Constructing meaning about literacy difficulties: Preservice teachers beginning to think about pedagogy

Teaching and Teacher Education 16 (2000) 593}612

Constructing meaning about literacy di$culties: preservice teachers beginning to think about pedagogy Marla H. Mallette *, R. Steven Kile
, Margaret M. Smith
, Marilyn McKinney
, John E. Readence
Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Southern Illinois University, Mailcode 4610, Carbondale, IL 62901-4610, USA
University of Nevada, 4505 Maryland Parkway, Las Vegas, NV 89154}3005, USA Received 29 December 1998; received in revised form 22 July 1999; accepted 16 September 1999

Abstract The purpose of this study was to explore the meanings preservice teachers constructed about students with reading di$culties. Qualitative techniques were employed to develop six case studies to understand better how preservice teachers framed their meanings. Cross-case analysis revealed that each preservice teacher's stance on meaning, while idiosyncratically based on experience, was tied to pedagogy in two distinct ways: (a) most of the participants placed an increasingly important role on the supervising teacher when considering reading di$culties and (b) they situated themselves as a teacher within that context. The "ndings suggest the importance of designing preservice education course work that is inquiry-oriented and o!ers opportunities for students to explore systematically their developing stances and self-constructed meanings about reading.  2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Preservice; Teacher education; Reading; Literacy; Qualitative

Preservice teachers enter into teacher education programs having already spent some 13,000 hours observing teachers (Lortie, 1975). While these observations are neither guided nor analytical, they do serve as an apprenticeship and cause preservice teachers to make certain assumptions about teaching. Teacher education programs need to be structured in ways that challenge the beliefs preservice teachers possess as they enter into their programs. In Alvermann's (1990) review of the literature on reading teacher education, she described three approaches generally used as conceptual bases in

* Corresponding author. Tel.: #1-618-453-4254. E-mail address: [email protected] (M.H. Mallette).

the preparation of teachers of reading: (a) traditional craft, (b) competency based, and (c) inquiry oriented. Though there is some overlap existing among them, each approach can be clearly de"ned. The traditional-craft concept is based upon "eld experience with a master or mentor teacher. It is hoped that during this experience novice teachers will have an opportunity to de"ne and practice the information received from their education classes and their master teachers. The competency-based concept is based upon preassessment, learning activities, and a postassessment to ensure that a set of skills has been mastered. Though this concept is still used in some preservice teacher education programs, it is more widely used in teacher assessment at state levels. The inquiry-oriented concept is

0742-051X/00/$ - see front matter  2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 7 4 2 - 0 5 1 X ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 0 9 - 3

594

M.H. Mallette et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 16 (2000) 593}612

typically de"ned through one of two approaches. In the "rst approach the teaching-learning process is made problematic, and a situation is created wherein teachers must re#ect on what they know through coursework and from past experiences. This problematic situation enables the teacher to make implicit knowledge explicit. The second approach takes problematic situations with present practices and shows how changing them can make reading instruction better for all participants. Teacher decision-making and re#ection play major roles in both approaches. As teacher educators have re#ected upon their own practices and the best practices in reading teacher education, they have begun to make a shift from traditional-craft and competency-based models to an inquiry-oriented model (Commeyras, Reinking, Heubach & Pagnucco, 1993). In their study Commeyras et al. (1993) found that, regardless of the instructor's approach, students expressed low levels of con"dence in their abilities to teach reading, and "eld experience was cited by the students as an important component in feeling prepared to teach reading. Additionally, while students who were engaged in classes using an inquiry-based approach felt less con"dent in their ability to teach reading, it should be noted that this occurred when topics were ill-de"ned and the responsibility for learning rested solely on the students. The researchers called for more studies in this area and supported systematic changes which re#ect constructivist views. The need for reading teacher educators to consider their own instruction was also addressed in an analysis of current literature in the area of literacy development by Swa!ord, Chapman, Rhodes and Kallus (1996). It was determined that content knowledge was important for e!ective instruction, and simply telling preservice teachers about current trends in reading instruction was not adequate. The real opportunities for learning came when students were asked to work in the "eld, make decisions about instruction, and have the time to interact with others to re#ect and build knowledge and beliefs related to the area of literacy. In this way preservice teachers played active roles in their own learning. By playing an active role in learning, preservice teachers are given an opportunity to construct

knowledge. Risko, Peter and McAllister (1996) used videocases with preservice teachers to provide them with an opportunity to apply knowledge to hypothetical situations. The researchers found that learning was di$cult for the students in decontextualized situations such as lecture-based formats. The videocases allowed the students to construct and integrate knowledge in order to apply it to a real situation. Dynak and Smith (1994) reported similar "ndings in their study or preservice secondary teachers. They concluded that time must be provided for students to practice and re#ect upon what they had learned in order for the content to be internalized. Ashton (1996) also found that content knowledge must be integrated with "eld experience in order for students to develop their pedagogical knowledge. Re#ection and integration of knowledge allowed for intellectual stimulation while learning occurred. In addition, integration of knowledge makes decision-making processes stronger as applied to reading and reading instruction (Roehler, Du!y, Herrmann, Conley & Johnson, 1988). Hodges (1982) found a strong need for contextualized situations in the development of preservice teachers by following student teachers who were placed in a situation without the guidance of a master teacher. The student teachers tended to revert to basals and teacher's guides because they felt unsure of how to implement reading instruction to meet all the students' needs. Hodges concluded that it was important to allow preservice teachers time to make connections about practice and theory and gain con"dence in knowing how to teach reading. This level of con"dence remains low among preservice reading teachers (Cheek, 1982; Commeyras et al., 1993). Once preservice teachers enter the classroom as beginning teachers, their students often perceive and internalize the meanings that the teachers bring with them. In a study conducted by Bondy (1990), two groups of "rst graders, one high ability and one low ability, were asked why people read. The high group's answers re#ected reading as a form of meaning making while the low group's answers re#ected reading as word calling and related to school work. Upon close examination of the instruction, Bondy determined that these responses were a result of the way in which the

M.H. Mallette et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 16 (2000) 593}612

teacher was implementing instruction in the reading groups. Through discussion and re#ection the teacher began to modify instruction and teach meaning-making with all the students. Two conclusions were drawn by Bondy as important considerations in the education of preservice teachers: (a) the need to compare professional literature that has di!erent perspectives and make decisions about the content in order to react to many teaching dilemmas in re#ective processes, and (b) the need to be exposed to students who are in the process of becoming readers so that they are able to collect data about the occurrence and draw conclusions about reading instruction. In this way preservice teachers can use re#ection to construct their own knowledge bases to determine the practices that are most appropriate. Wham (1993) supported this constructed knowledge in her study of undergraduates in a reading methods course and concluded that preservice teachers should be encouraged to verbalize theories and analyze what they believe about reading in order to construct a philosophy about instruction. While studies such as these have explored: (a) di!erent approaches to reading teacher education, (b) how preservice teachers organize their knowledge, and (c) the e!ects that methods courses have on preservice teachers' knowledge and con"dence in their abilities to teach reading, only recently have researchers begun to look at how this knowledge develops. For instance, Roskos and Walker (1993, 1994) conducted studies looking at preservice teachers' thinking about students who have reading di$culties. In their "rst study, Roskos and Walker (1993) looked at preservice teachers' ways of knowing. They had their students respond to a case study describing a struggling reader at the beginning and end of the semester. They categorized statements made by the students into categories borrowed from Women's Ways of Knowing (Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger & Tarule, 1986, 1997). Throughout the semester students engaged in various interactive activities designed to facilitate their learning. They then compared the results of the pre-and postmeasures. Although they found that preservice teachers' thinking advanced from a lower level of knowing to more of a balance between that level and a higher level of knowing, they could only

595

speculate as to whether or not the participants internalized these ways of knowing. In a subsequent study, framed within Vygotskian theory of spontaneous and scienti"c concepts, Roskos and Walker (1994) again explored preservice teachers' pedagogical concepts of problem readers. In this study the preservice teachers responded in writing at the beginning and end of the semester to a case study of a problem reader very much like the case studies provided in the previous study. While the researchers found this framework a useful one in exploring the development of pedagogical concepts, the results were inconclusive. It appeared that students may have developed pseudoconcepts that they used in responding to the case studies. In other words, the students grew in their ability to talk about pedagogical concepts in reading, yet appeared limited in their ability to use these ideas in their pedagogical reasoning. These studies provide insight into preservice teachers' developing knowledge of struggling readers. The current study builds upon the work of Roskos and Walker (1993, 1994) by exploring how preservice teachers integrate and make sense of their developing knowledge of struggling readers through their interactions with these readers, their peers, their instructor, their cooperating teachers, and the theoretical and practical content of their methods course. The primary purpose of this study was to look at how preservice teachers' construct what it means for students to have reading di$culties. We use the term meanings as a combination of beliefs and knowledge. Speci"cally, the questions that guided this study were: (a) what do reading di$culties mean to preservice teachers? (b) How are these meanings constructed while interacting with a student who has reading di$culties? and (c) How do preservice teachers perceive that students will be able to overcome reading di$culties?

