- Email: [email protected]
What do reading teacher educators want from reading research? A call from the hall
WHAT DO READING TEACHER EDUCATORSWANT FROM READING RESEARCH? A CALL FROM THE HALL JAMES V. HOFFMAN THE UNIVERSITYOF TEXAS, AUSTIN
This past semester, as part of our study of classroom management principles and practices, we asked the students in our undergraduate program to imagine their classroom of the future and prepare a poster that might be used to represent expectations for behavior in the classroom. One group came up with the slogan: It's My Way or the Hallway! We all laughed, Pressley and Allington (1999) warn us of a future for reading research and the reading research community that is quite similar in its tone and content that is not so funny: It's the NICHD Way or No Way! Like the student sent to the hall and ostracized from the learning community based on his failure to conform to one teacher's standards, those in the reading research community who fail to climb on the skills-based research band-wagon are marginalized into obscurity. Pressley and Allington plead their case for a broader view of instructional research in reading that encompasses the complexity of the process and considers the act of reading in a broader set of social and motivational contexts. This is a reasonable approach, but not the only approach that one can take in challenging the NICHD agenda for reading research. I will attempt to reinforce their central thesis through a different line of reasoning. I
Direct all correspondence to: James V. Hoffman, University of Texas-Austin, College of Education, Austin, TX. Received 30 April 1999; Accepted 30 April 1999. Issues in Education, Volume 5, Number 1, 1999, pages 77-83 All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
Copyright © 1999 Elsevier Science Inc. ISSN: 1080-9724 PII $1080-9724(99)00018-X
78
ISSUES IN EDUCATION
Vol. 5, No. 1, 1999
will argue that the NICHD research agenda in reading offers dangerous implications for reading teacher education. The NICHD research agenda reinforces a 'technical' view of teaching, teacher knowledge, and teacher preparation that is incompatible with the underlying character of effective teaching. The NICHD research agenda suggests a vision of teacher education that ignores research-based understandings of knowledge acquisition and the development of professional expertise.
Teachers, Teaching, and Teacher Education I am a reading teacher educator. I pursue m y own line of research related to reading, but my daily life is spent preparing elementary teachers to meet the complex demands of classroom teaching. I direct a program that includes a specialization in the teaching of reading. This program is field-based and involves practicure work in clinical and regular classroom settings. I work with the same group of students across a three-semester, year-and-one-half sequence of courses, seminars, and practicum experiences. I work with a team of classroom teachers, university colleagues, and doctoral students. When we look at reading research, it is often through the teacher educator lens. What guidance or direction does reading research offer in terms of building a strong program? How does reading research inform our curriculum and our instruction? Looking at reading research with these questions in mind is a good news-bad news situation. The bad news is that there is very limited research on reading teacher education itself (i.e., research that focuses on teacher knowledge, teacher development, and the contexts that support the development of expertise) although this research is expanding (Anders, Hoffman, & Duffy, in press). The good news is that the breadth of reading research that has focused on instruction, as in the strategy work referenced by Pressley and Allinton, reading development, reading acquisition, reading/writing relationships, the development of reading attitudes, interests and habits, the nature and impact of intensive support programs, and so on, offers a rich basis upon which to build a reading teacher education program. Taking these same questions regarding reading teacher education to the NICHD research we find only bad news followed by more bad news. At the surface level, there is really nothing offered or confirmed in this research that is new to the field. Learning to decode is an important part of learning to read. Attention to code during instruction promotes control and efficiency in decoding. The NICHD research agenda is investing millions of dollars in attempting to prove scientifically what is already known. What the broader reading research community has moved to consider are the ways in which explicit attention to code can be imbedded (not lost or discarded) in the broader context of reading activity and reading instruction. This instruction emphasizes readers developing and coordinated use of processing strategies to achieve their genuine goals. At a deeper level, though, an analysis of the NICHD research suggests not only
Reading TeacherEducators
79
