This article was downloaded by: [University of Massachusetts, Amherst]On: 05 October 2014, At: 20:20Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

Reading Research andInstructionPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ulri19

A critical analysis of twopreservice teachers'knowledge of strugglingreaders: Raced, classed, andgendered?Maria H. Mallette a , John E. Readence b , MarilynMcKinney b & Margaret M. Smith ba Southern Illinois University , Carbondaleb University of Nevada , Las VegasPublished online: 28 Jan 2010.

To cite this article: Maria H. Mallette , John E. Readence , Marilyn McKinney &Margaret M. Smith (2000) A critical analysis of two preservice teachers' knowledgeof struggling readers: Raced, classed, and gendered?, Reading Research andInstruction, 39:3, 222-234, DOI: 10.1080/19388070009558323

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19388070009558323

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views ofthe authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and

Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

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

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

assa

chus

etts

, Am

hers

t] a

t 20:

20 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Reading Research and InstructionSpring 2000, 39 (3) 222-234

A Critical Analysis of Two Preservice Teachers'Knowledge of Struggling Readers: Raced, Classed,

and Gendered?

Maria H. MalletteSouthern Illinois University at Carbondale

John E. ReadenceMarilyn McKinneyMargaret M. Smith

University of Nevada, Las Vegas

ABSTRACT

This analysis explored how preservice teachers' development of knowledge

about struggling readers was located in their white, middle-class identities.

Framed within the critical paradigm, data previously collected on two preservice

teachers were analyzed to explore the extent to which they accepted, resisted,

and negotiated hegemonic ideologies. An analysis revealed that these two

preservice teachers differentially mediated knowledge about struggling readers

through their own cultured identities. The need for probing deeper into the for-

mative discourse of prospective teachers is recommended to teacher educators as

one way to deal with the subjective nature of preservice teachers' knowledge.

Because of our interest in teacher education, we began an inquiry into under-standing how preservice teachers constructed knowledge about struggling readers(Mallette, Kile, Smith, McKinney, & Readence, in press). Informed by thinkingwithin the interpretive paradigm, our study was aligned within the framework ofsymbolic interactionism. That is, we initially attempted to understand the participants'construction of a meaningful social world. Using qualitative methods, we collecteddata from six participants through the course of a semester while they were enrolledin a reading methods course that focused on reading difficulties. During the course,the participants took on the role of teacher-researcher which involved studying onechild who was a struggling reader. They were required to observe the child and writefield notes of their observations, administer multiple literacy assessments, and producea written case study about that child. Through the analysis of the data the participantscollected on these children, it was evident that they began the course with personalstances about reading difficulties and these stances were apparent across all theparticipants' data sources. These preservice teachers used their interactions with thechildren with whom they were working to confirm, question, or refute these stances.

While at a surface level, these findings were encouraging in that they movedour thinking forward by making us rethink how we approach the teaching of readingmethods, the findings also seemed shallow. The lens of interpretivism masked anunderlying feature of the analysis. This is, the participants were not merely constructing

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

assa

chus

etts

, Am

hers

t] a

t 20:

20 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

223 Reading Research and Instruction Spring 2000, 39 (3)

meaning based on their experiences, they were constructing subjective literacyknowledge rooted in their own identities as raced, classed, and gendered individuals. Assuggested by Donmoyer (1996), "No knowledge is objective; all knowledge, whether weare talking about the folk knowledge of ordinary people or the formula knowledgegenerated by research, is subjective; it reflects the conceptions and metaphors of theknower" (p.101).

In teacher education, it is essential to consider the subjective nature of literacyknowledge when developing ways to best prepare teachers for working with studentsfrom diverse backgrounds. White preservice teachers often believe that racism hasnothing to do with them because they don't personally feel prejudiced (Sleeter,1995). Additionally, what white preservice teachers often ignore is the construct ofWhiteness, and how that construct is embedded in an ideology that enables whitepeople to maintain control and power (Lawrence, 1997). Thus, we became interestedin exploring that construct and how it influenced the construction of knowledge.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze, using a critical paradigm, two of thesecases to explore the ways in which literacy knowledge development was located inthe white, middle-class identities of two representative, yet contrasting, preserviceteachers. As McCarthey (1998) pointed out, using a single theoretical lens to interpretdata can offer only one perspective. It is through the use of an additional theoreticallens, in this case critical analysis, that researchers are afforded another layer of inter-pretation.

A White Middle-Class Ideology of ReadingIdeology may be conceived simplistically as a set of beliefs; however, from a

critical perspective, it is much more. Ideologies are embedded in hegemonic relations,that is, relations which inscribe a set of norms reflective of a dominant group thatbecome reified over time to promote a false sense of consciousness (Giroux, 1981).Additionally, as Giroux suggested, ideologies also encompass the ways in whichpeople accept, negotiate, and resist these norms. This conception provides thefoundation of our analysis. We began thinking about our data by situating it in theideologies most prevalent in schools.

The first is the concept of meritocracy, the notion that with hard work andperseverance all children can succeed. However, meritocracy is merely an ideology.Schools are not structured in a way that can enact meritocracy because the centralcomponent, neutrality, is not present. Schools do not provide an equal playing fieldfor all students (Anyon, 1981; Kozol, 1991; Oakes, 1985). Yet, this false consciousnessdrives education, and, thus, it was essential in our study.

In addition to meritocracy, there was the consideration of how reading instructionremains a commodity of the white middle-class. While historically only the richwere afforded the opportunities to learn to read, the idea that every child has a rightto become literate is also an ideology. Reading instruction reflects the dominantgroup so much that, as Street (1995) pointed out, it is difficult to determine the natureof this relationship. That is, do schools influence the reading practices in middle-classhomes, or do middle-class homes influence the reading events in schools? Regardlessof the answer to this question of causality, we must recognize the consistent findings

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

assa

chus

etts

, Am

hers

t] a

t 20:

20 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

A Critical Analysis 224

of research that suggests that children from middle-class homes are more successfulwith reading instruction then children from lower socioeconomic backgrounds(Heath, 1983; Taylor, 1997).

Thus, what we became interested in exploring was in relation to the enactmentof these ideologies. The question we asked was "in what ways did the meanings ofreading difficulties constructed by the two participants reflect acceptance, negotiation,or resistance of these hegemonic ideologies?"

METHOD

DesignWe have chosen to represent this paper as a critical analysis. This analysis is

informed by thought within the critical paradigm; yet, it does not constitute criticalresearch. Critical research is action-oriented and requires reciprocity between theresearchers and the researched (Lather, 1986). By contrast, our analysis took placeafter the fact. That is, we chose to go back to the data and analyze it using a criticallens. The teacher-research in which the participants were engaged was not focusedon issues of race, class, and gender; rather, the focus for them was on understandingreading difficulties. However, as we reread through the data and began to see patternsof identity issues emerge, we were compelled to position the participants as raced,classed, and gendered individuals.

The theory within the critical paradigm which informed this analysis was neo-Marxist theory as framed by Horkheimer, Adorno, and Marcuse of the Frankfurt School(see Held, 1980, for a review). While each member of the Frankfurt School presentedmany concepts in attempts to theorize the social world, the following explanationfocuses on those most central to the understanding of neo-Marxist theory and, thus,important in the conceptualization of this analysis.

As Giroux (1983) stated, "The Frankfurt School took as one of its central valuesa commitment to penetrate the world of objective appearance to expose the underlyingsocial relations they often conceal" (p. 8). Thus, the social world is one of contradictionsthat exist between what is and what appears to be. Critical theorists seek to uncoverthese contradictions through immanent critique, that is, criticism from within. Criticaltheory, through immanent critique, aims to assess "the breach between ideas and reality"by confronting "the existent, in its historical context, with the claim of its conceptualprinciples, in order to criticize the relation between the two and thus transcend them"(Horkheimer, as cited in Held, 1980, p. 183).

We applied the notion of immanent critique to our data by looking at theseunderlying relations. In our first study we described what seemed to be, that is, howthe participants constructed meanings of reading difficulties. In the present analysiswe peeled back a layer by examining how their thoughts and ideas were situated intheir cultured identities.

Another important concept in critical theory, one that differentiates it from othertheories, is in the relation between subject and object.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

assa

chus

etts

, Am

hers

t] a

t 20:

20 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

225 Reading Research and Instruction Spring 2000, 39 (3)

Most other approaches to the study of society (for example, those typical ofconventional sociology) duplicate, Adorno argued, the reified and opaque natureof society. They perceive society as an object to be understood through methodssimilar to the natural sciences. In contrast, critical theory seeks to understand,analyze, and enact in its very structure the subjective ground of society: society isnot simply an object; it is a subject-object. (Held, 1980, p. 217, emphasis in original)

Adorno explained then that society is a subject because it is comprised of people whocreate it, and it is an object because of its underlying structure. He argued that objectand subject are related, yet independent, and that reducing one to the other displays a"false identity" (p. 202).

This concept was critical in our analysis. As we have already stated, our firststudy focused merely on the study of subject. Yet, in this present analysis we did notreduce subject to both subject and object. We recognized political, social, and culturalaspects that became crystallized over time serve to shape the nature of reality, and it isthrough the enactment of these realities that they gave meaning to their world. In otherwords, the meanings the preservice teachers assigned to reading difficulties existedwithin a dialectical relationship between their own constructions and the socio-historicalstructure in which they existed (Guba & Lincoln, 1994).

The Two CasesThe two cases we critically analyzed, Kaley and Gayle, were purposively

chosen for this analysis. We selected them from the original six cases because theyrepresented contrasting cases in considering the positioning of race, class, and genderon the construction of knowledge of struggling readers. In a sense they fell at oppositeends of a continuum with the other four cases plotted at points in between. Kaley andGayle were two preservice elementary teachers enrolled in a diagnosis and correctionof reading difficulties course at an urban university in the Southwest. They weremembers of a cohort that had been together for two consecutive semesters. As part ofthe cohort experience, the practicum placements for these students were located at twodifferent schools and the students spent one semester at each. Although the culture ofthese two schools was markedly dissimilar, they both were comprised of diversegroups of students considered by the district as at-risk. Heather Elementary Schoolwas a magnet site for mathematics and technology, while Medford ElementarySchool was involved in the Accelerated Schools Project (Finnan, St. John, McCarthy,& Slovacek, 1996) and utilized multi-age classroom configurations.

Kaley, a white middle-class preservice teacher, was in her early 20s at the timeof this analysis. When Kaley began the cohort program she was one of the preserviceteachers who appeared to be most resistant to the expectations of teacher education.Kaley usually seemed a bit unsure of the assignments she was asked to complete, andher uncertainty often left her questioning the value of coursework.

Gayle, a white middle-class preservice teacher, was in her late 40s at the timeof the analysis. She chose to enter education after raising her children. She was verycommitted to the cohort program and was a willing resource for many of her peers.As a former preschool teacher, Gayle felt that this experience, along with being a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

assa

chus

etts

, Am

hers

t] a

t 20:

20 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

A Critical Analysis 226

mother, provided her with a level of comfort around children, yet not necessarilyconfidence.

DATASOURCES

The data sources that were critically analyzed included four written assignmentsthe preservice teacher participants completed throughout the semester. An explanationof each assignment follows.

Field NotesAll participants were required to spend 30 minutes each week taking field notes

on their students. In preparation for this assignment, they were given a chapter to readin the Bogdan and Biklen text, Qualitative research for education: An introduction totheory and methods (1992), which provided a detailed explanation on taking fieldnotes. In addition, they watched a video in class and practiced taking field notes.Throughout the semester, as they periodically turned in their field notes, the first author(course instructor) provided feedback and asked them to make assertions about whatthey were observing. In addition, opportunities in class were provided to share theirfield notes with their peers.

Case StudyAt the conclusion of the course, participants were asked to write their findings in

the form of a case study. They were given only two directions for this assignment:(a) to write a narrative account of what they found out about a student with readingdifficulties and (b) to support any assertion they made with data. The data they coulduse for supporting evidence included their field notes, results from any assessmentinstruments they administered, student work samples, and other information theygleaned from working directly with the student.

Reflective WritingThe 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 difficulties?and (c) Why do students have reading difficulties? Midway through the semester, thepreservice teachers were asked to reflect on their learning by again addressing thequestion of what reading difficulties were. This latter reflection was to be based ontheir experiences to date with the student with whom they had been working. Anadditional writing assignment they completed on the first day of the course was towrite their goals for the class. On the last day of the course, they were asked to react tothose goals by considering if and how they had achieved them through their experiencesduring the semester.