1. Method 1.1. Research perspective The theoretical framework of symbolic interactionism (Blumer, 1969) guided the data collection

596

M.H. Mallette et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 16 (2000) 593}612

and analysis for this study. Symbolic interactionism is grounded in three premises: (a) people act towards things based on the meanings those things have for them, (b) meaning is derived from social interaction, and (c) meaning is an interpretive process (Blumer, 1969). Within this lens, we were able to `enter the world of interacting individualsa (Denzin, 1978, p. 8). Throughout the study we sought to interpret the meanings preservice teachers constructed through their interactions with students who were struggling readers. Within the theoretical lens of symbolic interactionism we were able to interpret the meanings the participants were constructing based on their experiences. Additionally, embedded within the framework of symbolic interactionism are two constructs which were critical to the data collection and analysis of this study, the self and meaning (Blumer, 1969). 1.1.1. The self We viewed the self of our participants as being constructed through a social process (Mead, 1934). We were interested in the way in which our participants viewed themselves as becoming teachers, that is, as a process of interactions with students as opposed to a product of learning. Throughout our data collection and analysis we focused on the preservice teacher as an actor in her environment and not as one who was solely being acted upon. 1.1.2. Meaning The meanings of reading di$culties were also viewed as a social construction based on interactions with the participants' environment. As Mead (1934) stated, `Meaning is implicit } if not always explicit } in the relationship among the various phases of the social act to which it refers, and out of which it developsa (p. 76). Accordingly, the meanings preservice teachers made were continually re"ned with each interaction they had within their environment. These interactions were with their students and the instructor. As students began to formulate meanings of reading di$culties, their peers and instructor took on the role of knowledgeable others to aid in the clari"cation of these meanings (McMahon, 1996).

1.2. Participants The participants in this study were six female preservice elementary teachers enrolled in a required course (described in the next section) on the diagnosis and correction of reading di$culties at an urban university in the Southwestern United States. The class contained 23 preservice teachers who were in their last semester of formal coursework before student teaching. They were members of a cohort that had been together for two consecutive semesters. From the 23 students, 17 agreed to participate. As part of the cohort experience, the practicum placements of these students were at two schools. The culture of these two schools was markedly di!erent, with the only similarity being that they both were comprised of diverse groups of students considered by the district as at-risk. Heather Elementary School was a magnet site for math and technology, while Medford Elementary School was involved in the Accelerated Schools Project (Finnan, St. John, McCarthy & Slovacek, 1996) and utilized multi-age classroom con"gurations. There were nine participants at the magnet school and eight at the multi-age school. Six participants, three from each school, were randomly selected to participate in the study. We chose to randomly select the participants because we did not want to select individuals based on our biases. That is, we had worked with these individuals for several semesters and felt that if we purposively selected participants we may have based our selection on our preconceived beliefs about their academic performance. 1.3. Researchers' roles The "ve researchers in this study each served in a unique capacity. While individually each one of us could have conducted the study, by collaborating we were able to see this study to fruition by transforming our individual perspectives into one collective voice. The "rst author, who was a graduate student at the time of the study, served as the instructor of the course under question and was responsible for data collection for this study. The second author served as the faculty mentor for the "rst author and thus was involved with the data

M.H. Mallette et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 16 (2000) 593}612

analysis. The third author was teaching another section of the course. She and the "rst author planned the course together. They would meet each week and discuss the data that were collected which then served as a stimulus for their planning. The fourth author was the faculty member who led the cohort program. Her input was extremely useful in understanding the participants as she had worked very closely with them for the three previous semesters. The "fth author served as an outside reader and reactor. As an expert researcher, he reacted to the interpretation of the data, read through many drafts of the study, and aided us in pulling together our collective voice. 1.4. Reading methods course The following section brie#y outlines the content of the course in which the participants were enrolled. While the purpose of this study was not necessarily to examine the course, we feel the content to which the participants were exposed in the course provided an essential element in understanding their construction of reading di$culties. The course, Diagnosis and Correction of Reading Di$culties, was the second course of the reading block. It was described in the syllabus as follows: Methods and materials for meeting the needs of students experiencing di$culties in the regular classroom setting. Emphasis will be placed on informal assessment/diagnostic procedures. 1.5. Course objectives 1. Understand the process of reading. 2. Recognize the di!erences between informal and formal assessment. 3. Recognize behaviours typically associated with reading and learning di$culties. 4. Develop informal assessment capabilities. 5. Interpret informal assessment data. 6. Plan appropriate instruction for children with reading di$culties. 7. Develop a case study report. As evident from the description and objectives, the course clearly focused on informal assessment. The

597

course instructor wanted to insure that the preservice teachers understood the important role that assessment played in instruction. Thus, she told the class at least once a week that the motto of the class was `Assessment guides instruction.a She framed the entire course around this motto. That is, as the preservice teachers learned about administering and interpreting various assessments, they also learned about how to use that information to plan instruction. There were two required texts for the course, Understanding Reading Problems: Assessment and Instruction (Gillet & Temple, 1994) and Reading Inventory for the Classroom (Flynt & Cooter, 1995). The content of the course was framed around the "rst book and covered the following areas: (a) reading and reading problems, (b) attitude and interest, (c) informal reading inventories, (d) emergent literacy, (e) word study, (f) case studies, (g) formal assessment, and (h) retention, remediation, and intervention. The assignments the participants completed for the course are described in the procedure as they were data sources. 1.6. Data sources and analysis The data sources for this study included various written assignments the participants completed throughout the semester, comments on these assignments provided by the instructor, notes from class discussions, and notes the instructor prepared for class meetings. The participants were required to explore the role of teacher}researcher through a semester-long systematic study of one child who was having di$culties reading. They were required to take "eld notes about the that child; during the time they were taking "eld notes, they were encouraged to change their roles or interactions (e.g., teaching a lesson, observing). As part of the assignment, students needed to administer multiple assessments to determine the child's ability in various areas (i.e., writing, reading, spelling). At the conclusion of the semester they were required to write up their "ndings. These written assignments were used as the primary data sources for this study; a more detailed explanation of each data source follows.