a simple view of reading and learning to read but a simple view of classrooms, teachers, and teaching. This simple view of classrooms, teachers, and teaching conflict with just about everything we have learned from research in teaching over the past three decades (see Witrock, 1986; Houston, 1990; Richardson, in press). Teaching is an enormously complex activity that is characterized by tentativeness, adaptation, responsiveness, and flexibility. Classrooms are characterized by simultaneity, multiplicity, and diversity. The simple view of reading may be comforting but does not match the reality it attempts to portray. Further, and more importantly, it does not enable or empower professionals to be responsive to the needs of the students they serve. Our theories can elevate us from the complexity of our surroundings and give us a broader perspective, as Schon (1983, 1989) illustrates in his metaphor of the professional struggling to rise above the "swamp" of daily work. However, if we remove ourselves too far from the realities of action in the professional context, our structures will lead us to be rigid, unresponsive, and ineffective in meeting our client's needs. I am concerned that there is an insidious assumption in the NICHD research, as it is being translated into instructional programs for classroom instruction and teacher education, that teachers are not very smart. They are incapable of dealing with complexity. If left to their own devices, they will choose the easy and convenient path. They will meander in and out of fads and never get down to teaching the basics. The skills agenda is teacher proof, and reminiscent of the call of Barak Roshenshine for a group of master curriculum developers who would script instruction for teachers.
The NICHD Spin On Reading Teacher Education We don't need to speculate in the abstract about the conception of reading teacher education that one can draw from the NICHD research agenda. Louisa Moats has written extensively on this matter. Ironically, given the emphasis on scientific research, Moats spins out her vision for reading teacher education with little data or research evidence to support her action plan. Neither in her portrayals of the status quo, which for the most part discredits current reading teacher preparation, or in her prescriptions for what must be done differently do we find citations to the kind of substantive descriptive and experimental research that meets the NICHD research standards for science. Most teachers are not being given the content and depth of training needed to enable them to provide appropriate instruction (Brady & Moats, 1997, p. 1). As support for this claim, Brady and Moats cite the results of a survey study given to teachers in the first meeting of a course entitled: Reading, Spelling, and Phonology. The survey contains 15 sets of items that cover areas ranging from phonology, to morphology, to etymology (Moats, 1994). The framing of the questions on the survey instruments and the scoring suggest that all linguists are in general agreement on such issues. For example, one set of items requires the
80
ISSUES IN EDUCATION
Vol. 5, No. 1, 1999
respondent to identify the number of speech sounds in particular words. The correct answer for the target word "boil" is 3. Some linguists would agree and consider the vowel s o u n d / o i / a s one sound (a diphthong). Other linguists would argue that there are at least four sounds in the word 'boil' with t h e / o i / d i p h t h o n g including a glide from one sound to another. Another section asks the respondents to calculate the number of syllables and the number of morphemes in targeted words. The correct answer for the word "attached" is two syllables and three morphemes. Viewing morphemes as an etymological construct will lead you to three-morpheme determination, but from a view of morphemes as a psychological construct, there are two morphemes in the word. On another section the respondents are asked to mark the schwa vowel sounds in a series of words. The schwa sound is important in the English language, but its use in speech is often a function of dialect, ideolect, and its location in the full speech stream (e.g., in unaccented syllables). What is important to note is that schwa is a sound. It is not a letter. One of Moat's examples is "melody". The correct answer, according to the key, is that t h e / o / c a r r i e s the schwa sound. This is not true in some dialects, ideolects, or contexts. Moats asks respondents an open-ended question: "How can you recognize a word of Greek origin?" and finds a paltry 10% of those surveyed who can name the keys to unlocking its Greek routes. Moats goes on to state: "With regard to spelling rules and conventions, ignorance was the norm. For example, few teachers could answers the final question in Table I concerning why we double the 't' in committed but do not double in commitment" (p. 93). The actual question in Table I is stated as: Account for the double "m" in comment or commitment. (Ans: the first "m" closes the syllable to make it short: com is a Latin morpheme as are ment and mit). It's not clear from Moat's "research report" what was being asked of the respondents or how it was scored. Although the preceding analysis of the Moat's study may seem too detailed for the purposes of a broad critique of the NICHD research agenda for teacher education, it is important to note that this is the only study cited in support of their agenda. Without giving any "scientific" evidence for why this kind of knowledge is essential to good teaching, Moats goes on the propose a curriculum for teacher education that would stress the development of this kind of knowledge. She does this without ever establishing that this content is not being taught, or any evidence that those who might have her version of phonology etc. function more effectively as teachers. Unfortunately, state certification practices, pre-service teacher training and the social contexts of schools do not adequately prepare reading and writing teachers for the demands of the classroom. More specifically, neither undergraduate nor graduate training of teackiers typically requires the command of language