Group Lesson PlanThis final assignment, which was completed at the end of the semester, was an

attempt to refocus on the classroom as a whole (rather than the single child or theircase study) and on instruction. The participants were placed into groups by the gradelevel of the students with whom they were working and asked to plan a lesson to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

assa

chus

etts

, Am

hers

t] a

t 20:

20 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

227 Reading Research and Instruction Spring 2000, 39 (3)

meet their needs while building on their strengths. They then actually taught this lessonwith a small group (their student included) in their practicum classroom.

DATA ANALYSIS

Data analysis began by considering a pattern that emerged from the originalinterpretation of the data. As we read through our results, we began to see acceptance,resistance, and negotiations of ideologies embedded within the participants' assertionsof reading difficulties. Once we discovered this theme, we began our immanentcritique. We attempted to explore the relationship between what was and whatseemed to be by applying an a priori or analytic coding system (Bogdan & Bilden,1992) to the data. We explored each of the data sources for indices of how thepreservice teachers' constructions were situated in what we identified as a.whitemiddle-class ideology of reading and reading difficulties.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Through our critical analysis of the data, we were able to position the participantsas raced, classed, and gendered individuals and understand how that positioningconstituted a basis of their construction of knowledge of students' reading difficulties.The following section both reports and discusses the results of the critical analysisthrough the description of the two cases. In order to maintain anonymity of theparticipants and the students with whom they worked, all names are pseudonyms.

Kaley. Kaley's practicum was in a third-grade classroom at Heather, the magnetschool. With the assistance of her cooperating teacher, she selected a student withwhom to work. The student was an eight-year-old African American girl who Kaleyreferred to as Moesha. Moesha lived in the neighborhood nearby the school.

Kaley's expectations for Moesha appeared to be rooted in her own whitemiddle-class ideology. To our knowledge, Kaley had not been exposed to research onthe acquisition of reading which suggests that parental responsibility for learning toread is very much an idea rooted in the ideologies of specific cultures (e.g., Heath,1983). Thus, she believed the key to success for Moesha rested with parental support.However, the type of parental support she advocated was grounded in her identity. Inthe assignment Kaley completed on the first day of class, she wrote that "childrenlearn to read at a very young age from their parents" and that reading difficultiescome "from lack of parental involvement at an early age. . . By [parents] showingyour children that reading is important to you, your children will also show an interest,that would definitely reduce reading difficulties."

Kaley further imposed her white middle-class thinking in her description ofwhat would be normal living arrangements. Kaley wrote:

This little girl lived in a house with her mother, father, stepfather, grandmother,and little brother. At first I thought this situation might be a bit awkward, but atleast she had four adults that cared about her and that could help her with herreading and schoolwork. However, when I asked Moesha, 'Who reads to you inyour family?' She replied, 'No one.' This saddened me.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

assa

chus

etts

, Am

hers

t] a

t 20:

20 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

A Critical Analysis 228

Kaley remained true to her conviction about the importance of parental supportthroughout the study. In identifying strengths and needs for Moesha, she wrote that oneof her needs was "parental support and extension of the activities she participated in,in class." In Kaley's lesson plan group, she became an advocate for the importance ofparental involvement. In doing so, she insisted upon including a component of thelesson that would involve the parents. The parents were asked to sign a paper indicatingtheir child completed the assignment, and they were told students would not receivea grade unless the slip was signed. Although Kaley had hoped that the parentalcomponent of the lesson plan (which would stipulate students not receiving gradeswithout parental signatures) would force parental involvement, to her dismay, it hadno effect for Moesha.

Kaley also constructed an understanding of the role that attitude plays in readingdifficulties that was grounded in her own identity. She assumed that since schoolprovided a supportive learning environment (as opposed to Moesha's home), Moeshawould have a more positive attitude toward reading in school than toward recreationalreading. However, upon administering the Elementary Reading Attitude Survey(McKenna & Kear, 1990), Kaley found just the opposite to be true. She was puzzledby these results and wrote:

In my opinion, I feel the only time Moesha would have a chance to get helpwith her reading and language skills would be at school. However, all of thequestions that pertained to reading in school, Moesha marked the "Garfield"that had a score of either a 2 or 1 (the lowest scores).

Kaley's white, middle-class ideology, which holds school as the great equalizer,was reflected in her confusion. Kaley believed that because school, unlike Moesha'shome, provided a forum for her to develop as a reader, Moesha would hold the sameideology toward school as Kaley did. Thus, she felt Moesha should have a morepositive attitude toward reading in school because it was through school that Moeshawould become a better reader.