598

M.H. Mallette et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 16 (2000) 593}612

1.6.1. Field notes All participants were required to spend 30 minutes each week taking "eld notes about their students. To prepare for this assignment, they read a chapter in the second edition of Bogdan and Biklen's (1992) Qualitative Research for Education: An introduction to Theory and Methods which provided a detailed explanation on taking "eld notes. In addition, they watched a video in class while they practiced taking "eld notes. Throughout the semester, as they periodically turned in their "eld notes, the "rst author (course instructor) provided feedback and asked them to make assertions about what they were observing. In addition, opportunities in class were provided to share their "eld notes with their peers. 1.6.2. Case study At the conclusion of the course they were asked to write up their "ndings in the form of a case study. Again, they read another chapter from Bogdan and Biklen which provided insight into the case study approach. They were only given two directions for this assignment: (a) write a narrative account of what you found out about a student with reading di$culties, and (b) any assertion you make must be supported with data. The data they could use for supporting evidence included their "eld notes, results from any assessment instruments they administered, student work, and other information they gleaned from working directly with the student and cooperating teacher. 1.6.3. Questions/reyective writing The participants were asked at the beginning of the semester to react to the following questions: (a) How do children learn to read? (b) What are reading di$culties? and (c) Why do students have reading di$culties? Midway through the semester the participants were asked to re#ect on their learning by again addressing the question of what reading di$culties were. This re#ection was to be based on their experiences thus far with the student with whom they had been working. An additional writing assignment they completed on the "rst day of the course was to write their goals for the class. On the last day they were asked to react to those goals.

1.6.4. Group lesson plan This "nal assignment, which was completed at the end of the semester, was an attempt to refocus on the realities of the classroom as a whole (rather than the single child or their case study) and on instruction. The participants were placed into groups by the grade level of the student with whom they were working and asked to plan a lesson to meet the needs while building on the strengths of their student. They then taught this lesson with a small group (their student included) in their practicum classroom. 1.7. Data analysis Data analysis for this study was continuous and ongoing. After each data source was collected, we analyzed the data by "rst coding it using a descriptive coding system (Huberman & Miles, 1994). Following that, we analyzed each data source by comparing newly collected data to previously collected data for each participant. We then reduced the data by recoding, collapsing, and changing categories using a pattern coding system. For example, in our descriptive coding we coded individual classroom events that the participants described. If they wrote about round-robin reading or sustained silent reading (SSR) in their "eld notes, they were coded as the events (eg., round-robin reading or SSR). Then, in the pattern coding, we reduced the data by subsuming these events under the broader category of pedagogy/teacher practices. The preliminary patterns were used to guide further data collection. This led to the second set of questions the participants were asked about what they thought reading di$culties were in relation to the students with whom they were working. This process was recursive with each new data source collected. In addition, a cross-case analysis was done to look for themes running across all six cases. Again, this led to another round of data reduction/ recoding. For example, in each of the participant's data set we found a theme that emerged from their data. However, these themes were each unique. Thus, we reduced the data by recording events that described their individual themes under a broad category of pedagogy. That is, while their themes were idiosyncratic, they were all closely tied to the

M.H. Mallette et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 16 (2000) 593}612

role of pedagogy in reading di$culties. In this round of coding we looked at the underlying relation between each participant's construction of reading di$culties as it related to the broader theme (pedagogy) within each case. The "nal phase of data analysis involved conducting member checks with the participants. Each participant was given a draft of the paper and asked to respond to her case. They were encouraged also to react to all other sections of the paper.

2. Result The participants each worked with a di!erent student and, therefore, it was not surprising that each had idiosyncratic meanings of reading di$culties. However, a factor that became important in understanding their construction of meaning was the stances they held about struggling readers. They used their interactions with their students, their peers, and the content they encountered throughout the semester to con"rm, validate, refute, or question their stances regarding struggling readers (see Table 1). Cross-case analysis revealed

599

that each of these stances, while idiosyncraticallybased on their experiences, was tied to pedagogy in two distinct ways: (a) "ve of the six participants placed an increasingly important role on the teacher when considering reading di$culties (one represented a negative case in terms of this theme), and (b) "ve of the six participants also situated themselves as a teacher within that context (again one represented a negative case within this theme). In the following section the six cases will be presented by giving an overview of each participant's stance. Then the results from the cross-case analysis will be presented by looking at the underlying relation of each participant's stance and pedagogy. In order to maintain anonymity of the participants and the students with whom they worked, all names are pseudonyms.

3. Stance 3.1. Kaley Kaley was a white female in her early twenties. As Kaley began the cohort program she was one of

Table 1 The participants' stance and their relation to pedagogy Name

Student

Stance

Pedagogy

Kaley Early 20s

Moesha 3rd Grade Magnet School

Reading di$culties result from a lack of parental involvement

Randi Early 40s

Lucy 2nd Grade Magnet School

Reading di$culties result from students' inability to make connections

Paula Early 20s

Peggy Lou 1st Grade Magnet School

Gabrielle Early 20s

Spencer 3rd Grade Multiage School Intermediate Class (3}5) Troy 3rd Grade Multiage School Intermediate Class (3}5)

There is little to be learned about reading di$culties from emergent readers Reading di$culties result from a lack of opportunities

Teachers need to provide struggling readers with opportunities and choice Teachers need to also make connections for their students (i.e., spelling and writing need to be connected to reading instruction) Teachers need to provide appropriate instruction to prevent students from developing reading di$culties Teachers can provide opportunities for students

Jan Early 20s

Gayle Late 40s

Scott 1st Grade Multiage School Primary Class (1}2)

Reading di$culties need to be prevented at a young age

As a teacher, I want to be able to help a struggling reader

Teachers need to discover the obstacles that present themselves to help students overcome reading dif"culties Reading di$culties can be much more encompassing than what can be overcome with good instruction

600

M.H. Mallette et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 16 (2000) 593}612

the preservice teachers who appeared to be most resistant to teacher education. Kaley usually seemed a bit unsure of the assignments she was asked to complete, and her uncertainty often left her questioning the value of coursework. However, Kaley's maturity as a professional grew throughout the semester. Kaley's practicum was in a thirdgrade classroom at the magnet school. With the assistance of her cooperating teacher, she selected an eight-year-old girl she named Moesha with whom to work. Kaley began the semester with a very strong conviction about the importance of parental involvement. She indicated on the very "rst day of class in her written response that `children learn to read at a very young age from their parentsa and that reading di$culties come `from lack of parental involvement at an early age.a Throughout the semester, Kaley remained focused on the importance of parental support. After administering an interest inventory, Kaley described Moesha as living in `especially unusual living situationsa with her mother, father, stepfather, grandmother, and little brother. While Kaley believed this combination would be a bit awkward, she also viewed the situation as potentially positive because there were four adults in the home who could read to Moesha. However, Kaley was saddened to "nd out that no one read to Moesha at home, thus con"rming her stance. In Kaley's lesson plan group, she became an advocate for the importance of parental involvement. In doing so, she insisted on including a component of the lesson which would involve the parents. Her group developed a DLTA (DirectedListening-Thinking-Activity) with their students. They read a story aloud to the students, stopping at a prediction point. They then asked students to illustrate a prediction about the story. For homework, the students were assigned to retell the story to their parents. The parents were asked to sign a paper indicating their child completed the assignment, and they were told students would not receive a grade unless the slip was signed. Kaley had hoped the degree of involvement of the parental component of the lesson plan (students not receiving grades without parental signatures) would force parental involvement. When Moesha returned her

assignment four days later, Kaley used the experience to support her stance about the importance of parental involvement.

3.2. Randi Randi was a white female in her early forties who su!ered from cancer. Randi saw herself as a survivor. She was extremely enthusiastic and verbal. She chose to leave the business world to enter the "eld of education. While in school, she maintained a full-time job and took care of her family. Randi was placed in a second-grade classroom at the magnet school. She chose to work with a student she named Lucy. Randi's stance about struggling readers centered on her belief that learning was a natural consequence of environment and a process of making connections. She believed that school should be more like the real world where learning experiences were naturalistic, not contrived. For reading, this meant that students should be given the opportunities to read and write authentic material of their choice. The goals she wrote on the "rst day of class were all related to creating an interactive environment. She viewed reading di$culties as `2 processing challenges. People struggling to make connections 2a Randi held high ideals of what she considered to be good reading instruction and saw this type of instruction much in line with a whole language philosophy. Randi worked diligently throughout the semester to con"rm her stance; in doing so she was critical of the contrived and teacher-centered instruction she saw taking place in Lucy's classroom. Randi often commented about this in her "eld notes: I am not that thrilled with the BASAL program with the worksheets speci"cally. I feel that the kids are learning to "ll in the blanks and not understanding what the questions mean2 I did not see where the kids were making connections2 I am still &disturbed' over the lack of language arts in the classroom. Well maybe more of the integrative learning I was exposed to in the past. I really see more of the `Take out your spelling books.a

M.H. Mallette et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 16 (2000) 593}612

Randi was never shy about voicing what she believed to be good reading instruction. After she administered an informal reading inventory to Lucy, she was bothered by the results } very low comprehension. Lucy read a level one passage about a boy who wanted to #y and in the end got to #y in an airplane. Randi was convinced Lucy's comprehension di$culties were because she had never #own in an airplane and expressed no desire to #y. Randi felt this passage was not a fair measure of reading comprehension because Lucy lacked the prior knowledge to comprehend the story. This event con"rmed Randi's stance: Lucy's struggle with the passage resulted from her inability to make any connections. Randi's conviction about good reading instruction and reading di$culties was most apparent in her case study write-up. Because she was given the freedom to write in any style she chose, she wrote a third-person story in which she clearly displayed her dissatisfaction with a classroom that was not philosophically aligned with her own. The story begins2 Once upon a time there was a second grade classroom where all of the children wanted to learn2One day a new teacher came into Lucy's classroom2Ms. L. [Randi] started talking to Lucy and asked Lucy if Lucy would read with her. Lucy was so amazed that Ms L. wanted to read with her and spend time with her that she almost said no, because no grown-up ever noticed her. Ms. L. thought Lucy needed to see it was okay for Lucy to have an opinion about what she read, and did, in the classroom. Randi entered into this course with clearly de"ned meanings of readings of reading di$culties. She used her critical observations of classroom practices and her experiences with Lucy to con"rm her stance that reading di$culties are often the result of a learning environment that fails to consider the needs of the student. 3.3. Paula Paula was an Hispanic female in her early twenties. She was the technology wizard of the group. She was always willing to help her peers

601

with di$culties they encountered in their technology-rich program. Paula seemed to begin the program with a limited understanding of children. That is, she often based their likes and dislikes as an extension of her own. Paula, who was also assigned to practicum at the magnet school, was in a "rstgrade classroom with team teachers. As Paula interacted with the students on the "rst day of school, she wondered with whom she would choose to work. Because she believed that reading di$culties were not something one could see just by looking at children, she thought that any one of the 33 children could be selected. She chose to narrow her selection choice by administering an attitude inventory to the entire class. From the results of the inventory, Paula selected the "ve readers with the lowest overall attitude and presented these results to her cooperating teachers. After they narrowed it down to three, Paula randomly selected one student she named Peggy Lou. Paula began the semester with the idea that reading di$culties were primarily physical and/or cognitive in nature. She wrote `mental di$culties that inhibit the child to learn, i.e., dyslexia2can be linked with one's speech and vision and hearing ability causing an e!ect on how the child reads.a Paula saw reading di$culties as a de"cit within the child and therefore was not quite sure how an emerging reader could be one who has reading di$culties. After all, they are just learning to read. When asked to write her goals, Paula indicated the need for more information on emergent literacy. Her stance was that interactions with an emergent reader would not help her learn about reading di$culties. She wanted to understand how she could learn about reading di$culties from a young, emerging reader who she believed was not struggling, but rather just learning. In contrast to Kaley and Randi who attempted to strengthen their stances, Paula worked hard throughout the semester trying to refute her stance. She wanted to learn more about reading di$culties, and she wanted to do that through her interactions with a "rst-grade emergent reader. It was apparent from the way she systematically selected Peggy Lou that she was beginning to make assumptions about struggling readers (e.g., struggling readers have bad attitudes). After all, this was her rationale for

602

M.H. Mallette et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 16 (2000) 593}612

choosing Peggy Lou. She then continued to observe Peggy Lou's behavior in class to "nd more support that she was a struggling reader. In her "eld notes Paula would often write down a behavior she observed and then use that as a point of investigation. For example, she noticed that when Peggy Lou was called to reading group she seemed to be very comfortable working on the #oor. Peggy Lou later told Paula that she enjoys working on the #oor. Paula integrated this information with information she gleaned from an interest inventory (that Peggy Lou liked to read outside) and made an assertion that environment is important to Peggy Lou. Paula wrote in her "eld notes that this condition was `something to keep in mind.a As the semester ended Paula came to the realization that she did learn about struggling readers from her interactions with Peggy Lou. She entitled her case study Discoveries of a First Grade Student. What Paula concluded was that while she continued to view Peggy Lou as an emergent reader, one who was making discoveries about reading, this stage in Peggy Lou's development `can a!ect the students as they develop into the intermediate grades.a Paula ended her case study with an epilogue in which she wrote: I didn't think there was much to be gained from a "rst grade emergent reader. There were many times that I wished I had this class last semester when I was in the intermediate classroom, and I would have had a better chance to help a child. That attitude has changed. 3.4. Gabrielle Gabrielle was a white female in her early twenties. She was always very professional, organized, and diligent. Gabrielle was quiet, and she was the most passive of the group. Gabrielle's practicum site was the multi-age classroom school. She was assigned to an intermediate classroom (3}5). Her practicum teacher told her of two students who were reading at a primer level; Gabrielle chose one of them for her case study, a third-grade boy she named Spencer. Gabrielle's stance about struggling readers was centered on a lack of opportunities. In contrast to

the three other participants, whose strongly held convictions were perceived as knowledge, Gabrielle's thinking was much more tentative and more belief-oriented. She prefaced all of her responses from the three questions asked on the "rst day of class with `I believe.a She believed that `2reading di$culties occurred when children are delayed in the process of reading. If children do not read text2a While acknowledging that reading di$culties may be cognitive in nature, she added, `But, I really believe most reading di$culties come because kids do not have enough opportunities to read.a Gabrielle recognized that this was her belief and in turn used her interactions with Spencer to validate her stance as opposed to trying to prove it. Gabrielle learned from her cooperating teacher that Spencer's mom was concerned about his reading ability. Spencer's mother would call the classroom teacher quite often and ask her opinion about purchasing a phonics kit. The classroom teacher tried to discourage Spencer's mother from making this purchase, encouraging her to read to him each day. The mother explained that she did read to him each day but did not allow Spencer to do the reading because she found it very frustrating. Responding to this story in her "eld notes, Gabrielle wrote, `He isn't getting the opportunities to READ!!!!a Gabrielle extended her stance about Spencer's lack of opportunities to his classroom context and teacher's practices. Although she was eager to work with Spencer one-on-one to provide him with opportunities, she found this to be a discouraging experience. For example, the classroom teacher chose books for Spencer to read based on his reading level and interests. Gabrielle was concerned with the appropriateness of one particular book which she felt was `too babyisha for him even though it may have been at his reading level. For Gabrielle, this was another example of lack of opportunities: `Books were always picked for him at a reading level. It was really boring for him.a 3.5. Jan Jan was a white female also in her early twenties. As a cancer survivor, Jan had a very positive dispo-

M.H. Mallette et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 16 (2000) 593}612

sition. She worked hard at making connections between her coursework and "eld experience. Jan was assigned to an intermediate class at the multiage classroom school. She decided that she would administer the attitude survey to the entire class and choose the student with the lowest percentile rank with whom to work. She informed her cooperating teacher of her plan, and the teacher suggested she keep her eye on a boy whom the teacher felt was a struggling reader. Although Jan believed a struggling reader would have a poor attitude, she was surprised that the child with the lowest percentile rank on the attitude survey was the same child the teacher had selected. In addition, Jan was equally surprised at the teacher's ability to identify this student prior to Jan administering any of the assessments. Jan spent the semester working with this student, a third-grade boy she named Troy. Jan's stance was that reading di$culties need to be solved at a young age `before they become a de"cit for that child.a In Jan's goal statement she indicated the need for gaining `a better understanding of how to progress an emergent reader through the stages of literacy without unwarranted problems.a While Jan's stance was in line with the movement from remediation to early intervention and prevention, Jan's practicum was in an intermediate-aged classroom. Even so, Jan used her experiences with Troy to con"rm her stance. For Jan, Troy represented the child who had not successfully progressed through the stages and, therefore, su!ered from several de"cits. The "rst de"cit Jan noted about Troy was his negative attitude toward reading. She chose Troy because he had the lowest percentile rank in reading attitude of the entire class. Many of the observations of Troy that Jan completed for her "eld notes occurred during Sustained Silent Reading (SSR). She was amazed at how Troy would hold a book and every few minutes turn the page, yet never have his eyes on the text. Jan watched Troy continually spend 30 min pretending to read and then write in his journal. Jan also noticed how routinized this procedure was for Troy. He always knew when it was time to put his book away and begin to journal. While Jan was bothered with Troy wasting instructional time, she was most concerned

603

with what she believed to be Troy's dislike of the activity. In her case study she wrote: I am convinced that Troy would rather not read or write at all. His posture, lack of interest in writing, and altogether avoidance of his chosen book made it evident to me that he meant what he said in his interview. He does not like to read. Jan also used content from the course to con"rm her stance. She quickly learned that her stance was in fact very similar to the Matthew e!ect (Stanovich, 1986) which suggests that good readers read more and become better readers while struggling readers spend less time reading and therefore fall further behind. Jan felt that Troy was heading in that direction; `That Matthew e!ect is knocking on his door.a She suggested that Troy's bad attitude and lack of motivation caused him not to read and, therefore, limited his opportunities to increase his vocabulary or build his #uency. Jan's experiences with Troy con"rmed her stance, the need to prevent problems before they become de"cits. Because Jan did not believe that these de"cits could not be overcome at this point in Troy's life, she realized the need to expand her meanings of reading di$culties to encompass remediating struggling readers and not merely preventing reading problems. 3.6. Gayle Gayle was a nontraditional, white, female student in her late forties who chose to enter education after raising her children. She was very committed to the cohort program and was a willing resource for many of her peers. She was a former preschool teacher. She felt that this experience along with being a mother provided her with a level of comfort around children, yet not necessarily con"dence. She was in a primary class (1}2) with team teachers at the multi-age classroom school. Gayle's cooperating teachers chose a student who they felt was having di$culty keeping up with the class and would bene"t from extra attention. The student was a seven-year-old boy in second grade whom Gayle named Scott.

604

M.H. Mallette et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 16 (2000) 593}612

Gayle's stance was di!erent from those of the other participants. Instead of a statement to con"rm, validate, or refute, Gayle's stance became a question: `As a teacher, I want to be able to help struggling readers. Can I help Scott?a She sought to answer this question throughout the semester through her interactions with Scott. She began by "rst administering multiple assessments to determine Scott's strengths and needs. While this was a requirement for the course, Gayle went beyond the required assessments and administered several additional assessments. She used all the information she gleaned from her assessments to provide Scott with instruction that she believed would bene"t him, and she continually monitored his progress to determine if he was in fact making any improvements. Gayle believed that struggling readers need additional one-on-one instruction that is directed at their individual needs. Again, she went beyond the requirements of the class and spent time providing that instruction to Scott. Through her assessments, she determined that Scott needed help with what Gayle termed `developmental activities.a She used several techniques to aid Scott in learning the letters of the alphabet, along with other literacy activities such as word sorts and dictated experience stories. The format Gayle used to write up her case study showed her commitment to helping Scott (e.g., she entitled one section of her case study What I Did to Help Scott). Gayle also included samples of Scott's work in her case study. In a sense, this was a con"rmation of her ability to help Scott and to gauge the progress he was making. When the semester ended Gayle was uncertain of whether or not she had answered her question; however, she felt con"dent that she had provided Scott with the extra attention she believed he needed.

4. Pedagogy Throughout the semester the six participants used their stances as a basis for their construction of reading di$culties. One thing they found as they began to interact with their students and the content of the course was that the stances each of them

held was too limiting; that is, no one stance could adequately explain why students have reading di$culties. Thus, the participants (with the exception of Gayle) began to construct new meanings of reading di$culties which, while related to the initial individual stances, clearly focused more on pedagogy. Speci"cally, the participants placed an increasing importance on the role of the supervising teacher and began situating themselves as teachers within their speci"c contexts. 4.1. The teacher Gayle presented a negative case in terms of this theme. It seemed that Gayle began the semester already focused on pedagogy. Her thinking about reading di$culties was clearly more advanced than her peers. Gayle entered the class with a "rm understanding of reading processes. The meanings of reading di$culties in young children she originally held were grounded in research on emergent literacy. The additional assessments she administered were all aimed at determining Scott's growing understanding of print. Thus, Gayle focused on understanding Scott's reading di$culties through various assessments and instruction. It was not until an unfortunate incident happened toward the end of the semester that Gayle was forced to consider a more societal view and, thus, begin to question the power of schools as one of many social institutions. As Gayle and Scott proceeded into the halfway to work, Scott seemed anxious to talk to Gayle. He informed her that his brother had been shot in a gang-related drive-by-shooting and expressed his fear that future incidents of a similar nature would occur. He also expressed fears for the safety of his mother and sister; he believed it was his responsibility to keep them safe. This incident caused Gayle to reexamine her own understandings of reading di$culties and the complexities of teaching. In her case study she wrote: Scott said that he has tried to forget about the shooting while in school but that it just keeps coming back to him and he couldn't think of anything else. He didn't know if his brother would live or die, he was too scared at the

M.H. Mallette et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 16 (2000) 593}612

hospital to know2 This child's only hope for the future is his education but how can he concentrate on learning when he can only think of surviving? She continued writing in her case study that incidents like this happen often and that she needs to be prepared to deal with them in her own classroom. She then suggested that, `there is more to learning than just assessments and providing materials to learn with, a child must feel secure in their environment before they can grasp the luxury of learning.a Clearly, the meanings of reading di$culties Gayle constructed through her experiences with Scott were much more encompassing than the original, theoretically based meanings with which she started the semester. The other "ve participants in the study began the semester thinking about reading di$culties more in line with a de"cit model, and it was through their interactions with their students and the content in the course that they were able to expand their meanings of reading di$culties to focus on the role of the teacher. For Kaley, Randi, and Gabrielle, this involved a close scrutiny of the instructional practices they were observing. Kaley realized the need of moving beyond the importance of parental involvement. Kaley was stumped by the results of an attitude survey she administered to Moesha. She thought that Moesha would have a more positive attitude about reading in school than she did at home because the only time she read was at school. This was not the case, Moesha's attitude toward reading in school was lower, though not by much, than her attitude toward reading at home. Kaley used her "eld notes to investigate why there might be a discrepancy. She found that Moesha was often inattentive to the teacher during reading time and the Moesha did not like to be called on to read aloud. She then speculated that reading aloud was embarrassing for Moesha due to her poor reading ability. Kaley's work with Moesha helped her realize that Moesha wanted to become a better reader. In the recommendations section of her case study, Kaley suggested Moesha could become a pro"cient reader by allowing her to choose her own books

605

and by providing her with time for free reading. The meanings Kaley attached to reading di$culties expanded from considering only parental support to encompassing instructional techniques. Randi, as evidenced in her writing style of her case study, was always very critical of instructional practices. However, throughout the course Randi began to construct new meaning of reading di$culties that were built on her stance, based on the course content, and clearly focused on pedagogy. Randi saw herself as a learner; when presented with new content, she connected it to her previous experiences. For example, during one class session in which we were discussing the importance of building on students' strengths, she had an epiphany where she suddenly blurted out, `Oh I get it! It isn't about what they can't do; it is about what they can do!a She interwove the idea of focusing on strengths into her case study write-up: All of the students had been tested, starting on the "rst day, to determine what they could not do. If they could not read well, or spell well, or write well2 they were placed into a group with other children who could not do what they could not do. There was never a discussion on what they could do, just what they could not do. One of the assessments Randi was required to administer to her student was a developmental spelling assessment (Bear, Invernizzi, Templeton & Johnston, 1996). Randi chose to administer it to the whole class. In her case study she wrote: One day Ms. L. wanted to "nd out how the children spelled words. Ms. L. had noticed that all of the students had the same spelling words even though they were reading and writing at di!erent abilities. Some of the students did not like spelling because they were failing the spelling tests. They were usually the students that were reading in the low reading groups. Ms. L. gave the entire class the developmental spelling test. The results were not so amazing. The students that were not doing well on the spelling tests were the same students that were spelling at or below the within-word level.

606

M.H. Mallette et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 16 (2000) 593}612

According to theories of developmental spelling, this meant the students who were not doing well on the spelling tests were still having di$culty with their spellings of words containing both short and long vowel patterns. Randi began to see a relationship between word knowledge as measured by the development spelling test and reading levels. She recognized that students of di!ering levels of reading should be receiving spelling instruction more geared to their levels of word knowledge. Gabrielle was certainly more subtle in her focus on pedagogy; yet, she also became critical in thinking about what various instructional approaches actually entail. Although Gabrielle originally viewed Spencer's mother's decision to read to him every night as infringing on his opportunity to read, she began to realize that these experiences were helpful in developing Spencer's listening comprehension. She came to believe that this was actually a strength, suggesting that she could use this strength along with other ones she discovered about Spencer to help him overcome his needs. Gabrielle found that administering the spelling and writing assessments provided her with the most useful information. She stated: `They really showed me his work beyond reading abilities and gave me a sense of his ability in language.a Gabrielle's meanings of reading di$culties encompassed all areas of language. She saw the connection between all the assessments and found value in understanding a child through multiple assessments. On the "rst day of class her goals indicated that she wanted to learn a variety of ways to teach reading to reach every child and to better her own understanding of assessing for reading di$culties. On the last day of class when she reacted to these goals she wrote: `I'm not sure every student can be reached. I learned a few skills to reach more.a In response to learning a variety of assessment techniques she wrote: I think I accomplished this through this class and with my cooperating teacher. She showed and copied a lot of assessments to "nd out where students are. I feel con"dent after working with Spencer that I can do this.

Gabrielle also applied the knowledge she was gaining to other students she was tutoring. In concluding her case study, she combined her original beliefs with her new knowledge and wrote: I've also been able to apply this new knowledge with the students that I've been tutoring. I can give the assessments and evaluate them accurately to "nd the ability of my students. I can match their level with the appropriate skills to help them learn. I can "nd reasons for them to read and write that make it meaningful to the children. This experience has made me a better teacher. Kaley, Randi, and Gabrielle all ended the semester with much broader understandings of reading di$culties than those with which they began the study. They used their initial stances as a starting point in their construction. However, they all began to place an important role on the teacher in helping students overcome reading di$culties. The other two participants, Paula and Jan, also placed an important role on the teacher, however, they both approached reading di$culties from more of a preventive perspective. Jan originally explained reading di$culties as `obstacles that present themselves to students when the learner lacks the previous knowledge and word association needed to read.a Through her experiences with Troy, Jan believed that his attitude was an obstacle. Jan had di$culty understanding why Troy would not read during SSR time when he had the opportunity to choose his own reading material. It was not until Jan taught the group lesson plan that she realized why even in free choice reading there was still an obstacle. Jan selected a book that she thought would be interesting to Troy. She was pleasantly surprised with Troy's participation in this lesson. Troy was very vocal during the group discussion of the book, and o!ered to read a page of the book to the group. Jan found this lesson to be extremely encouraging considering that up to this point most of her experiences with Troy were negative. It was from this lesson that Jan realized Troy could have positive reading experiences and that quite possibly the classroom library did not contain books of interest to him.

M.H. Mallette et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 16 (2000) 593}612

Through her experiences with Troy, Jan expanded her conceptions of the `obstacles that present themselvesa from attitude to pedagogy. Jan often commented in class how amazed she was that the teacher did not know that Troy was not reading during SSR time. In class it was suggested that Jan share her "ndings with the teacher. After doing this she reported that the teacher shrugged her shoulders and said she didn't know what to do with him. For Jan this was not good enough; she saw the need to "nd books that interested Troy so he could have some positive reading experiences. Jan's construction of meanings of reading di$culties was more oriented to what the obstacles were than to what the de"cits were that resulted form these obstacles. Jan ended the semester with the notion that she had not reached her goal of understanding how to prevent reading problems, yet she stated she `gained a lot of tools that will make my growth possible.a Paula also viewed the struggling reader from a lens of prevention as opposed to remediation. She integrated many elements of what it means to prevent reading problems. She found importance in learning styles, attention span, and, most importantly for her, continuous assessment. Paula's new view of Peggy Lou as a struggling reader helped her to see that she needed to continuously assess Peggy Lou's progress. Near the end of the semester Paula readministered the attitude inventory to assess if Peggy Lou's attitude toward reading had changed. Paula found that it had; Peggy Lou's attitude was much higher in the percentile rankings the second time than it was the "rst time. As Paula saw growth in Peggy Lou's knowledge of sound}symbol relationships, it made sense to Paula that Peggy Lou's attitude would improve. From Paula's perspective, Peggy Lou was developing as a reader. Paula also noted the importance of exposure to literature and nurturing the love of reading as important areas in Peggy Lou's development. Paula noted the importance of the teacher in her meaning of reading di$culties; yet she did so through her own experience with Peggy Lou and Peggy Lou's classroom. From Paula's experience, the teacher became the intervention factor. The

607

teacher needed to nurture the students and continually monitor their progress. In addition, the type of instruction became important. Paula noted Peggy Lou's needs as (a) ending letter sound, and (b) sight words in context. She then suggested that `these two weaknesses of Peggy Lou are de"nitely components of the structure of the class and lessons that are presented.a The participants in this study all grew as they constructed new meanings of reading di$culties. Through their intensive observations of a single student they found themselves questioning the views they originally held. In doing so, they were able to analyze closely the reading instruction provided to a struggling reader. In addition, they were also able to situate themselves as teachers within the context of the classroom. They acted within a dual role throughout the study; that is, they were both students and teachers. As students, they were expected to grow in their understanding of teaching. However, an additional element became salient during the study: The participants viewed themselves as teachers and thus began to take responsibility for the students with whom they were working. 4.2. The self as the teacher Kaley, the participant who represented the negative case within this theme, was the only one who was not able to see the tremendous impact she had on the student with whom she was working. It seemed that for Kaley she was just beginning to make sense of classroom practices and was not quite attuned to the impact she was making on Moesha by providing her with individual instruction. Kaley was pleased when she saw Moesha's excitement about being the student with whom Kaley chose to work. Every time Kaley went to her practicum classroom Moesha would ask if they were going to do another lesson that day. When Kaley did her group lesson, Moesha did not act like herself, continually interrupting Kaley and suggesting that she knew the story. Kaley later learned that Moesha was not familiar with the story and attributed her behavior to an `o! day.a Kaley realized that Moesha was acting out for attention,

608

M.H. Mallette et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 16 (2000) 593}612

a behavior she rarely saw in Moesha. She found that Moesha was generally excited about doing Kaley's lessons. Kaley was very disappointed in Moesha's behavior and in the end blamed herself for not taking Moesha's needs into consideration. While our interpretation of this episode suggests that Moesha felt possessive of Kaley and did not want to share her with the small group, Kaley internalized Moesha's behavior as if she could have prevented it. The other "ve participants were more cognizant of their roles as teachers and also more hopeful of the di!erences they were making in working with these struggling readers. Randi was quite con"dent of her ability to teach Lucy. There was never a doubt in Randi's mind that her presence would have an impact on Lucy. She saw Lucy as a student who thrived on praise and needed help in making connections. She saw herself as a teacher who could assist in helping Lucy make connections, as described in her case study: On the very last day that Ms. L. was in Lucy's classroom, Lucy gave Ms. L. a card that she had made for her. The card opened opposite of a traditional card and inside the card Lucy had written `I love you for a teacher. you are my favorite teacher. you will be my favorite.a2 Ms. L. knew that Lucy had spent a long time on the card, and Ms. L. was very proud of Lucy. While not quite as overt as Randi, Paula and Jan were both pleased with the progress they saw in their students and showed con"dence in their abilities as teachers. Paula monitored Peggy Lou's progress very closely and thus was able to see growth. As she expected, Peggy Lou was an emergent reader who with appropriate instruction would, in Paula's mind, become a reader. For Paula, her experiences with Peggy Lou were very positive and reassured her that as a teacher she would be able to help students become readers. It was also clear that working with Peggy Lou helped Paula understand herself as a learner. She had been forced to reexamine her own role as a teacher; in doing so, she drew an analogy between herself and Peggy Lou. Paula recognized that she was an `emergent teachera and that, just as Peggy Lou made discove-

ries about print, Paula was making discoveries about teaching. Jan also saw herself as a teacher. She knew that by selecting a scary book which contained a monster lurking under the stairway for her group lesson plan she would have a good chance of providing Troy with a positive reading experience } and she was right. Jan believed she learned from her experience with Troy. While the idea that poor readers have negative attitudes toward reading may be an overgeneralization, within that idea she saw the importance of providing struggling readers with positive reading experiences. Gabrielle was a bit more subtle than the others. Yet, she did use her experience to grow in her understanding of teaching. In her "eld notes, class discussions, and case study she continually commented on how much she learned from working with Spencer as well as how delightful it was to work with him. However, she was not very con"dent in her teaching abilities. In her case study she o!ered: `I realize Spencer probably did not learn a great deal from this semester of me working with him, but I can say that I learned more from working with him individually than I could have ever learned by just going to my practicum experience.a On the other hand, Gabrielle did indicate that as she read with Spencer throughout the semester, `he really did seem to improve.a The last participant, Gayle, was always focused on pedagogy and on herself as a teacher. She did everything she could to help Scott become a better reader. Yet, as Gayle grew in her understanding of schools, she developed new questions about her own role as a teacher. Gayle's hope for herself as Scott's teacher is most eloquently stated in Gayle's words: It is with a sad heart that I complete the end of this case study. I saw improvement in Scott's reading but I was hoping for more, I had hoped I could be a miracle worker for him. I am not a miracle worker that can make everything right in Scott's world, only a practicum student that cares. But perhaps my caring has made a small di!erence in his life that will encourage him to continue to work on learning to read and write.

M.H. Mallette et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 16 (2000) 593}612

5. Discussion The six preservice teachers who participated in this study all ended the semester with idiosyncratic meanings of struggling readers. They allowed their interaction with the course content and the students with whom they were working to serve as artifacts which forced them to grapple with their original stances. Thus, when they found their stances were limited, they were able to construct new, broader meanings of reading di$culties. As they constructed new meanings of reading di$culties, they grew in their understanding of the important relationship between pedagogy and reading di$culties. After considering the limitations, the results and implications of this study will be discussed. 5.1. Limitations One limitation of this study was that the data sources used were assignments that were part of the participants' grades in the course. This becomes an important consideration when interpreting their meanings, especially when the participants addressed what they gained from their experiences. It would be expected that the participants, as students in a university course, would want to demonstrate their learning through their assignments to receive a good grade in the class. This limitation was addressed by using multiple data sources. We looked for con"rmation of what the participants stated they learned through all of the data sources. This limitation was also addressed by continually reinforcing the participants' roles as teacher researchers. They knew they were free to make assertions about struggling readers as long as they could provide data to support what they were asserting. Another limitation of the study was that the meanings the participants constructed were based on the interactions they had with only one student. Their "ndings were often context speci"c, and, as novice researchers, they tended to overgeneralize the results. For example, Jan's experience let her to believe that struggling readers have poor attitudes; yet, this is not the case with all struggling readers. This limitation was addressed through class dis-

609

cussions. As the students began making assertions about struggling readers, they would share their assertions in small groups. Discussions provided opportunities to hear both similar and di!erent concerns regarding struggling readers. While these limitations could certainly color the interpretations of the "ndings, we acknowledged them from the onset of the study and, in doing so, worked throughout the semester to address them. We now turn to the "rst two research questions: (a) What do reading di$culties mean to preservice teachers? and (b) How are these meanings constructed while interacting with a student who has reading di$culties? 5.2. Constructing meanings of reading dizculties Through the lens of the research perspective that guided the data collection and analysis of this study, symbolic interactionism (Blumer, 1969), we were interested in interpreting how meanings of reading di$culties were constructed through social interactions and how these interactions were interpreted by the individuals. It became apparent after the member checks were completed that our interpretations were in fact `second degreea (Schutz, 1962, p. 6), that is, interpretations of the participant's interpretations (e.g., Geertz, 1973, 1983). The themes that ran through each participant's case, which were identi"ed as stances by the researchers, were not necessarily known to the participants until after they read the draft. All six of the participants stated that they were accurately portrayed in the paper; however, they also reacted with elements of surprise. For example, Kaley stated, `I learned so much from reading about me,a and Randi remarked, `I am an opinionated old broad, aren't I?a These reactions by the participants led to the question of representation (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994). While it was evident through the data analysis that each participant had a theme running through her work, the member checks called into question the accuracy of interpreting these as stances. However, not one participant objected to the "ndings. When conducting research within the paradigm of symbolic interactionism, researchers are interpreting a meaningful social world, where individuals singly and collectively give it meaning (Blumer, 1969).

610

M.H. Mallette et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 16 (2000) 593}612

The idiosyncratic nature of the meanings the participants constructed was built upon the meanings they already had. As they interacted with their students and as they were exposed to the content in the course, they were selective in integrating new knowledge with their existing knowledge. Kaley's conviction about the importance of parental involvement, Jan's citation of the Matthew e!ect, and Gayle's assertion of the need for additional oneon-one instruction directed at a student's individual needs are just a few examples of selecting and applying the interactions and content they found meaningful, based on their stances. These stances served as the bases for their construction. By integrating content knowledge with "eld experience (e.g., Ashton, 1996; Dynak & Smith, 1994) within a clearly de"ned inquiry-oriented approach (Alvermann, 1990; Commeyras et al., 1993), the participants had opportunities to collect data systematically to answer questions about struggling readers. Their inquiry in this study centered on the traditional-craft model (i.e., working in a classroom with one child) and, through the integration of models, the participants were able to construct meanings of reading di$culties that were based upon the stances they already had. While their interactions provided them with a forum for supporting their existing stances, they also caused them to grapple with these stances when they found they could not adequately explain reading di$culties. Interestingly, two of the participants commented on this idea when reading a draft of this paper. It was the only place in the entire paper where they wrote something as opposed to microlevel edits. Gayle wrote `de"nitelya on her paper, and Randi wrote `love this part.a By acknowledging their limited views, they were able to construct new meanings of reading di$culties that were much more encompassing. We now turn to the third research question: How do preservice teachers perceive students will be able to overcome reading di$culties? It is here that the participants examined their role in the classroom. 5.3. Pedagogy The extant research on teacher preparation suggests that students do not feel adequately prepared

to teach reading (Cheek, 1982; Commeyras et al., 1993) and that during "eld experiences preservice teachers tend to emulate the instruction they observe (Lortie, 1975). The "ndings from this study suggest the opposite. Through intensive one-onone interactions and observations, the participants became critical of classroom practices. As they continually watched a student struggle with reading, they started asking questions of why this was happening and what they could do about it. It seemed that during the course of the semester they moved out of their roles as students learning from these experiences to teachers creating learning experiences for both their students and themselves. Additionally, they grew in understanding what their role was as future teachers of struggling readers. While dependent on where their thinking was when they began the semester, they moved along a continuum from thinking of reading di$culties as a problem with the student to a problem with the instruction. As for Gayle, she took this one step further to the realization that instruction is an important factor in overcoming reading di$culties; yet, perhaps schools are only one of many social institutions that in#uence a child's life. As they began to move away from a de"cit model to a model that focused on the importance of understanding pedagogy they started peeling back the layers of pedagogy. For example, Gabrielle's experience forced her to examine the implementation of developmentally appropriate practice when it seemed to be infringing upon a child's maturational level. She seemed to be thinking about pedagogy below the surface level. Randi's experience made her realize the importance of trying to capitalize on students' strengths to build successful experiences for students and promote their learning. Jan provides another example of peeling the layers of teaching practices. Her experience forced her to reconsider what self-selection of reading materials actually entailed. That is, there need to be books of interest for all students. The participants also realized the importance of multiple and continuous assessments. Consistent with their broader meanings of reading di$culties, they understood that diagnosing reading di$culties meant much more than merely determining reading levels. They viewed struggling readers as

