’t remember the first time I held a book or read a
story.

I also remember that I didn’t really enjoy reading all that much.
In fact, my mother bought me several books that she thought
would catch my fancy in the hopes that I would start reading
more. Her idea worked.

Unfortunately, I feel my passion for reading has subsided since
going to college. Reading is more like a chore to me now…
Preservice
teacher literacy
Practices
N/A

195
Category Sample of Data
Literacy
curriculum and
instruction
I would say that it’s difficult to manage a classroom that
effectively reaches each child at the appropriate level.

Assessment usually takes place rather informally and in the
context of the lessons. While the students are in their centers (the
CT) or I are able to see the student’s literacy needs and
development by observing their performance.

I personally am a big fan of group learning. I think it gives
students the opportunity to work out problems on their own. It
allows them the opportunity to be be both the teacher and student
amongst themselves. I think that when students work on tasks
with one another, they solidify their understanding on concepts
to a greater degree than when they work alone.

The pre-reading stage is so important for ELLs (English
language learner’s), and other students, since they can learn key
terms or vocabulary through things such as visual aids or take a
picture walk. I think that the more the teacher places
information within a rich context, the more the students will
learn, and this is especially true of ELL students.

196
APPENDIX L: 2004 SCHOOL SITE DATA FROM CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION POLICY AND EVALUATION DIVISION
Table L.1: 2004 School Site Data from California Department of Education Policy
and Evaluation Division

Elementary
school*
API
Base
% fully
credentialed
teachers
% English
Learners
% Participates in
free or reduced price
lunch
Douglass 631 92 80 100
Advanced
Charter
597 36 50 88
Sea view 777 93 17 44
Adams 656 92 63 100
Jefferson 864 95 29 20
Lincoln 885 100 22 7
Key 797 74 33 98
Bernstein 567 94 85 100
La Cresenta 629 91 67 100
Catalina 849 90 21 20
Ellington 678 88 48 100
* Pseudonyms have been used in place of the real school names.

197
APPENDIX M: DATA SOURCE BY PARTICIPANT
Table M.1: Data Source by Participant

Becky Stephanie Richard Leann Christina Eduardo
Interview 1 X X X X X X
Interview 2 X X X X X X
Interview 3 X X - X X X
Observation 1 - X X X X -
Observation 2 X X X X X X
Observation 3 X X - X X X
Focus Group X X X X X X
Online Journal 10 27 9 - 13 8

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Literacy practices of 1.5 generation Korean American parents with three to five year old children

PDF

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

PDF

School to Work Program as a contributor to adult literacy skill development

PDF

Support for English learners: an examination of the impact of teacher education and professional development on teacher efficacy and English language instruction

PDF

Effects of individualized professional development on the theoretical understandings and instructional practices of teachers

PDF

Linking theory and practice in teacher education: an analysis of the reflective-inquiry approach to preparing teachers to teach in urban schools

PDF

Homework beliefs and practices of middle school teachers in relation to structure-based standards for the English language development content area

PDF

Defying odds: how teachers perceive academic language growth despite high poverty

PDF

Latino parental aspirations and literacy practices related to children's reading engagement

PDF

Self-reflective practices and procedures to systematically examine reading comprehension instruction

PDF

Models of teaching: indicators influencing teachers' pedagogical choice

PDF

Multimodal composing and teacher preparation

PDF

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

PDF

Inside out: teacher factors that assist in the facilitation of the implementation of early literacy interventions for at-risk first graders in an urban school

PDF

The nature of a literacy-based tutoring program for at-risk youth: mentorship, professional development, and implementation

PDF

The role of critical literacy and the school-to-prison pipeline: what was learned from the life histories and literacy experiences of formerly incarcerated young Latino males

PDF

Exploring three outcomes of online teacher preparation: teaching for social justice, critical reflection, and voluntary collaboration

PDF

Media literacy education: a qualitative inquiry into the perspectives teachers hold about teaching media literacy

PDF

Factors impacting the effectiveness of mentor teachers in a national teacher residency

PDF

Cognitively guided instruction: A case study in two elementary schools

Asset Metadata

Creator Shotwell, Kimberly Hanson Hill (author)

Core Title Preservice teachers' understanding's of how to teach literacy

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Curriculum

Publication Date 11/24/2009

Defense Date 10/27/2009

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

Tag Literacy,OAI-PMH Harvest,preservice,student teaching,Teacher education

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Ragusa, Gisele (committee chair), Mora-Flores, Eugenia (committee member), Myron, Dembo (committee member)

Creator Email J.P.Shotwell@sce.com,khill@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2760

Unique identifier UC1175845

Identifier etd-Shotwell-3359 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-280179 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2760 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Shotwell-3359.pdf

Dmrecord 280179

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Shotwell, Kimberly Hanson Hill

Type texts

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

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu