This article was downloaded by: [University Of Maryland]On: 18 October 2014, At: 03:11Publisher: 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

Helping preservice teachersdevelop habits of inquiry: Canit be done?Michael S. Smith aa Missouri Western State UniversityPublished online: 28 Jan 2010.

To cite this article: Michael S. Smith (2005) Helping preservice teachers develophabits of inquiry: Can it be done?, Reading Research and Instruction, 45:1, 39-68,DOI: 10.1080/19388070509558441

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19388070509558441

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 andFrancis 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

aryl

and]

at 0

3:11

18

Oct

ober

201

4

Helping Presenice Teachers Develop Habits of Inquiry 39

Helping Preservice Teachers Develop Habits of Inquiry:Can It Be Done?

Michael S. SmithMissouri Western State University

This paper is dedicated to the late Dr. Judy Martin who provided the inspiration for thisresearch.

Abstract

This exploratory study examined the feasibility of (a) a reading methods coursepromoting habits of inquiry in preservice teachers and (b) using "video cases" as a meansof both promoting habits of inquiry and measuring the extent to which a preserviceteacher has developed the dimensions of inquiry-based teaching. Three dimensions ofinquiry were identified: the ability to describe the pertinent facts of a situation, the abilityto analyze and synthesize the facts, and the ability to demonstrate intelligent action andfurther experimentation. Prior to a methods course in reading and then again aftercompleting the methods course, preservice teachers were shown a video case of astruggling reader and asked to rate the reader's ability, explain why they rated her as theydid, and tell what they would do if they were to work with this reader in the future. Bothquantitative and qualitative data indicated that preservice teachers made significantimprovement in all three dimensions of inquiry upon completing the reading methodscourse. Lastly, video cases proved to be an excellent way of measuring the dimensionsof inquiry as well as showing curricular potential at promoting inquiry.

Current literature on teaching and the teaching of reading urgesteacher preparation programs to develop teachers who can negotiate thecomplexities surrounding the teaching of reading and help America'schildren become skilled and critical readers (American Federation ofTeachers, 1999; National Commission on Teaching and America's Future,1997; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 0

3:11

18

Oct

ober

201

4

40 Reading Research and Instruction, Volume 75, No. 1 * Fall 2005

Faced with this urgent request, reading educators point to a limitedknowledge base that can help the profession achieve this goal (Anders,Hoffman, & Duffy, 2000; Hoffman & Pearson, 2000). According toAnders et al. (2000), for example, "few researchers have asked questionsabout the process that teachers go through as they learn and continue tolearn to teach reading" (p. 719), as part of an effort to improveinterventions and reading instruction.

One way to deal with this challenge is to promote habits of inquiryin preservice teachers. Inquiry has its roots in the teaching of John Dewey(1933, 1938), who wrote extensively on the need for educators to adopt aninquiry stance in their teaching. Further, scholarship in teacher educationover the last 30 years has pointed to the effects of inquiry (also calledteacher-as-researcher) as a successful model for preparing future teachers(e.g., Ball & Cohen, 1999; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993; Darling-Hammond & Cobb, 1996; Feiman-Nemser & Buchmann, 1985; Rodgers,2002). In particular, advocates for inquiry as a model to guide teacherpreparation point to the benefits of increased learning for both teachersand students: "The more teachers developed methods of professionalinquiry,... the more teachers would have interpretive power, which couldcontribute to improving both their own teaching and their own and others'learning" (Ball & Cohen, 1999, p. 16).

Rationale for This StudyWhile studies have shown that teacher preparation can make a

difference in helping prepare future teachers in general (Kennedy, 1999),and future teachers of reading in particular (Maloch et al., 2003), thespecifics of what methods courses and field experiences can do to bringabout these differences have not been well defined.

How to prepare future teachers who can assess the strengths andweakness of readers and subsequently make thoughtful instructionaldecisions was the overall goal of this study. Specifically, the studyinvestigated the feasibility of helping preservice teachers develop habits ofinquiry. Additionally, it explored the curricular idea of using "videocases" as a means of both promoting habits of inquiry and measuring theextent to which a preservice teacher has developed the dimensions of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 0

3:11

18

Oct

ober

201

4

Helping Presen-ice Teachers Develop Habits of Inquiry 41

inquiry-based teaching. The following questions guided this exploratoryresearch:• Can preservice teachers be taught habits of inquiry in a reading

methods course?• Can video cases serve as a means for promoting inquiry in preservice

teachers?• Can video cases serve as the means for measuring preservice teachers'

development on dimensions of inquiry-based teaching?

Theoretical Framework

Recent discussions on the nature of teaching and teaching readingall point out the complexities involved. Edwards, Gilroy, and Hartley(2002), for example, called for a knowledge base for teacher education"that is rooted not simply in what has worked in the past but in informedinterpretations of current contexts in all their complexity." Specifically,they called for prospective teachers who are "theorizing and interpretingprofessionals" (p. 133). Further, Anders et al. (2000) explained that"[c]lassrooms are complex places, and the best teachers [of reading] aresuccessful because they are thoughtful opportunists who createinstructional practices to meet situational demands" (p. 732).

Preparing teachers who are "theorizing and interpretingprofessionals" and "thoughtful opportunists" is no simple task, however.Beginning teachers do not come to teacher education programs as blankslates. Indeed, by the time they start their studies, they have logged over13,000 hours in what Lortie (1975) termed "apprenticeship ofobservation," during which time they have been passively observingteachers from the other side of the desk. As a result, according to Howeyand Zimpher (1996), many beginning preservice teachers see "teaching astelling and showing, and learning as memorizing" (p. 483).