Reading TeacherEducators
81
structure necessary to teach reading and spelling well. Consequently, teachers are inadequately prepared to teach emergent literacy, reading and spelling to beginning readers and those encountering reading failure (1994, p. 99). Moats and Lyon (1996) argue that when teachers are in the field they come to appreciate the inadequacy of their preparation. They cite as support for this claim a single study by Lyon, Vasson, and Toomey (1989). They write: In general, only 20% of regular educators and 10% of special educators felt they had adequate content preparation in reading and reading instruction (Moats and Lyon, 1996, p. 78). The Lyon et al. (1989) study involved a survey of 250 regular education and 190 special education teachers. It is difficult to find the exact connection between the Moat's and Lyon (1996) claim and the data reported by Lyon et al. in 1989. One question on their survey reads: Do you feel that you were provided a strong foundation in the content subjects that you now teach? For the regular educators, they report 28% responding 'yes', 10% responding 'no', and 62% responding 'only some'. The question posed by Lyon et al in 1989 is not specific to reading and reading instruction and the respondents teach a variety of grade levels with over half teaching at the fourth grade level or above. The discrepancy in percentages and the language (i.e., Moats and Lyons' 1996 "adequate" and Lyon, et al.'s 1989 "strong") complicate any interpretation. The claims made by Moats and Lyons, et al. regarding teachers' perceptions of the value of their pre-service preparation, the quantity and content of the courses taken, the contexts and processes of instruction offered are contradicted by a substantial literature on reading teacher education (Anders, Hoffman, & Duffy, in press). This is not to suggest that the preparation of teachers in this country is outstanding across the board or as good as it needs to be. Changes are necessary if we are to meet the needs of students in a complex and diverse world. My concern is that the direction for change and the recommendations offered by those within the NICHD research community would take us in exactly the opposite direction of where research suggests we are headed and need to go even further. The reductive view of reading represented in the basic research of NICHD and challenged by Pressley and Allington (1999) is reflected in the NICHD reductive conception of teaching reading. Everything will be fine if we just fill the heads of our prospective teachers with some necessary "facts" about English phonology. Who would accept this as a reasonable path for us to follow in reading teacher education? Who would not demand at least a little evidence that this conception is worth investigating? Who would disregard the substantive research over the decades in teacher knowledge and teacher development in favor of this view? Without any challenges from the reading teacher education community, appar-
82
ISSUES IN EDUCATION
Vol. 5, No. 1, 1999
ently there are lots of folks willing to buy this line of reasoning. Unfortunately, these are people in positions of control over educational decision making. State legislators across the country are considering and, in some cases, have passed requirements for reading teacher education that would build on the Moats plan and the NICHD research agenda. This is not a hidden agenda. Brady and Moats' warn that one of the real problems in bringing their vision of teacher education into the light is the resistance of college and university based teacher educators. They will resist because they are just as ignorant of the fundamentals as the teachers they prepare: ... one of the serious roadblocks in alleviating the current shortcomings is that the University faculty necessary to provide this training is not now in place: most of the educators providing teacher training themselves need to be re-educated in the areas reviewed here. Thus, it will be necessary to confront the resistance to change that will no doubt occur and to structure the guidelines for course content sufficiently that 'token' instruction on the topics outlined will not take place (Brady & Moats, 1997, p. 18). This agenda is being acted on in state legislatures across the country. This agenda is being acted on in the formation of federal initiatives related to teacher education. Let's be clear about intent. The NICHD agenda is a call for action not a call for a dialogue.