M.H. Mallette et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 16 (2000) 593}612

capable readers who needed to have their progress monitored by continually assessing them to provide the most appropriate instruction possible. Additionally, the participants realized that once in their own classrooms they would be faced with the same concern but with potentially more than one struggling reader for whom they would have to provide appropriate instruction, determined through assessment. Additionally, they considered self-e$cacy in their use of continuous assessment. They used the information gained from the assessments to monitor their own progress as teachers. For Paula this was a matter of questioning whether the individual attention she gave to Peggy Lou would improve Peggy Lou's attitude toward reading. For Kaley this was wondering whether she was responsible for Moesha's inappropriate behavior because she did not believe she took Moesha's needs into more consideration. However, it was most apparent with Gayle, who constantly wondered whether she, as a teacher, could make a di!erence. 5.4. Implications and suggestions for future research This study has implications regarding the preparation of preservice reading teachers. In exploring how preservice teachers construct meaning, it was evident from the results that they used their existing meanings (i.e., stances) as a base in their construction. This, then, suggests the importance of providing preservice teachers with opportunities to explore and question the stances they already have. While research has already shown the importance of having preservice teachers examine the stances they bring into teacher education (see Richardson, 1996, for a review), this study suggests the need to capitalize on making these stances explicit. By engaging preservice teachers in their own research that has them substantiate their stances, they are able to both solidify and expand their stances. In our plans for future sections of this course, we have considered the importance of providing a way for all the preservice teachers to have the opportunity to look at our interpretations of their data as a forum for discussion of their initial stances and indices of their development of new meanings they construct.

611

This study also suggests the need for teacher educators to consider the idiosyncratic nature of the meanings preservice teachers construct. It was apparent that the participants were all at di!erent places in their understanding of reading di$culties when the semester began as well as when the semester ended. From a narrow lens, this implication then suggests that teacher educators can not expect all preservice teachers to gain the same knowledge form their coursework. Yet, from a broader lens, the participants were able to construct idiosyncratic meanings of reading di$culties that encompassed issues of pedagogy and issues of understanding the whole child. In a sense it was as if the participants reached the goals of the course by selectively meeting the objectives that were most meaningful to them. This study suggests future research studies. One suggestion is to conduct similar research in di!ering contexts as well as develop rich case studies of individual teachers. Another would be to replicate this type of research over more than a one-course sequence to see what e!ect continuing instruction might have on preservice teachers' stances. Preservice teachers need to listen to their own voices and become sensitive to their own instructional theories and how they might a!ect their practice and students' learning. Future research could explore whether they use that research knowledge as they become practicing teachers and whether or not they continue to be researchers or if this knowledge is only temporary and related to speci"c methods courses (see Roskos & Walker, 1994).

References Alvermann, D. E. (1990). Reading teacher education. In W. R. Houston, Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 687}704). New York: Macmillan. Ashton, P. T. (1996). Improving the preparation of teaching. Educational Researcher, 25(9), 21}22, 35. Bear, D., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S., & Johnston, F. (1996). Words their way: Word study for phonics, vocabulary, and spelling instruction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986/1997) Women's ways of knowing. New York: Basic Books. Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Englewood Cli!s, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

612

M.H. Mallette et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 16 (2000) 593}612

Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Bondy, E. (1990). Seeing it their way: What children's de"nitions of reading tell us about improving teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 41(4), 33}45. Cheek, M. C. (1982). Preservice education in reading: What do the teachers say? Reading Psychology:An International Quarterly, 3, 25}35. Commeyras, M., Reinking, D., Heubach, K. M., & Pagnucco, J. (1993). Looking within: A study of an undergraduate reading methods course. In D. J. Leu, & C. K. Kinzer, Examining central issues in literacy research, theory, and practice. Fortysecond yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 297}304). Chicago: National Reading Conference. Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Denzin, N. K., & Linclon, Y. S. (1994). Introduction: Entering the "eld of qualitative research. In D. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln, Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1}17). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Dynak, J., & Smith, M. J. (1994). Summarization: Preservice teachers' abilities and instructional views. In C. K., Kinzer, & D. J., Leu, Multidimensional aspects of literacy research, theory, and practice. Forty-third yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 387}393). Chicago: National Reading Conference. Finnan, C., St. John, E. P., McCarthy, J., & Slovacek, S. P. (Eds.) (1996). Accelerated schools in action: Lessons from the "eld. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. New York: Basic Books. Geertz, C. (1983). Local knowledge: Further essays in interpretive anthropology. New York: Basic Books. Hodges, C. (1982). Implementing methods: If you can't blame the cooperating teacher who can you blame? Journal of Teacher Education, 33(6), 25}29. Huberman, A. M., & Miles, M. B. (1994). Data management and analysis methods. In D. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln, Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 428}444). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. McMahon, S. I. (1996). Book club: The in#uence of a Vygotskian perspective on a literature-based reading program. In

L. Dixon-Krauss, Vygotsky in the classroom: Mediated literacy assessment and instruction (pp. 59}75). White Plains, NY: Longman. Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, Self and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitude and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. Sikula, T. J. Buttery, & E. Guyton, Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 102}119). New York: Macmillan. Risko, V. J., Peter, J. A., & McAllister, D. (1996). Preservice teachers' pathways to providing literacy instruction. In E. G. Sturtevant, & W. M. Linek, Growing literacy. Eighteenth yearbook of the College Reading Association (pp. 104}119). Commerce, TX: College Reading Association. Roehler, L. R., Du!y, G. D., Herrmann, B. A., Conley, M., & Johnson, J. (1988). Knowledge structures as evidence of the &personal': Bridging the gap from thought to practice. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 20, 159}165. Roskos, K. & Walker, B. (1993). An analysis or preservice teachers' pedagogical concepts in the teaching of problem readers. In D. J. Leu, & C. K. Kinzer, Examining central issues in literacy research, theory, and practice. Forty-second yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 325}334). Chicago: National Reading Conference. Roskos, K., & Walker, B. (1994). Preservice teachers' epistemology in the teaching of problem readers. C. K. Kinzer, D. J. Leu, Multidimensional aspects of literacy research, theory, and practice. Forty-third yearbook of the National Reading Conference. (pp. 418}428). Chicago: National Reading Conference. Schutz, A. (1962). Common-sense and scienti"c interpretation on human action. In M. Natanso, Collected Papers, Vol. 1 (pp. 3}47). The Hague: Martinus Nijho!. Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew e!ects in reading: Some consequences of individual di!erences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360}407. Swa!ord, J., Chapman, V., Rhodes, R., & Kullis, M. (1996). A literate analysis of trends in literacy education. In D. J. Leu, C. K. Kinzer, & K. A. Hinchman, Literacies for the 21st century: Research and practice. Forty-"fth yearbook of the National Reading Conference. (pp. 437}446). Chicago: National Reading Conference. Wham, M. A. (1993). The relationship between undergraduate course work and beliefs about reading instruction. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 27(1), 9}17.