Going from a frame of reference of teaching as telling and showingto that of teaching as thoughtful decision-making requires a paradigmshift:

Teachers function within frames of reference, and they usethese frames of reference to formulate their plans, interpret

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 0

3:11

18

Oct

ober

201

4

42 Reading Research ami Instruction, Volume 75, No. 1 * Fall 2005

their experiences, and respond to classroom events. Sowhen reformers ask for an entirely different type ofteaching they are asking teachers to shift to an entirelydifferent frame of reference. (Kennedy, 1996, p. 56)

According to Feiman-Nemser and Buchmann,most teachers do not bring an inquiring disposition to theirpreparation, and immersion in the classroom tends topreclude inquiry. Since it is unlikely that the habit ofinquiry will be acquired on the job, it is important tocultivate it at the preservice level and to show itsindispensable role in teaching and getting better at teachingover time. (1985, p. 56)

Similarly, Hoffman and Pearson (2000) argued that teacherpreparation has to go well beyond traditional training models:

We argue, using this view, that training is an incompleteand insufficient construct on which to base our models ofteacher preparation. It may get teachers through some ofthe basic routines and procedures they need for classroomsurvival, but it will not help teachers develop the personaland professional commitment to lifelong learning requiredby those teachers who want to confront the complexitiesand contradictions of teaching, (p. 36)

Clearly, preparing teachers to be good teachers of reading can nolonger be accomplished by an antiquated transmission model in which"beginning teachers needed to focus only on the most rudimentary tasks ofteaching with basic precepts and cookbook rules to guide them and thatteachers in general should be the recipients of knowledge rather than thegenerators of knowledge and understanding about students" (Darling-Hammond & Cobb, 1996, pp. 43-44). Rather, Hoban (2002) advocatedthat teacher education extend the possibilities for teacher professionallearning, which "requires teachers to be reflective about their practice, toengage in change efforts with a purpose,... to seek alternative

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 0

3:11

18

Oct

ober

201

4

Helping Preserx'ice Teachers Develop Habits of Inquiry 43

perspectives in the form of conceptual inputs, and to try out ideas in actionand seek feedback from their students" (p. 143).

All of this will require teacher education to design coursework thatresemble Ball and Cohen's (1999) notion of "countersocialization":

Unless initial teacher education can prepare beginningteachers to learn to do much more thoughtful andchallenging work, and unless ways can be found, throughprofessional development, to help teachers to sustain suchwork, traditional instruction is likely to persist in frustratingeducational reform, and reformers' visions are likely tocontinue not to permeate practice broadly or deeply, (p. 6)

Helping teachers become inquiry minded offers one means ofcountersocializing the naïve perspectives that beginning teachers bringwith them to their teacher preparation programs and potentially offersthem a frame of reference that can be used to negotiate the complexitiessurrounding the act of teaching reading. Moreover, teaching as inquiryputs the notion of lifelong learning (Short & Burke, 1989) at the forefrontof what it means to be a teacher—a necessity for surviving the difficultiesteachers encounter throughout their teaching careers, not to mention theincreased ability they will gain in promoting student learning.

A Model of Inquiry for Teacher PreparationDewey (1938) defined inquiry or reflective teaching as "active,

persistent, and careful considerations of any belief or supposed form ofknowledge in the light of the grounds that support it and furtherconclusions to which it tends" (p. 9). Building on Dewey's work, CarolRodgers (2002) developed a four-step model of inquiry that provided theoperational definition that guides this study.

The first step in Rodgers' model is the presence of an experience.This experience must meet two criteria that enable the experience to beeducative. First, it must lend itself to questions of inquiry; that is, it mustbe richly textured with layers of meaning and represent a "real" event thatteachers can learn from. Second, opportunities must be built around theexperience that foster reflection.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 0

3:11

18

Oct

ober

201

4

44 Reading Research ami Instruction, I 'olume 45, No. I * Fall 2005

The second step in the model is observation and description of theexperience. Here, preservice teachers must be able to collect the facts ofthe event, to put "at bay spontaneous interpretations . . . until analysis,where they can be more closely examined in light of the data gathered" (p.856).

In analysis of the experience, the third step, teachers interpret thefacts they have observed and/or gathered and synthesize them with theirprevious experiences and/or formal knowledge base to come up with aninformed interpretation. During this analysis, tentative hypotheses formthat begin to explain the experience.

The final step is intelligent action and further experimentation.Now that they have arrived at an informed understanding of theexperience, teachers make decisions on what to do instructionally.Equally important, they continue to ask questions and gather evidence(assessment), refining their hypothesis (evaluations).

Research Methods

Background of the StudyThis exploratory study examined the ability of preservice teachers

to use the inquiry model to teach reading. Because the study was designedto resemble research in teacher education that documents change(Kennedy, 1996), baseline data were obtained on preservice teachersbefore the course and again immediately after they had completed thecourse. Kennedy explained: "Like experiments, these studies[documenting change] offer us the advantage of being able to documentchanges so that, if differences exist at the end of the study, we caninterpret these differences relative to differences that may have existed atthe outset" (p. 141).

A reading methods course taught by the investigator during the fallof 2002 served as the setting for the study. The course, "Assessing andIndividualizing Reading Instruction," is the second professional course ina sequence of three reading courses required for elementary teachercandidates before their student teaching. The focus of the course is onapplying methods of assessment and instruction with one child. The firstcourse, "An Introduction to Reading and the Language Arts," introduces

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 0

3:11

18

Oct

ober

201

4

Helping Presen-ice Teachers Develop Habits of Inquiry 45

preservice students to the theoretical underpinnings of process reading andprocess writing. The final course, "Teaching Reading in the ElementarySchool," helps preservice teachers apply their knowledge of processreading in both small group (guided reading) and in large group settings.

Rodgers' model of inquiry guided the instruction and courseassignments. Specifically, teacher candidates were taught that the firststep in becoming a good teacher of reading was to ask questionsconcerning the strengths and needs of the reader. Different means ofgathering data about the reader were taught such as running records,process interviews, observation guides, and informal reading inventories.Additionally, preservice teachers were taught to refrain from "rushing tojudgement," but instead to build a hypothesis based on synthesizing the"facts" of the case with their growing base of professional knowledge.Finally, preservice teachers considered appropriate instruction based ontheir hypothesis and were urged to continue to ask questions and gatherassessment data that would refine their hypothesis.

Two primary means were used to help preservice teachers developthese habits of inquiry. First, each teacher candidate tutored a strugglingreader from an elementary school once a week (45 minutes) for eightweeks. Work with the struggling reader served as an ongoing"experiment" on how to use assessments to inform instruction. After eachtutoring session, preservice teachers completed an observational guide(called an anecdotal record), which helped them focus on collecting thefacts, analyzing the data, and making instructional and assessmentdecisions (see Figure 1). Moreover, concurrent course readings and classpresentations stressed the use of ongoing assessment to informinstructional decisions.

Second, over the span of the semester, preservice teachers viewedand discussed four video cases. The advantages of the video cases are thatthey can pose real-world events that challenge teachers (e.g., a readermakes several significant miscues but is still able to answercomprehension questions) in a way that allows for scrutiny and reflectionamong members of a professional education course (Ball & Cohen, 1999;Risko, Yount, & Towell, 1991 ).

The video cases presented four different struggling readers, eachdisplaying different tendencies. For example, one reader made several

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 0

3:11

18

Oct

ober

201

4

46 Reading Research ami Instruction, Volume 45, No, I * Fall 2005

non-meaningful substitutions but was able to answer accurately all 10comprehension questions that the interviewer asked him. In another videocase the struggling reader read word by word, never correcting hismistakes, and sought teacher assistance on nearly every word.

Participants completed a running record and made other notesconcerning the reader. Each video was viewed slowly by pausingperiodically—upon request, certain parts were rewound and shownagain—in order to observe all that was going on. The video discussionsfocused on describing the facts gathered about the reader, analyzing thosefacts based on theories of reading, and developing a plan of action forwhat would be logical "next steps" in working with a given student.

Participants and Data Collection MethodsFive of the 26 students enrolled in the methods course served as

the participants for the study. They were selected using purposefulsampling (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Patton, 1980), with an emphasis onobtaining as much diversity as possible in terms of commitment, ability,age, race, and gender. Two of the students were male. Four of thestudents were in their early 20s and one student was in his late 30s. Twostudents were considered by education faculty as being top students inboth commitment and ability; two students were considered average inboth commitment and ability; and one student was considered to havemarginal ability but high commitment. All participants were Caucasian,as no other racial groups were represented in the class.

Prior to the course, each of the respondents (PREs) watched a casevideo of a third-grade reader struggling through a reading of the bookPigsty by Mark Teague (1994). A protocol of interview questions (seeFigure 2) was used to prompt informants to determine what they hadobserved. Specifically, questions sought to obtain information on whatthey might do if given an opportunity to work with the student in thefuture. All interviews lasted 20-30 minutes. Probes such as "tell memore" and "what do you mean by that?" were used when appropriate.After the course, the five respondents (POSTs) watched the same videoagain and answered the same protocol of questions. Post-interviewscontained additional interview questions designed to illicit respondents'

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 0

3:11

18

Oct

ober

201

4

Helping Presen-icc Teachers Develop Habits of Inquiry 47

thoughts on what they had learned in the course and what course featuresthey thought were most beneficial. All 10 interviews were audio taped.

After the interviews were transcribed and rubrics were created,three expert teachers (EXPERTs) of reading were identified, outstandingteachers of reading as determined by the investigator and his colleagues.The three EXPERTs watched the video and answered the same protocol ofquestions as the preservice participants. These expert interviews served adual purpose: (a) they validated the rubrics developed to score theinterviews and (b) they served as points of comparison between the PREsand POSTs.

Data AnalysisData analysis proceeded along two lines. First, rubrics were

developed to score respondents' interviews and results were quantifiedstatistically. Second, a qualitative document analysis of the respondents'interview was completed.

Quantitative analysisAfter the course, all 10 preservice teacher interviews (PREs and

POSTs) were transcribed. In coding and scoring the transcribed tapes,every attempt was made to preserve the anonymity of the respondents andhis or her status (PREs or POSTs). A set of rubrics were developed (seeFigure 3) to score the quality of responses, with high numerical scoresindicating "expert-like" answers and low scores indicating "novice"answers.

A two-step process was used to create the rubrics. Initially, aninductive coding approach was used to "ground" the categories thatemerged in the data (Berg, 1998; Strauss, 1987), in an effort to ensure thatthe scoring guide matched the categories. In essence, the scoring guideshould not measure something that respondents were not asked about orsomething that was not revealed on the videotape.

Initial coding was guided by three questions: (a) What didrespondents observe concerning the strengths and needs of the reader? (b)What were the facts the respondents used as a basis for these observations(e.g., miscue analysis, fluency, body language)? and (c) What wouldrespondents do if given the chance to work with this student in the future?

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 0

3:11

18

Oct

ober

201

4

48 Reading Research and Instruction, Volume 4'5, No. I * Fall 2005

After several rounds of initial coding, whereby all 10 interviews wereread, reread and coded, coding frames or identifying categories werecreated (Berg, 1998).

After ensuring all relevant data fit within the coding frames, StepTwo was applied. A theoretical construct that fit these coded frames, andfit the investigator's notion of what a good teacher of reading ought toknow, was used. The theoretical construct was then integrated with thecoded data (Strauss, 1987). Rodgers' (2002) model of inquiry discussedearlier was an excellent fit. As a result, this model was merged with theinductively developed categories. In other words, Rodgers' modelprovided the language in which the coded data easily fit into (see Figure3).

Now that the basic structure of the scoring guide was complete,two outside scorers were used to both validate the effectiveness of theinstrument and to help refine the language of the rubrics. First, anotherinterview was conducted with a preservice teacher who had taken thesame course as the respondents. She watched the same video case andanswered the same protocol of questions, making for an 11th interview.The interview was video taped. The two independent scorers workingindependently (both had previously taught the course "Assessing andIndividualized Reading Instruction") watched the interview accompaniedby a written transcript and scored it using the rubrics. In doing so, thescorers were directed to consider the appropriateness of the scoring guideand to look for any items that were inappropriate or any language that wasambiguous.

Based on the two scorers' feedback, several revisions were made,but the basic framework remained intact, thus preserving the integrity ofthe two-step process. For example, one independent scorer pointed outthat in the rubric "Data Collection and Fluency Analysis" it was essentialfor good teachers of reading to notice the causal relationship betweenfluency and comprehension. This suggestion was verified by the otherindependent scorer and the investigator, and was incorporated in therubrics. Once agreement had been reached on the rubrics, the PRE andPOST interviews were independently scored by the two scorers in additionto the investigator. Again, precautions were taken to preserve theanonymity (who and when) of the respondents.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 0

3:11

18

Oct

ober

201

4

Helping Presen-ice Teachers Develop Habits of Inquiry49

To further validate the rubrics, a group of three "experts" (seeParticipants and Data Collection Methods) watched the video andanswered the same protocol of questions as the PREs and POSTs. Allthree experts scored high (scores of 15, 14, and 15 on a scale of 0-15),supporting the effectiveness of the scoring guide for measuring thequalities of good teachers of readings

Qualitative analysisA descriptive, deductive analysis was undertaken to compare the

PREs, POSTs, and EXPERTS across the following three dimensions ofRodgers' model: (a) description of the experience, (b) analysis, and (c)intelligent action/experimentation—the same theoretical constructs thatwere deductively applied in developing the rubrics. First, the investigatorcoded each interview by highlighting the words that fit into Dimension A.Dimension B and C were coded likewise. Then a chart depicting whatPREs, POSTs, and EXPERTS said across all three dimensions wascompiled. This chart served as the means for comparing and contrastingPREs, POSTs, and EXPERTS across the three dimensions of Rodgers'model.

Results

Quantitative and qualitative data indicated that the readingmethods course had a profound effect on helping preservice teachersdevelop habits of inquiry. Specifically, post-course interviews revealedthat two course features were strongly associated with helping preserviceteachers learn how to teach reading: individually tutoring one child overthe course of eight weeks and the use of video cases. For example, onepreservice student made the following comment about tutoring and usingvideo cases:

In our class we watched different video cases, and wediscussed them. We were not just reading the textbook.We had an actual real-life student struggling withsomething and working with her has made the mostdifference for me. Being able to have examples of various

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 0

3:11

18

Oct

ober

201

4

50 Reading Research and Instruction, Volume -IS, No. I * Fall 2005

students with various problems and seeing how that ishandled and then discussing it, is so much more than justreading a book about it. You can actually talk about it andthere is a visual and there is concrete evidence, not just anexample on a piece of paper.

Other course features mentioned included small-group discussionson the course text, debriefing with classmates on the progress of theirreader, and the use of observation guides (anecdotal records) and thefeedback the course instructor provided on the observation guides.

The quantitative data in Table 1 illustrate, except for Student 3,that all comparisons were statistically significant. The average meanscores among the three raters for the pre-interview group was 5.33, and theaverage for the post-interview group was 12.22. A paired samples t-testwas calculated to compare the mean pretest score to the mean of the posttest score. The increase in the mean from pretest to post-test was found tobe significant, t(4) = 4.845, p < .01.

Table 1Average Mean

PreserviceStudent#1#2#3#4#5

Scores on a Scale of 0-15

Ave. Mean for Pre-

3.333.3312.3343.66Ave. Overall Mean

of the Three Raters for Pre-

Ave. Mean for Post-

1412.661511.338.66Ave. Overall Mean

and Post scores

Significance at .01

YesYesNoYesYesYes

Score 5.33 (sd = 3.92) Score 12.22 (sd = 2.37)

Reliability (see Table 2) was also established for the 10 transcripts.Interrater reliability was calculated using Cronbach's alpha to determinethe consistency of three trained individuals (raters) scoring teachercandidates' responses to the video case. The three trained raters includedthe investigator and the two outside scorers that were used to refine thescoring guide (see p. 13). Reliability coefficients were calculated to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 0

3:11

18

Oct

ober

201

4

Helping Présentée Teachers Develop Habits of Inquiry 51

compare the consistency of three individual raters' scoring for each of thefive variables and for the overall consistency of scoring 10 candidates oneach of the five variables.

Table 2

Reliability Coefficients for Categories of Scoring Guide (N of Raters = 3 N ofPreservice Teachers = 10)

I. Data II. Data III. Level of IV. Inquiry V. IntelligentCollection Collection & Data Analysis Orientation Action& Miscue FluencyAnalysis Analysis

.5937 .9486 .7946 .8992 .9871

Note. Overall consistency of scoring: .9243.

Analysis of Transcripts (PRE, POST, and EXPERTs) on Using Rodgers'Dimensions of Inquiry

Description of experienceThe reader in the case video was a 9-year-old girl who had just

completed the third grade. She read 222 words from the book Pigsty(Teague, 1994), making 15 errors, which put her at her instructional level(Johns, 2001). This, coupled with the fact that she made nine self-corrections, indicated comprehension was taking place. However,anomalous data surfaced that questioned her level of comprehension. Firstwas her lack of fluency. She read with very little expression when sheencountered dialogue. In many instances, she paid little attention toperiods and commas, seldom using the appropriate pausing—both ofwhich indicate possible comprehension problems (Fountas & Pinnell,1996; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000).Second was her lack of engagement. Although Pigsty is a funny story of alittle boy, Wendell, who would not clean his room, so pigs startedappearing to help spread the mess, the young reader never laughed orsmiled. Her body language represented that of an unmotivated reader whomainly wanted to get the reading over with.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 0

3:11

18

Oct

ober

201

4

52 Reading Research ami Instruction, Volume 45, No. 1 * Fall 2005

In describing the reader, the PREs tended to focus exclusively onmiscues. Only PRE #3 (see Table 1) observed miscues, fluency, andreader's engagement. In contrast, all POSTs described both the fluencyand the errors of the reader, and one POST (#3) described the reader usingerror analysis, fluency, and engagement. All three EXPERTs describedthe reader in terms of miscues and fluency, with one describing thereader's miscues, fluency, and engagement.

Three PREs made an absolute judgment that the readercomprehended due to the kinds of miscues she was making. In otherwords, they did not put at bay the urge to make spontaneous judgments(Rodgers, 2002). For example, PRE #1 started off the interview saying,"She is a pretty good reader; she self-corrected a lot." At the end of theinterview, PRE # 1 continued to hold to this position: "She basically dideverything she was supposed to except in a couple of places."

In contrast, all five POSTs gave tentative answers about thereader's comprehension. For example, POST #1 described the readermuch differently in her post-interview: "I don't think she comprehendedwhat she was reading . . . because she put nonsense words in there and justread it so fas t . . . but I really don't know [if she comprehended] because Ididn't ask her any questions."

Like the POSTs, the EXPERTs were tentative in their judgementas to whether the reader was comprehending. However, the EXPERTs putmore emphasis on the difficulty of knowing to what degree a reader iscomprehending, and all of them recounted past experiences in whichstudents surprised them: "If I hadn't done so many assessments with kids,I'd say really low [comprehension]. But she might be getting more out ofit than she sounds like because there are a lot of kids stuck in that stagewho are actually understanding it, but they are so focused on trying to readit right."

Analysis of the readerThe PREs' analysis of the data was similar to the way they

described the data in that four out of the five focused exclusively onmiscues. However, all five PREs analyzed miscues from a comprehensionviewpoint. For example, PRE #4 analyzed the reader's miscues in light ofher comprehension: "I thought she was okay in comprehension because

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 0

3:11

18

Oct

ober

201

4

Helping Presen-ice Teachers Develop Habiis of Inquiry 53

she did a lot of self-correcting. She had a few false substitutions and acouple of omissions, but she would read it, and then she would repeatherself because she knew that she was saying some things wrong." OnlyPRE #3 analyzed the data using miscues, fluency, and engagementcomprehension.

By comparison, four out of five POSTs analyzed the reader'smiscues and fluency from a comprehension viewpoint. POST #2, forinstance, brought fluency into the comprehension equation: "She was ableto decode the words and recognize the sounds and stuff, but I'm not sureshe was getting much meaning from it because she was reading in amonotone voice. It seems like she repeated it quite a bit, but maybe mostof the time when she did that she was confirming meaning. I'm not surewhat her reasons were for repeating it." POST #5 described the lack offluency; however, she failed to interpret the fact that the reader's lack offluency might be interfering with reading comprehension.

All EXPERTS noted both miscues and fluency, and how each ofthese aided or interfered with comprehension. One EXPERT notedmiscues, fluency, and engagement, and how each of these areas influencedcomprehension. The EXPERTs analysis emphasized the theoretical to agreater degree than either the PREs or POSTs. They discussed specificreadings or talked in terms of a theory of fluency or a theory of miscueanalysis. For example, talking about the engagement and fluency oneEXPERT had this to say:

I think my concerns with her is affect and fluency andtrying to build a sense of wanting and caring about thestory. The saddest thing about her is how humdrum she is.. . . She isn't going to learn anything about reading, becauseit is a chore to her. It is just to get these words right andsound it right and get done. Kids like her don't getanything from a social studies text... It is lack ofengagement, enjoyment, all the Lucy Calkins' things arejust not there.

Another difference among the respondents was the way theyprioritized the data. Prioritizing meant that certain data such as inattention

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 0

3:11

18

Oct

ober

201

4

54 Reading Research and Instruction, Volume -I j . No. I * Fall 2005

to punctuation or making non-meaningful substitutions were deemed morecritical than other data, such as miscues of proper names or repeatingsentence phrases. The PREs did little prioritizing. Thus, except for PRE#3, all PREs were unsure of what to do if given an opportunity to workwith this reader in the future. A typical answer was voiced by PRE #4: "Ithink I would have her read the text again and just help her with words orwhat not that she is having problems with."

By contrast, all POSTs and EXPERTs prioritized the data, givingthem a clear sense of assessment and instructional goals for the reader.POST #4's response is illustrative of this prioritizing: "I don't want towork on too many different kinds of things in one session.... I want topick one thing and overemphasize it so that it will stick in her head. Sothose are big ideas—using all the cueing systems and paying attention topunctuation." Likewise, the EXPERTs prioritized the data, giving them aclear sense of what they would like to do with this reader. One EXPERT,for example, talked about her speed: "I'm thinking she reads it too fast.So with more defined phrasing it would sound like a conversation that wasreally happening. So that stands out for me and would be a good teachingpoint."

The final difference among the PREs, POSTs, and EXPERTs wasthe way they used hypotheses in their analysis. PREs, except for PRE #3,had little to no explanation of the reader's miscues or the speed,expression, and phrasing she was using. For example, although PRE #4noticed the student's lack of fluency, her rationale for it—"she was justhaving a bad day fluency-wise"—was not based on formal knowledge orpast experience helping a young reader with fluency.

In contrast, POSTs were inclined to formulate a hypothesis basedon their previous tutoring experience or on some formal knowledge. Invarying degrees, POSTs formulated a hypothesis to explain the reader'sactions in terms of fluency, miscues, and comprehension. For example,POST #2 gave the following answer to explain whether the reader wascomprehending the story: "When I hear her read, it is that she reads it overreally quick and that she is just reading the words and not taking time toreally let it sink in. But I think something that tells me she iscomprehending a little bit is that she self corrected herself to confirmmeaning." POST #3 developed the most elaborate hypothesis—much

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 0

3:11

18

Oct

ober

201

4

Helping Presen'ice Teachers Develop Habits of inquiry 55

more elaborate than his PRE hypothesis—as he integrated the analysis ofmiscues, fluency, and engagement:

My guess is she is self-monitoring for structure [syntax],trying to comprehend what the book is telling her. Andfrom just watching this short video, that would be my guessof why she is in this reading development program... Ifthis book is at her grade level, her fluency was fairly good,other than the fact that she was rushing. And when anyonerushes, they go through punctuation; they go through thedialogue in the book. And when you do that, you don'tgrasp all of the meaning. You can't make any empatheticconnections with the book unless you try to makeconnections with the punctuation involved... My guess isthat she is doing this reading as something she has to do. Iknow with my own reader that was one of the challenges. Ihad a terrible time getting him to do anything until I gothim a book he was interested in.

All Es were likewise able to synthesize the data they used todescribe the reader using prior experiences and formal knowledge to arriveat an elaborate hypothesis that explained the reader's actions. It was thisability to formulate an elaborate hypothesis—except for POST #3—thatdistinguished the EXPERTS from the POSTS. The following explanationis representative of the way the EXPERTS analyzed the reader:

My initial reaction is that she thinks reading is speed, goingfast. There were times when she ignored punctuation;times where she read fluently; times that she read word byword. I just don't think that she comprehended. Meaningwas definitely not her strongest cue system. So she reallyneeds prompting to make meaning. A lot of times she willnotice the beginning of words and she will say whatevershe thinks. She does sometimes visually search to self-correct but she doesn't monitor to make sure it all makessense. So, those cueing systems and the self-extending

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 0

3:11

18

Oct

ober

201

4

56 Reading Research and Instruction, Volume 45, No. I * Fail 2005

systems are not integrated. She does things kind of hereand there. I still don't think she has comprehended; I'll betshe didn't comprehend what she read.

Intelligent action and experimentationInformants' response to what they would do if given a chance to workwith the reader in the video case depended to a large extent on how theydescribed and analyzed the reader. Thus PREs, except PRE #3, describedand analyzed the data focusing exclusively on the miscues. Moreover,except for PRE #3, they failed to prioritize the data or formulate ahypothesis that was based on formal knowledge or past experience.Therefore, their actions were either nonexistent—"I don't know what Ishould do"—or they focused on fixing mistakes, as PRE #2 wanted to do:"She did say laying for lying which is basically the same thing. But wecould work with that one."

In contrast, POSTs, except for POST #5, and EXPERTs alldescribed and analyzed the reader from both a miscue and a fluency frameof reference. Additionally, all POSTs and EXPERTs prioritized the data.Their actions reflected their earlier descriptions and analysis. All POSTS,even POST #5, and EXPERTs formulated specific instructional strategiesto help the reader better comprehend the text. Most important, theinstructional strategies matched the data they had described earlier aboutthe reader and fit within the hypotheses they had developed. For example,POST #1 described and analyzed the reader as having possiblecomprehension problems due mainly to her fast pace, monotoneexpression, and inattention to punctuation. Her course of action reflectedthis interpretation:

I'd like for her to retell a story to me first. And if shecouldn't tell me, I'd give her some prompts like "whathappened when?" or "what happened next?" I'd modelreading and pausing at the punctuation. Work with her ondialogue. To me, the dialogue needs to be different thanregular narration... I'd use a play that has a lot ofdialogue; I'd do that so that she could show how to changeher voice so other people would know it.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 0

3:11

18

Oct

ober

201

4

Helping Preservice Teachers Develop Habits of Inquiry 57

Finally, three of the five PREs did not look at the data from atentative viewpoint. All three, consequently, viewed their opportunity towork with this reader through instruction only. By comparison, PRE #3and PRE #5, who both took a tentative view, wanted to further assess thereader and what she was doing. All POSTs took a tentative view whendescribing the reader, and all of them pointed to both assessment andinstruction as logical next steps if given the opportunity to work with thisreader in the future. The Es likewise took a tentative view. One EXPERTbecame visibly upset when asked to tell what she would do instructionally:"I don't know! I need to find out more about her first."

Conclusions

Both quantitative and qualitative data indicate that significantdifferences separate the way PREs and POSTs described and analyzed thecase study reader's strengths and weaknesses as well as the way theydetermined logical next steps for the reader. This finding suggests that aprofessional reading course can help prospective teachers restructure naïveperspective of teaching (e.g., teaching is telling or teaching is fixingmistakes) into a perspective that puts inquiry at the heart of theteaching/learning process. This finding is especially important in light ofpersistent criticisms of the professional coursework of teacher education(Kennedy, 1996) and reading education (Snow et al., 1998). Furthermore,the results are important when considering that teaching reading is beingdefined as complex work situated in classrooms that abound withdilemmas (Anders et al., 2000)

Data also suggest that POSTs resembled EXPERTS on thedimensions of inquiry that Rodgers has laid out. This not only supportsthe belief that POSTs developed the abilities to become more expert-like,but also that experts use an inquiry model when teaching reading. Finally,it affirms the value many teacher educators have placed on using inquiryas a model to guide teacher preparation programs (e.g., Ball & Cohen,1999; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993; Darling-Hammond & Cobb, 1996;Feiman-Nemser & Buchmann, 1985; Rodgers, 2002).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 0

3:11

18

Oct

ober

201

4

58 Reading Research ami Instruction, I 'olume 45, Ko. I * Fall 2005

Use of the video case and the one-on-one tutoring seem torepresent effective pedagogical methods to promote habits of inquiry inpreservice teachers. Tutoring a struggling reader in the field holds greatpotential as Danielson, Kuhlman, and Fluckiger (1998) pointed out:

It is only through active engagement with children thatpreservice teachers can hypothesize and predict (planlessons); manipulate objects (launch those plans); posequestions and research answers (develop sustained inquiry-based relationships with children); and imagine, investigateand invent (reflect on, discuss, consider, research resources,and create more plans), (p. 34)

Richly textured video cases as describe in this study show potentialfor assisting preservice teachers in developing the habits of inquiry. Useof case studies is a growing trend in teacher education (Carter & Anders,1996). Although most case studies have traditionally been written asnarratives, more and more teacher educators are pointing to the potentialof video as a means of realistically depicting situations for learning (e.g.,Ball & Cohen, 1999; Howey & Zimpher, 1996; Lampert & Ball, 1999;Risko et al., 1991). According to Carter and Anders (1996), there are twooverall goals for using case studies: "(1) to help students acquire thesituated knowledge of teaching they need in order to think like a teacherand (2) to engender habits of analysis, inquiry, and reflection that willempower them to continue to grow in their professional understandingsand abilities" (p. 579). Both of these goals apply to the case videos usedin this study.

Finally, video cases show promise as a means of measuringpreservice teachers' level of inquiry-mindedness. Thus, the vastdifferences between PREs and POSTs and PREs and EXPERTS ondimensions of inquiry demonstrated that showing preservice and expertteachers of reading a richly textured video case with multiple dimensionsto describe and analyze gave them a chance to pause and demonstrate theirskills of inquiry: descriptions, analysis, and intelligent actions.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 0

3:11

18

Oct

ober

201

4

He/ping Preservice Teachers Develop Habits of Inquiry 59

Limitations and Implications

Several limitations are evident in this exploratory study. First issample size. Only five preservice students were studied, therebyprecluding generalization. Further, although the five represent somedimensions of diversity, they do not represent a cross-section of preserviceteachers across the country.

Limitations of sample size are also found in the selection ofexperts. A larger pool might reveal that many so-called experts do not fitwithin the framework of Rodgers' model of inquiry the way the expertsdid in this research (2002). It would be revealing also to include somenot-so-expert practicing teachers to get an idea of what differences existbetween those who are recognized as experts and those who are not.

Just what caused the differences between PREs' and POSTs'interviews cannot be fully determined. Were the differences due to thecourse's emphasis on inquiry and the participants' experiences of workingwith a struggling reader? Or were the differences due mainly with theexperience of working with case videos? Would the same results occur ifno case videos and discussions were part of the same methods course?

Finally, no linkages were made to student learning. As Desforges(1995) pointed out, "[i]t is necessary for the novice to learn how to usethat knowledge to promote pupil learning" (p. 386). Now that thesepreservice teachers are acting more inquiry-oriented, will they be able toteach their future students to become skilled and critical readers? And canthey do this better than preservice teachers who do not have an inquiry-oriented view of teaching?

Despite these limitations, the study raises important questions forteacher educators. Should professional methods courses in reading use aninquiry model to teach preservice teachers how to teach reading? Shouldother methods courses such as math methods also look at the benefits ofan inquiry approach to teaching preservice teachers? If it can be shownthat preservice teachers who demonstrate habits of inquiry provide betterinstruction to pupils, and thus increase student learning, would it not makesense for teacher preparation programs to institute such a model across allof its professional coursework?