So What Do Reading Teacher Educators Want From Reading Research? Credit must be given to the NICHD community for focusing our attention on the needs of students who are severely disabled in learning to read. The NICHD community must be given credit for its basic and careful research into phonological processing deficits and their potential to contribute to reading difficulties. At the same time, we must challenge their claims regarding learning to read, quality instruction, basic curriculum, and teacher education that would impact all students. What Pressley and Allington have done in their examination of the reading research agenda from NICHD and what I have attempted to do relative to the reading teacher education agenda from NICHD have led us to the same concluding point. The education profession must become informed and active in challenging the path that is being laid out for us or we will be banished into the hallway and into obscurity. Reading teacher educators want research that will help illuminate how knowledge of teaching is acquired and how the supporting contexts that surround teacher preparation contribute to growth. We have practical kinds of concerns regarding the specifics of a sound curriculum for teacher preparation, but we understand that these issues of curriculum are nested within a consideration of a full programmatic context. The institutional constraints of most teacher preparation programs lead us to think in ways (e.g., what's in a course, how many courses) that may not be in the interest of optimal programming. How can we begin to
Reading TeacherEducators
83
break away from these barriers and plan more holistically in term of student needs and goals? H o w can we envision goals of pre-service teacher education that don't put unrealistic expectations on entry level teachers and allow us to think more broadly regarding career development and programs of support? I concur with the arguments offered by Pressley and Allington. Conceptions of reading research must be broad, just as the conception of reading teacher education must be broad. I am struck in my reading of the Moats and Lyon (1996) writing in reading teacher education by the absence of any significant calls for research. If anything, I don't think Pressley and Allington go far enough in sounding the alarm within the research community. Perhaps, out of challenges like these, a productive dialogue will emerge that will strengthen the field and lead us to better modes of collaboration and collegiality. Through this dialogue we can come to appreciate the complexity of teaching reading and preparing teachers of reading. We can move to build a research agenda that will help us see into the complexity of learning to teach and not obscure our vision with the illusion of simplicity. Marginalizing those voices to the hallway who remind us of the complexity of the issues surrounding teaching, learning, and teacher education is not in the interest of good science or good practice.
REFERENCES Anders, P., Hoffman, J. V., & Duffy, G. (in press). Research in the preparation of reading teachers. Third Handbook of Reading Research. New York: Macmillan. Brady, S. & Moats, L. (1997). Informed instruction for reading success: Foundations for teacher preparation. A position paper of the International Dyslexia Association. Baltimore, MD: The Orton Dyslexia Society. Houston, R. (1990). Handbook of Research on Teacher Education. New York: Macmillan. Lyon, G. R., Vaasen, M., & Toomey, F. (1989). Teachers' perceptions of their undergraduate and graduate preparation. Teacher Education and Special Education, 12:164--196. Moats, L. (1994). Knowledge about the structure of language: The missing foundation in teacher education. Annuals of Dyslexia, 44:81-102. Moats, L. & Lyon, G. (1996). Wanted: Teachers with knowledge of language. Topics in Language Disorders (pp. 73-86). Pressley, M. & Allington, R. (1999). What should reading instructional research be the research of? Issues in Education: Contributions from Educational Psychology, 5:1-35. Richardson, V. (in press) Handbook of Research in Teaching: Fourth Edition. New York: Macmillan. Schon, D. (1983). The Reflective practitioner: How Professionals thinking in action. New York: Basic Books. Schon, D. (1989). Professional knowledge and reflective practice. In: T. J. Sergiovanni & J.H. Moore (Eds.), Schooling for tomorrow: Directing reforms to issues that count (pp. 188-206). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Wittrock, M. C. (1986). Handbook of Research in Teaching. Third Edition. New York: Macmillan.