Kaley, like many preservice teachers, held the belief that her students would bea great deal like her—whether they looked like her or not (Lanier & Little, 1986). Atno time throughout the semester did Kaley (nor did we push Kaley to) question herpersonal conviction about parental involvement or the role of schools as extensionsof her own culture. However, Gayle, the other participant in this critical analysis, didbegin to question her raced, classed, and gendered identity, along with the raced,classed, and gendered identity of her student.

Gayle. Gayle's practicum occurred in a primary class (grades 1-2) with teamteachers at Medford, the school that utilized multi-age classroom configurations.Gayle's cooperating teachers chose a student who they felt was having difficultykeeping up with the class and would benefit from extra attention. The student was aseven-year-old African American boy in second grade who Gayle called Scott.

Gayle began her work with Scott very much embedded in her white middle-classthinking. She sought to find ways to help Scott by focusing primarily on academics.Her pedagogical approach was theoretically sound (cf. Gillet & Temple, 1994); sheadministered multiple assessments to determine his strengths and needs, and she

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

assa

chus

etts

, Am

hers

t] a

t 20:

20 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

229 Reading Research and Instruction Spring 2000, 39 (3)

capitalized on the opportunity to provide Scott with one-on-one instruction. How-ever, what Gayle wasn't initially focused on was the raced, classed, and genderedidentity of the student. For Gayle, Scott was a struggling reader and, as a prospectiveteacher, she truly wanted to know how to help him.

Gayle believed that reading difficulties were problems that "develop that hindera person's ability to read. The problems could include poor teaching, leaving out keyconcepts, being absent during instruction, and not reading interesting materials."Gayle's thinking about reading difficulties were centered on reading instruction it-self. That is, she began the semester believing that good instruction was what wasnecessary for students to overcome reading difficulties. She capitalized on her ownexperience as a struggling reader as a child. She had problems because she hadneeded glasses. Yet, once her vision problems were corrected, she became an avidreader. For Gayle, this idea extended to her working with Scott. She felt that if shecould diagnose his problem, she could correct it. Therefore, throughout the semester shecontinually assessed Scott's progress and used that information to guide her instruction.

Gayle described Scott as a "normal, second-grade boy." In the beginning of theyear she could not understand why Scott did not do his work when he had plenty oftime to complete it. She wrote in her field notes, "I wonder why, and what his reasonsare for not participating in the group reading? He is a quiet child and does not causeclass disturbances yet is not learning either." She often judged his work. She wouldcomment on the lack of quality in his work. She felt that his coloring was more likescribbling and that he needed to improve in his cutting abilities.

As Gayle got to know Scott better, she began to understand that Scott wasn'tcompleting his work because of his frustration. She learned from her assessmentsthat Scott was reading at a preprimer level and could not recognize all the letters inthe alphabet. Gayle began to consider the pervasiveness of reading difficulties. Shewrote,

I was shocked to discover that he does not know all the letters of the alphabetand could only read three words. It is frightening to think that he is only one ofso many children that need help in reading. What happens to these children ifthey don't get the help needed to learn to read? Do they ever learn to read?What impact does this have on their lives? I had difficulties learning to read,mainly because of my vision problems. What would I have done with my lifeif I never learned to read? That is a very scary thought because reading is soimportant to me.

At this point, reading difficulties were very much a reality for Gayle. Yet, they werestill very centered in her white, middle-class identity. She saw reading as importantto her life and, thus, similarly important to her student's life. Additionally, she stillbelieved that reading difficulties could be overcome with the correct diagnosis andgood instruction.

It was not until an unfortunate incident happened toward the end of the semesterthat Gayle was forced to consider Scott's identity along with environmental influenceson his identity. Scott informed Gayle that his brother had been shot in a gang-related,drive-by-shooting and expressed his fear that future incidents of a similar nature

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

assa

chus

etts

, Am

hers

t] a

t 20:

20 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

A Critical Analysis 230

would occur. He also expressed fears for the safety of his mother and sister; he believedit was his responsibility to keep them safe. This incident caused Gayle to reexamineher own understandings of reading difficulties and the complexities of teaching. Inher case study, she wrote:

Scott said that he has tried to forget about the shooting while in school but thatit just keeps coming back to him and he couldn't think of anything else. Hedidn't know if his brother would live or die, he was too scared at the hospital toknow... This child's only hope for the future is his education but how can heconcentrate on learning when he can only think of surviving?

It was at this point that Gayle began to focus on Scott as a member of a culturevery different from her own. She began to question the whole nature of education.She continued writing in her case study that incidents like this happen often and thatshe needs to be prepared to deal with them in her own classroom. She then suggestedthat "there is more to learning than just assessments and providing materials to learnwith, a child must feel secure in their environment before they can grasp the luxuryof learning." As the semester ended, Gayle was still optimistic and bought into themeritocratic ideology of believing that the status mobility system (i.e, educationalgains lead to occupational gains) works for everyone (Ogbu, 1991); however, she wasstill developing subjective knowledge based on her experiences embedded in issues ofequity and justice. In the conclusion of her case study Gayle wrote:

It is with a sad heart that I complete the end of this case study. I saw improvementin Scott's reading but I was hoping for more. I had hoped I could be a miracleworker for him. I am not a miracle worker that can make everything right inScott's world, only a practicum student that cares. But perhaps my caring hasmade a small difference in his life that will encourage him to continue to workon learning to read and write.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

As Banks (1993) suggested, "all knowledge reflects the values and interests ofits creators" (p. 4). This statement was clearly elucidated in this critical analysis byboth the participants and the researchers. As researchers we constructed knowledgeabout the subjectivities of the participants by situating their thoughts within the researchand theory on white middle-class ideology. While we didn't create those thoughts,we probed deeper into the data to provide a lens for interpreting them. Kaley andGayle both constructed their own knowledge about struggling readers, which ouranalysis showed was a reflection of their identities.

Both participants entered into teacher education with the assumption that thestudents with whom they would be teaching would be quite similar to them. Theyexpected these students would share their value systems. Kaley never found a reasonto question this assumption. She blamed Moesha's reading difficulties on a lack ofparental involvement. Kaley did not consider that her notion of parental involvementwas a reflection of her own ideology. She was further supported in this belief becauseher ideology represented the dominant ideology which arose "out of the social history

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

assa

chus

etts

, Am

hers

t] a

t 20:

20 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

231 Reading Research and Instruction Spring 2000, 39 (3)

and culture of the dominant race" which then "logically reflect and reinforce the socialhistory and that racial group" (Scheurich & Young, 1997, p. 8).

Kaley's notion of parental support was seemingly myopic in that she neverconsidered how Moesha's parents did support her school efforts. From Kaley'sperspective, parental support entailed reading to children and working on homework.However, Kaley did not try to collaborate with Moesha's parents. She simply inscribedher values onto them. Her notion of what counted as literacy (i.e., storybook reading)did not provide room to consider the possibility that there are multiple literacies.Storybook reading is one type of literacy, found more frequently in middle-classhomes, which undoubtedly aids children from that socioeconomic status to be moresuccessful in school. Gayle, however, eventually did resist and negotiate the hegemonicideology. She began to see Scott's experiences as different from her own and, thus,entered into a stage, as described by Goodwin (1997), of "conceptual and emotionaldisequilibrium [which] can engender thoughtful reflection and questioning [and forcethem] to re-examine what they thought they knew"(p. 18).

Gayle found the need to grapple with her conviction of good teaching as theanswer to Scott's problem. She forced herself to go outside of her identity to considerexperiences unfamiliar to her. While she remained true to her belief in the educationalsystem, she did begin to question how one's environment influences the ideal ofmeritocracy. Gayle's own language reflects her resistance. She referred to learning asa "luxury." She was beginning to consider that this luxury is one typically afforded tostudents from white middle-class backgrounds, but not necessarily to all students.

In returning to the notion of subject and object, the study of subject seems quiteclear. Both of these preservice teachers constructed meaning based on their experiences.However, what is now also clear is within the study of object and the relationshipbetween the two. Their constructions of literacy knowledge were situated in theirideologies. What they came to know was embedded in what they believed they knewfrom their own life experiences which was positioned in their raced, classed, andgendered identities. Kaley and Gayle were at different stages in their lives, and differedin their thinking about teaching when they entered into the cohort program. Thesedifferent positions seemed to be reflected in how they negotiated ideologies.