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 0

3:11

18

Oct

ober

201

4

60 Reading Research am! Imirucrion, Volume 45, No. I * Fall 2005

Should video cases that can depict "real" events that are richlytextured with layers of meaning and that can be structured to promoteinquiry become a part of the curriculum in teacher education professionalcoursework? The findings of this study suggest that video cases not onlyhave the potential for helping to move novice teachers towards moresophisticated levels of inquiry, they also hold potential for helping tomeasure teachers' level of expertise. The pressure on teacher preparationprograms to "scientifically" prove that they do make a difference isgrowing. As a result, research methods are needed such as used in thisstudy that can begin to measure levels of teacher expertise.

Most important, this research raises the critical question: Arepreservice teachers who can demonstrate habits of inquiry (i.e., describingand keeping at bay the urge to rush to judgement, analyzing the data bysynthesizing the facts of the case with theoretical knowledge about readingprocess and child development, and make intelligent instructional andassessment decisions) more effective at helping young children becomeskillful and critical readers than preservice teachers who do notdemonstrate such habits of inquiry?

In the case of the preservice students in this research, it would beinteresting to know if they can implement their methods of inquiry whenthey get to their student teaching and beyond. Equally important to studyare the kinds of support systems they will need in their practice teaching tobe able to continue to foster such inquiry in their teaching. Now that theyhave worked with one child using an inquiry teaching method, it would bea good idea to give them opportunities to work with small groups ofchildren prior to student teaching where they are expected to teach thewhole class. Giving preservice teachers a gradual indoctrination into thetenets of inquiry may allow them to further cement these ideas and mayprevent the "washing out" of their ideals that often happens to preserviceteachers when they get to their student teaching (Zeichner & Tabachnick,1981).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 0

3:11

18

Oct

ober

201

4

Helping Presen-ice Teachers Develop Habil.s of Inquiry 61

References

American Federation of Teachers (AFT). (1999). Teaching reading isrocket science: What expert teachers of reading should know andbe able to do. Washington, DC: Learning First Alliance.

Anders, P., Hoffmann, J., & Duffy, G. (2000). Teaching teachers to teachreading: Paradigm shifts, persistent problems, and challenges. InM. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.),Handbook of reading research: Vol. 3 (pp. 721-744). Mahwah,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Ball, D., & Cohen, D. (1999). Developing practice, developingpractitioners: Toward a practice based theory of professionaleducation. In G. Sykes & L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.), Teachingas the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp.3-32). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Berg, B. (1998). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences, Vol.3. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Carter, K., & Anders, D. (1996). Program pedagogy. In F. Murray (Ed.),The teacher educator's handbook: Building a knowledge base forthe preparation of teachers (pp. 557-592). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1993). Inside/outside: Teacher researchand knowledge. New York: Teachers College Press.

Danielson, K., Kuhlman, W., & Fluckiger, J. (1998). Benefits of literacyfield experiences: Three views. Reading Horizons, 39(1), 33-48.

Darling-Hammond, L., & Cobb, V. (1996). The changing context ofteacher education.In F. Murray (Ed.), The teacher educator'shandbook: Building a knowledge base for the preparation ofteachers (pp. 14-62). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Desforges, C. (1995). How does experience affect theoretical knowledgefor teaching? Learning and Instruction, 5(4), 385-400.

Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. New York: Collier.Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Collier.Edwards, A., Gilroy, P., & Hartley, D. (2002). Rethinking teacher

education: Collaborative response to uncertainty. New York:Routledge Falmer.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 0

3:11

18

Oct

ober

201

4

62 Reading Research and instruction, I 'olunie -A5, No. I * Fall 2005

Feiman-Nemser, S., & Buchmann, M. (1985). Pitfalls of experience inteacher preparation. Teacher College Record, 87(1), 53-64).

Fountas, I., & Pinnell, G. S. (1996). Guided reading: Good first teachingfor all children. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Hoban, G. (2002). Teacher learning for educational change: A systemsthinking approach. Philadelphia: Open University Press.

Hoffman, J., & Pearson, P. (2000). Reading teacher education in the nextmillennium: What your grandmother's teacher didn't know thatyour granddaughter's teacher should. Reading ResearchQuarterly, 35(1), 28-44.

Howey, K., & Zimpher, N. (1996). Patterns in prospective teachers:Guides for designing preservice programs. In F. Murray (Ed.), Theteacher educator's handbook: Building a knowledge base for thepreparation of teachers (pp. 465-503). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Johns, J. (2001). Basic reading inventory. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.Kennedy, M. (1996). Research genres in teacher education. In F. Murray

(Ed.), The teacher educator's handbook: Building a knowledgebase for the preparation of teachers (pp. 120-152). San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Kennedy, M. (1999). The role of preservice teacher education. In G.Sykes & L. Darling Hammond (Eds.), Teaching as the learningprofession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 54-85). SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lampert, M., & Ball, D. (1999). Aligning teacher education withcontemporary k-12 reform visions. In G. Sykes & L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbookof policy and practice (pp. 33-53). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA:Sage.

Lortie, D. (1975). School teacher: A sociological study. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

Maloch, B., Flint, A., Eldridge, D., Harmon, J., Loven, R., Fine, J.,Bryant-Shanklin, M.& Martinez, M. (2003). Understandings,beliefs, and reported decision making of first-year teachers fromdifferent reading teacher preparation programs. Elementary SchoolJournal, 103(5), 431-457.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 0

3:11

18

Oct

ober

201

4

Helping Presentee Teachers Develop Habits o/Jmptin' 63

National Commission of Teaching and America's Future. (1997). Doingwhat matters most: Investing in quality teaching. New York:Author.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000).Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read.Washington, DC: NICHD Publications Clearinghouse.

Patton, M.Q. (1980). Qualitative evaluation and research methods.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Risko, V., Yount, D., & Towell, J. (1991). Video-Based CASE analysis toenhance teacher preparation. In T. Rasinski (Ed.), Reading isknowledge: Thirteenth yearbook of the college reading association(pp. 87-96). Pittsburgh, KS: College Reading Association.

Rodgers, C. (2002). Defining reflection: Another look at John Dewey andreflective thinking. Teachers College Record, 104(4), 843-865.

Short, K., & Burke C. (1989). New potentials for teacher education:Teaching and learning as inquiry. The Elementary School Journal,90(2), 193-206.

Snow, C., Burns, M., & Griffin. P. (1998). Preventing reading difficultiesin young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. New York:Cambridge University Press.