This past semester, as part of our study of classroom management principles and practices, we asked the students in our undergraduate program to imagine their classroom of the future and prepare a poster that might be used to represent expectations for behavior in the classroom. One group came up with the slogan: It's My Way or the Hallway! We all laughed, Pressley and Allington (1999) warn us of a future for reading research and the reading research community that is quite similar in its tone and content that is not so funny: It's the NICHD Way or No Way! Like the student sent to the hall and ostracized from the learning community based on his failure to conform to one teacher's standards, those in the reading research community who fail to climb on the skills-based research band-wagon are marginalized into obscurity. Pressley and Allington plead their case for a broader view of instructional research in reading that encompasses the complexity of the process and considers the act of reading in a broader set of social and motivational contexts. This is a reasonable approach, but not the only approach that one can take in challenging the NICHD agenda for reading research. I will attempt to reinforce their central thesis through a different line of reasoning. I
Direct all correspondence to: James V. Hoffman, University of Texas-Austin, College of Education, Austin, TX. Received 30 April 1999; Accepted 30 April 1999. Issues in Education, Volume 5, Number 1, 1999, pages 77-83 All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
Copyright © 1999 Elsevier Science Inc. ISSN: 1080-9724 PII $1080-9724(99)00018-X
78
ISSUES IN EDUCATION
Vol. 5, No. 1, 1999
will argue that the NICHD research agenda in reading offers dangerous implications for reading teacher education. The NICHD research agenda reinforces a 'technical' view of teaching, teacher knowledge, and teacher preparation that is incompatible with the underlying character of effective teaching. The NICHD research agenda suggests a vision of teacher education that ignores research-based understandings of knowledge acquisition and the development of professional expertise.
Teachers, Teaching, and Teacher Education I am a reading teacher educator. I pursue m y own line of research related to reading, but my daily life is spent preparing elementary teachers to meet the complex demands of classroom teaching. I direct a program that includes a specialization in the teaching of reading. This program is field-based and involves practicure work in clinical and regular classroom settings. I work with the same group of students across a three-semester, year-and-one-half sequence of courses, seminars, and practicum experiences. I work with a team of classroom teachers, university colleagues, and doctoral students. When we look at reading research, it is often through the teacher educator lens. What guidance or direction does reading research offer in terms of building a strong program? How does reading research inform our curriculum and our instruction? Looking at reading research with these questions in mind is a good news-bad news situation. The bad news is that there is very limited research on reading teacher education itself (i.e., research that focuses on teacher knowledge, teacher development, and the contexts that support the development of expertise) although this research is expanding (Anders, Hoffman, & Duffy, in press). The good news is that the breadth of reading research that has focused on instruction, as in the strategy work referenced by Pressley and Allinton, reading development, reading acquisition, reading/writing relationships, the development of reading attitudes, interests and habits, the nature and impact of intensive support programs, and so on, offers a rich basis upon which to build a reading teacher education program. Taking these same questions regarding reading teacher education to the NICHD research we find only bad news followed by more bad news. At the surface level, there is really nothing offered or confirmed in this research that is new to the field. Learning to decode is an important part of learning to read. Attention to code during instruction promotes control and efficiency in decoding. The NICHD research agenda is investing millions of dollars in attempting to prove scientifically what is already known. What the broader reading research community has moved to consider are the ways in which explicit attention to code can be imbedded (not lost or discarded) in the broader context of reading activity and reading instruction. This instruction emphasizes readers developing and coordinated use of processing strategies to achieve their genuine goals. At a deeper level, though, an analysis of the NICHD research suggests not only
Reading TeacherEducators
79
a simple view of reading and learning to read but a simple view of classrooms, teachers, and teaching. This simple view of classrooms, teachers, and teaching conflict with just about everything we have learned from research in teaching over the past three decades (see Witrock, 1986; Houston, 1990; Richardson, in press). Teaching is an enormously complex activity that is characterized by tentativeness, adaptation, responsiveness, and flexibility. Classrooms are characterized by simultaneity, multiplicity, and diversity. The simple view of reading may be comforting but does not match the reality it attempts to portray. Further, and more importantly, it does not enable or empower professionals to be responsive to the needs of the students they serve. Our theories can elevate us from the complexity of our surroundings and give us a broader perspective, as Schon (1983, 1989) illustrates in his metaphor of the professional struggling to rise above the "swamp" of daily work. However, if we remove ourselves too far from the realities of action in the professional context, our structures will lead us to be rigid, unresponsive, and ineffective in meeting our client's needs. I am concerned that there is an insidious assumption in the NICHD research, as it is being translated into instructional programs for classroom instruction and teacher education, that teachers are not very smart. They are incapable of dealing with complexity. If left to their own devices, they will choose the easy and convenient path. They will meander in and out of fads and never get down to teaching the basics. The skills agenda is teacher proof, and reminiscent of the call of Barak Roshenshine for a group of master curriculum developers who would script instruction for teachers.