IMPLICATIONS

This critical analysis contributes to the field of reading teacher education byurging those in the field to consider the subjective nature of knowledge. For example, ifas teacher educators, we unquestionably support Kaley's white middle-class contentionof the role of parental involvement in learning to read and its relationship to readingdifficulties, then we have failed to negotiate and resist our own roles in reifyingwhite middle-class values onto children of all cultures. As a consequence, then, weparticipate in the process of reproducing the inequalities in schools, not challengingthem. Thus, as suggested by Scheurich and Young (1997), we may be participating ina form of racism, a form we may not see and one which may be the worst type ofracism. Teacher educators need to help preservice teachers gain a deeper understanding

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

assa

chus

etts

, Am

hers

t] a

t 20:

20 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

A Critical Analysis 232

of how their knowledge about education is deeply rooted in ideologies that reflecttheir raced, classed, and gendered identities.

The question now becomes "how do we get preservice teachers to considerdominant ideologies?" We recognize there is no easy solution to this problem, but wewould suggest that it must begin within the preservice teachers themselves. That is, wemust provide preservice teachers opportunities to explore their own ethnic identity. Asmuch research has already suggested, beliefs play a strong role in the process oflearning to teach (see, e.g., Richardson, 1996). We feel that beliefs need to be exploredat a deeper level to examine how they reflect ideologies.One way teacher educators can help preservice teachers deal with the subjectivenature of their knowledge is to turn to a culturally responsive curriculum in theirteacher education programs. Such programs need to go beyond the minimum require-ment for multicultural education specified by the National Council for Accreditationof Teacher Education, developing instead "teachers who are critical and transformative"and who possess "a pedagogy of social action and advocacy that celebrates diversity"(Hidalgo, Chavez-Chavez, & Ramage, 1996, p. 762). This goal can be accomplishedby insuring that teacher education programs take the stance that a culturally responsiveperspective is best communicated to preservice teachers by integrating it throughouttheir pedagogy and not just in a stand-alone course where the knowledge gained maybecome compartmentalized and maybe even discarded.

Hidalgo et al. (1996) proposed that any teacher education program should infuseinto their culturally responsive curriculum the following beliefs: (a) an appreciationof diversity, (b) the value of cooperation, and (c) the importance of a caring community.Zimpher and Ashburn (1992) reinforced these beliefs and were emphatic in pointingout the importance of modeling them in our teacher education programs if we expectpreservice teachers to employ them successfully, and the need for teacher educatorsthemselves to examine their own thinking for the potential of its parochial nature.Though the process may be complex and protracted, by taking a culturally responsiveperspective in our teacher education programs, we will be enfranchising ourpreservice teachers to examine their raced, classed, and gendered identities andconfront the politics of social change.

In the case of Kaley and Gayle, using a case study as described in this papercan become one of the means by which preservice teachers can begin to explore theirown raced, classed, and gendered identities as well as the raced, classed, andgendered identities of their students. In particular, a case study of a struggling readeris most appropriate for identity exploration since that population is overrepresentedby minority and low-SES students (see, e.g., Anyon, 1981). However, the case studywould need to focus not only on why children struggle with reading, but on whothese children are that are struggling and in what ways schools enhance or inhibittheir growth. Additionally, a component that would need to be included in the casestudy would be to have preservice teachers make home and community visits. By doingthis, they would be provided the opportunity to learn about the diverse backgroundsof their students (see e.g., Wolf, Hill, & Ballentine, 1999). This would also provide aforum for preservice teachers to consider their own backgrounds, again to exploretheir own ethnicity.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

assa

chus

etts

, Am

hers

t] a

t 20:

20 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

233 Reading Research and Instruction Spring 2000, 39 (3)

Perhaps most importantly, preservice teachers should be compelled to considerwhat literacy is in both the home and school. They need to be provided experiences inwhich they can see that there are multiple literacies. Through home and communityvisits, preservice teachers can begin to recognize the different values people place onliteracy and, thus, have a basis for questioning their own values of literacy. Thesetypes of experiences would afford preservice teachers more opportunities to get atissues of hegemony and ideology.