Teague, M. (1994). Pigsty. New York: ScholasticZeichner, K., & Tabachnick, B. (1981). Are the effects of university

teacher education washed out by school experiences? Journal ofTeacher Education, 32, 7-11.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 0

3:11

18

Oct

ober

201

4

64 Reading Research and Instruction, Volume 45, No. Ï * Fail 2005

Appendix A

Figure 1. Anecdotal record.

The Facts Date

Anecdotal RecordAnecdotal Records must be written as soon as possible after each instructional tutoringsession.

a. Describe a specific event or productb. Report rather than evaluate or interpret (Use Descriptors)

Focus your anecdotal records on the following four topics:1. Fluency

2. Word Recognition Strategies

3. Comprehension and Comprehension Strategies

4. Interest and Attitudes Toward Literacy

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 0

3:11

18

Oct

ober

201

4

Helping Preservice Teachers Develop Habiis of Inquiry 65

The Analysis

Make evaluations based on the following: (a) pattern of behavior, (b) developmentaltrends, (c) recognizing strengths and needs.

Focus your evaluations on the following four topics:

1. Fluency (rate your reader) 1 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0good average poor

Teaching Point

2. Word Recognition Strategies (rate your reader) 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0good average poor

Teaching Point

3 . C o m p r e h e n s i o n & C o m p r e h e n s i o n S t r a t e g i e s ( r a t e y o u r r e a d e r ) 1 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0g o o d a v e r a g e p o o r

Teaching Point

4 . I n t e r e s t & A t t i t u d e s T o w a r d L i t e r a c y ( r a t e y o u r r e a d e r ) 1 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

g o o d a v e r a g e p o o r

Teaching Point

Which area (fluency, word rea, comprehension, attitude) is most essential for you toteach? What prompt(s) will you use to try and elicit the targetbehavior you want?

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 0

3:11

18

Oct

ober

201

4

66 Reading Research andInstruction, Volume 45, Ko. 1 * Fall 2005

Appendix B

Figure 2. Protocol of questions for video case of elementary student (just completed 3rd

grade).

I. Tell me everything you notice about this reader? (main question for section one)

a) What does she do when she comes to difficulty?b) On line 14, why does she say, "Okay, well," instead of "Okay, Wendell"?c) On a scale of 0-10 (zero meaning no meaning, 10, maximum meaning), how do you

think she is doing? Why do you say that?d) Is this the right-leveled text? Why do you say that?

II. If you were to work with this reader tomorrow, tell me everything that you woulddo. (main question for section two)

a) What praise would you give her?b) Sum up what your goals for this reader would be.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 0

3:11

18

Oct

ober

201

4

Helping Presenice Teachers Develop Habits of Inquiry 67

Appendix C

Figure 3. Scoring guide for video case interviews.

Code Number of Respondent

I. Data Collection and Miscue Analysis

(3 pts.) Notices errors from the following three cueing systems: meaning, structure, andvisual, [and] Analyzes errors from a meaning-making point of view.(2 pts.) Notices errors from two of the following three cueing systems: meaning,structure, and visual, [and] Analyzes errors from a meaning-making point of view.(1 pt.) Notices errors from two of the following three cueing systems: meaning,structure, and visual, [but] Does not analyze errors from a meaning-making point ofview.(0 pts.) Does not notice errors from two of the following three cueing systems:meaning, structure, and visual, [and] Does not analyze errors from a meaning-makingpoint of view.

II. Data Collection and Fluency Analysis

(3 pts.) Notices the reader's speed, expression, and attention to punctuation [and]points out a causal relationship between fluency and comprehension [and] wants to dosomething instructionally to help the reader's fluency.(2 pts.) Notices at least two of the following three: speed, expression, and attention topunctuation [and] points out a causal relationship between fluency and comprehension.(1 pt.) Notices at least two of the following three: speed, expression, and attention topunctuation [and] wants to do something instructionally to help the reader's fluency.(0 pts.) Notices none or only one of the following three: speed, expression andattention [and] fails to point out a causal relationship between fluency andcomprehension or fails to mention that some instruction with fluency seemsappropriate.

III. Level of Data Analysis

(3 pts.) Seeks to analyze/interpret different layers of facts (i.e., error analysis, fluency,and meaning making) into an integrated explanation that hypothesizes the reader'sperformance, [and] Bases future instruction and/or assessments on this hypothesis.(2 pts.) Seeks to analyze/interpret different layers of facts (i.e., error analysis, fluency,and meaning making) into an integrated explanation that hypothesizes the reader'sperformance, [but] Fails to base future instruction and/or assessments on this unifyingtheory.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 0

3:11

18

Oct

ober

201

4

68 Reading Research and Instruction, Volume -t5. No. 1 * Fall 2005

(1 pt.) Seeks to analyze/interpret the facts together from either a fluency and meaning-making focus only or from an error-analysis and meaning-making focus only.(0 pts.) Makes no attempt to analyze/interpret the facts [or] the analysis/interpretationis partial or faulty.

IV. Inquiry Orientation

(3 pts.) Has a questioning, wondering attitude (views facts from a tentative point ofview) about the reader in both sections of the interview, [and] seeks to find outappropriate information (which he/she wonders about) through reasonable assessmenttechnique(s).(2 pts.) Has a questioning, wondering attitude (views facts from a tentative point ofview) about the reader in the first or the second section of the interview, [and] seeks tofind out appropriate information (that he/she wonders about) through reasonableassessment technique(s).(1 pt.) Has a questioning, wondering attitude (views facts from a tentative point ofview) about the reader in the first or the second section of the interview, [or] seeks tofind out appropriate information through reasonable assessment technique(s).(0 pts.) Does not have a questioning, wondering attitude (views facts from a tentative

point of view) about the reader in the first or the second section of the interview, [and]does not seek to find appropriate information through reasonable assessmenttechnique(s).

IV. Intelligent Action

(3 pts.) All instructional decisions—there are at least three—are reasonable (based onthe facts presented in the video) [and] instructional decisions are geared to strategydevelopment, not fixing mistakes.(2 pt.) Two reasonable (based on the facts presented in the video) instructionaldecisions are discussed [and] are geared to strategy development, not fixing mistakes.(1 pt.) One reasonable (based on the facts presented in the video) instructional decisionis discussed [and] is geared to strategy development, not fixing mistakes.(0 pts.) Discusses no reasonable (based on the facts presented in the video)instructional decision is discussed [or] instruction is geared to fixing mistakes, notstrategy development.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 0

3:11

18

Oct

ober

201

4