The NICHD Spin On Reading Teacher Education We don't need to speculate in the abstract about the conception of reading teacher education that one can draw from the NICHD research agenda. Louisa Moats has written extensively on this matter. Ironically, given the emphasis on scientific research, Moats spins out her vision for reading teacher education with little data or research evidence to support her action plan. Neither in her portrayals of the status quo, which for the most part discredits current reading teacher preparation, or in her prescriptions for what must be done differently do we find citations to the kind of substantive descriptive and experimental research that meets the NICHD research standards for science. Most teachers are not being given the content and depth of training needed to enable them to provide appropriate instruction (Brady & Moats, 1997, p. 1). As support for this claim, Brady and Moats cite the results of a survey study given to teachers in the first meeting of a course entitled: Reading, Spelling, and Phonology. The survey contains 15 sets of items that cover areas ranging from phonology, to morphology, to etymology (Moats, 1994). The framing of the questions on the survey instruments and the scoring suggest that all linguists are in general agreement on such issues. For example, one set of items requires the
80
ISSUES IN EDUCATION
Vol. 5, No. 1, 1999
respondent to identify the number of speech sounds in particular words. The correct answer for the target word "boil" is 3. Some linguists would agree and consider the vowel s o u n d / o i / a s one sound (a diphthong). Other linguists would argue that there are at least four sounds in the word 'boil' with t h e / o i / d i p h t h o n g including a glide from one sound to another. Another section asks the respondents to calculate the number of syllables and the number of morphemes in targeted words. The correct answer for the word "attached" is two syllables and three morphemes. Viewing morphemes as an etymological construct will lead you to three-morpheme determination, but from a view of morphemes as a psychological construct, there are two morphemes in the word. On another section the respondents are asked to mark the schwa vowel sounds in a series of words. The schwa sound is important in the English language, but its use in speech is often a function of dialect, ideolect, and its location in the full speech stream (e.g., in unaccented syllables). What is important to note is that schwa is a sound. It is not a letter. One of Moat's examples is "melody". The correct answer, according to the key, is that t h e / o / c a r r i e s the schwa sound. This is not true in some dialects, ideolects, or contexts. Moats asks respondents an open-ended question: "How can you recognize a word of Greek origin?" and finds a paltry 10% of those surveyed who can name the keys to unlocking its Greek routes. Moats goes on to state: "With regard to spelling rules and conventions, ignorance was the norm. For example, few teachers could answers the final question in Table I concerning why we double the 't' in committed but do not double in commitment" (p. 93). The actual question in Table I is stated as: Account for the double "m" in comment or commitment. (Ans: the first "m" closes the syllable to make it short: com is a Latin morpheme as are ment and mit). It's not clear from Moat's "research report" what was being asked of the respondents or how it was scored. Although the preceding analysis of the Moat's study may seem too detailed for the purposes of a broad critique of the NICHD research agenda for teacher education, it is important to note that this is the only study cited in support of their agenda. Without giving any "scientific" evidence for why this kind of knowledge is essential to good teaching, Moats goes on the propose a curriculum for teacher education that would stress the development of this kind of knowledge. She does this without ever establishing that this content is not being taught, or any evidence that those who might have her version of phonology etc. function more effectively as teachers. Unfortunately, state certification practices, pre-service teacher training and the social contexts of schools do not adequately prepare reading and writing teachers for the demands of the classroom. More specifically, neither undergraduate nor graduate training of teackiers typically requires the command of language
Reading TeacherEducators