McCarthey (1998) suggested that "students' race, class, and gender influencewhat they bring to classroom settings" (p. 157), and teachers need to acknowledgethese features as opposed to denying them. We would put forth that the same conceptapplies to teacher educators. Teacher educators need to analyze all forms of discoursein order to resist the tendency toward replication

REFERENCESAnyon, J. (1981). Social class and school knowledge. Curriculum Inquiry, 11, 3-42.Banks, J. A. (1993). The canon debate, knowledge construction, and multicultural

education. Educational Researcher, 22(5), 4-14.Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An introduction

to theory and methods (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Donmoyer, R. (1996). The concept of a knowledge base. In F. B. Murray (Ed.), The

teacher educator's handbook (pp. 92-119). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Finnan, C., St. John, E. P., McCarthy, J., & Slovacek, S. P. (Eds.). (1996). Accelerated

schools in action: Lessons from the field. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Gillet, J. W., & Temple, C. (1994). Understanding reading problems: Assessment and

instruction (4 ed.). New York: HarperCollins.Giroux, H. A. (1981). Ideology, culture, and the process of schooling. Philadelphia:

Temple University Press.Giroux, H. A. (1983). Theory and resistance in education: A pedagogy for the opposition.

South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey.Goodwin, A. L. (1997). Historical and contemporary perspectives on multicultural

teacher education: Past lessons, new directions. In J. E. King, E. R. Hollins, & W. C. Hayman(Eds.), Preparing teachers for cultural diversity (pp. 5-22). New York: Teachers College Press.

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. InN. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105-117). ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities andclassrooms. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Held, D. (1980). Introduction to critical theory. Berkeley: University of California Press.Hidalgo, F., Chavez-Chavez, R., & Ramage, J.C. (1996). Multicultural education: Land-

scape for reform in the twenty-first century. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research onteacher education (2nd ed., pp. 761-778). New York: Macmillan.

Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities: Children in America's schools. New York:HarperCollins.

Lanier, J. E., & Little, J. W. (1986). Research on teacher education. In M. C. Wittrock(Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3 r d ed., pp. 527-569). New York: Macmillan.

Lather, P. (1986). Research as praxis. Harvard Educational Review, 56, 257-277.Lawrence, S. M. (1997). Beyond race awareness: White racial identity and multicultural

teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 48, 108-117.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

assa

chus

etts

, Am

hers

t] a

t 20:

20 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

A Critical Analysis 234

Mallette, M. H., Kile, R. S., Smith, M. M., McKinney, M., & Readence, J. E. (in press).Constructing meaning about literacy difficulties: Preservice teachers beginning to think aboutpedagogy. Teaching and Teacher Education.

McCartney, S. J. (1998). Constructing multiple subjectivities in classroom literacycontexts. Research in the Teaching of English, 32, 126-160.

McKenna, M.C., & Kear, DJ. (1990). Measuring attitudes toward reading: A new toolfor teachers. The Reading Teacher, 43, 626-639.

Oakes. J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT:Yale University Press.

Ogbu, J. U. (1991). Low school performance as an adaptation: The case of blacks inStockton, California. In M. A Gibson & J. U. Ogbu (Eds.), Minority status and schooling : Acomparative study of immigrant and involuntary minorities (pp. 249-285). New York: Garland.

Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. Sikula(Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 102-119). New York:Macmillan.

Scheurich, J. J., & Young, M. D. (1997). Coloring epistemologies: Are our researchepistemologies racially biased? Educational Researcher, 26(4), 4-16.

Sleeter, C. E. (1995). Reflections on my use of multicultural and critical pedagogy whenstudents are White. In C. E. Sleeter & P. McLaren (Eds.), Multicultural education, criticalpedagogy, and the politics of difference (pp. 415-437). Albany: SUNY Press.

Street, B. V. (1995). Social literacies: Critical approaches to literacy in development,ethnography, and education. London: Longman.

Taylor, D. (1997). Preamble. In D. Taylor (Ed.), Many families, many literacies (pp. 1-5).Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Wolf, S. A., Hill, L., & Ballentine, D. (1999). Teaching on fissured ground: Preparingpreservice teachers for culturally conscious pedagogy. In T. Shanahan & F. V. Rodriguez-Brown (Eds.), National Reading Conference Yearbook 48 (pp. 423-436). Chicago: NationalReading Conference.

Zimpher, N.L., & Ashburn, E.A. (1992). Countering parochialism in teacher candidates.In M.E. Dilworth (Ed.), Diversity in teacher education: New expectations (pp. 40-41). SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Received: November 1, 1999Revision Received: November 22, 1999

Accepted: January 3, 2000

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

assa

chus

etts

, Am

hers

t] a

t 20:

20 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014