81
structure necessary to teach reading and spelling well. Consequently, teachers are inadequately prepared to teach emergent literacy, reading and spelling to beginning readers and those encountering reading failure (1994, p. 99). Moats and Lyon (1996) argue that when teachers are in the field they come to appreciate the inadequacy of their preparation. They cite as support for this claim a single study by Lyon, Vasson, and Toomey (1989). They write: In general, only 20% of regular educators and 10% of special educators felt they had adequate content preparation in reading and reading instruction (Moats and Lyon, 1996, p. 78). The Lyon et al. (1989) study involved a survey of 250 regular education and 190 special education teachers. It is difficult to find the exact connection between the Moat's and Lyon (1996) claim and the data reported by Lyon et al. in 1989. One question on their survey reads: Do you feel that you were provided a strong foundation in the content subjects that you now teach? For the regular educators, they report 28% responding 'yes', 10% responding 'no', and 62% responding 'only some'. The question posed by Lyon et al in 1989 is not specific to reading and reading instruction and the respondents teach a variety of grade levels with over half teaching at the fourth grade level or above. The discrepancy in percentages and the language (i.e., Moats and Lyons' 1996 "adequate" and Lyon, et al.'s 1989 "strong") complicate any interpretation. The claims made by Moats and Lyons, et al. regarding teachers' perceptions of the value of their pre-service preparation, the quantity and content of the courses taken, the contexts and processes of instruction offered are contradicted by a substantial literature on reading teacher education (Anders, Hoffman, & Duffy, in press). This is not to suggest that the preparation of teachers in this country is outstanding across the board or as good as it needs to be. Changes are necessary if we are to meet the needs of students in a complex and diverse world. My concern is that the direction for change and the recommendations offered by those within the NICHD research community would take us in exactly the opposite direction of where research suggests we are headed and need to go even further. The reductive view of reading represented in the basic research of NICHD and challenged by Pressley and Allington (1999) is reflected in the NICHD reductive conception of teaching reading. Everything will be fine if we just fill the heads of our prospective teachers with some necessary "facts" about English phonology. Who would accept this as a reasonable path for us to follow in reading teacher education? Who would not demand at least a little evidence that this conception is worth investigating? Who would disregard the substantive research over the decades in teacher knowledge and teacher development in favor of this view? Without any challenges from the reading teacher education community, appar-
82
ISSUES IN EDUCATION
Vol. 5, No. 1, 1999
ently there are lots of folks willing to buy this line of reasoning. Unfortunately, these are people in positions of control over educational decision making. State legislators across the country are considering and, in some cases, have passed requirements for reading teacher education that would build on the Moats plan and the NICHD research agenda. This is not a hidden agenda. Brady and Moats' warn that one of the real problems in bringing their vision of teacher education into the light is the resistance of college and university based teacher educators. They will resist because they are just as ignorant of the fundamentals as the teachers they prepare: ... one of the serious roadblocks in alleviating the current shortcomings is that the University faculty necessary to provide this training is not now in place: most of the educators providing teacher training themselves need to be re-educated in the areas reviewed here. Thus, it will be necessary to confront the resistance to change that will no doubt occur and to structure the guidelines for course content sufficiently that 'token' instruction on the topics outlined will not take place (Brady & Moats, 1997, p. 18). This agenda is being acted on in state legislatures across the country. This agenda is being acted on in the formation of federal initiatives related to teacher education. Let's be clear about intent. The NICHD agenda is a call for action not a call for a dialogue.
So What Do Reading Teacher Educators Want From Reading Research? Credit must be given to the NICHD community for focusing our attention on the needs of students who are severely disabled in learning to read. The NICHD community must be given credit for its basic and careful research into phonological processing deficits and their potential to contribute to reading difficulties. At the same time, we must challenge their claims regarding learning to read, quality instruction, basic curriculum, and teacher education that would impact all students. What Pressley and Allington have done in their examination of the reading research agenda from NICHD and what I have attempted to do relative to the reading teacher education agenda from NICHD have led us to the same concluding point. The education profession must become informed and active in challenging the path that is being laid out for us or we will be banished into the hallway and into obscurity. Reading teacher educators want research that will help illuminate how knowledge of teaching is acquired and how the supporting contexts that surround teacher preparation contribute to growth. We have practical kinds of concerns regarding the specifics of a sound curriculum for teacher preparation, but we understand that these issues of curriculum are nested within a consideration of a full programmatic context. The institutional constraints of most teacher preparation programs lead us to think in ways (e.g., what's in a course, how many courses) that may not be in the interest of optimal programming. How can we begin to
Reading TeacherEducators
83
break away from these barriers and plan more holistically in term of student needs and goals? H o w can we envision goals of pre-service teacher education that don't put unrealistic expectations on entry level teachers and allow us to think more broadly regarding career development and programs of support? I concur with the arguments offered by Pressley and Allington. Conceptions of reading research must be broad, just as the conception of reading teacher education must be broad. I am struck in my reading of the Moats and Lyon (1996) writing in reading teacher education by the absence of any significant calls for research. If anything, I don't think Pressley and Allington go far enough in sounding the alarm within the research community. Perhaps, out of challenges like these, a productive dialogue will emerge that will strengthen the field and lead us to better modes of collaboration and collegiality. Through this dialogue we can come to appreciate the complexity of teaching reading and preparing teachers of reading. We can move to build a research agenda that will help us see into the complexity of learning to teach and not obscure our vision with the illusion of simplicity. Marginalizing those voices to the hallway who remind us of the complexity of the issues surrounding teaching, learning, and teacher education is not in the interest of good science or good practice.
REFERENCES Anders, P., Hoffman, J. V., & Duffy, G. (in press). Research in the preparation of reading teachers. Third Handbook of Reading Research. New York: Macmillan. Brady, S. & Moats, L. (1997). Informed instruction for reading success: Foundations for teacher preparation. A position paper of the International Dyslexia Association. Baltimore, MD: The Orton Dyslexia Society. Houston, R. (1990). Handbook of Research on Teacher Education. New York: Macmillan. Lyon, G. R., Vaasen, M., & Toomey, F. (1989). Teachers' perceptions of their undergraduate and graduate preparation. Teacher Education and Special Education, 12:164--196. Moats, L. (1994). Knowledge about the structure of language: The missing foundation in teacher education. Annuals of Dyslexia, 44:81-102. Moats, L. & Lyon, G. (1996). Wanted: Teachers with knowledge of language. Topics in Language Disorders (pp. 73-86). Pressley, M. & Allington, R. (1999). What should reading instructional research be the research of? Issues in Education: Contributions from Educational Psychology, 5:1-35. Richardson, V. (in press) Handbook of Research in Teaching: Fourth Edition. New York: Macmillan. Schon, D. (1983). The Reflective practitioner: How Professionals thinking in action. New York: Basic Books. Schon, D. (1989). Professional knowledge and reflective practice. In: T. J. Sergiovanni & J.H. Moore (Eds.), Schooling for tomorrow: Directing reforms to issues that count (pp. 188-206). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Wittrock, M. C. (1986). Handbook of Research in Teaching. Third Edition. New York: Macmillan.