Social construction of preservice teachers’ instructional strategies for reading

Download Social construction of preservice teachers’ instructional strategies for reading

Post on 09-Feb-2017




0 download

Embed Size (px)


<ul><li><p>This article was downloaded by: [Washington State University Libraries ]On: 12 October 2014, At: 01:39Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T3JH, UK</p><p>The Teacher EducatorPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:</p><p>Social construction ofpreservice teachersinstructional strategies forreadingCatherine O'Callaghan aa Curriculum and Teaching , Fordham Universityand St. Joseph's College , New YorkPublished online: 20 Jan 2010.</p><p>To cite this article: Catherine O'Callaghan (2001) Social construction of preserviceteachers instructional strategies for reading, The Teacher Educator, 36:4, 265-281,DOI: 10.1080/08878730109555271</p><p>To link to this article:</p><p>PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE</p><p>Taylor &amp; Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the Content) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor &amp; 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 &amp; 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.</p><p></p></li><li><p>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 any formto anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &amp; Conditions of access and usecan be found at</p><p>Dow</p><p>nloa</p><p>ded </p><p>by [</p><p>Was</p><p>hing</p><p>ton </p><p>Stat</p><p>e U</p><p>nive</p><p>rsity</p><p> Lib</p><p>rari</p><p>es ]</p><p> at 0</p><p>1:39</p><p> 12 </p><p>Oct</p><p>ober</p><p> 201</p><p>4 </p><p></p></li><li><p>SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF PRESERVICETEACHERS' INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES</p><p>FOR READING</p><p>Catherine O'CallaghanCurriculum and Teaching</p><p>Fordham University and St. Joseph's College, New York</p><p>AbstractThis multiple case study investigated the social construction of four</p><p>female preservice teachers' instructional strategies for reading using sixvignettes of primary grade reading problems. Miles and Huberman's(1994) data reduction techniques were utilized.</p><p>Cross-case analysis indicated that all participants engaged in increasedlevels of reflective thinking and procedural reasoning. In addition, twoparticipants also engaged in reflective thinking while teaching (Schon,1983). A skills orientation to reading was the predominant approach toinstruction. Only one participant shifted her theoretical orientation fromphonics to skills-based instruction.</p><p>It was determined that all four participants' instructional strategies forreading were rooted in their own literacy histories. Finally, it washypothesized that engaging in narrative inquiry, coupled withinstructional problem solving, generated cognitive conflict amongparticipants. Increased cognitive conflict resulted in changes in preserviceteachers' reflection and procedural reasoning.</p><p>As we begin a new century, teacher education is rapidly losing itsmomentum to respond to the paradigm of inquiry-based teaching(Sarason, 1993). This new paradigm calls for a reconceptualization ofteaching as a cognitive, reflective activity in which educators generatetheir own knowledge through problem solving and reflection inaction (Cochran, DeReuter, &amp; King, 1993; Schon, 1987; Shulman,1986). Typically, preservice students' reflections relate to how theywere taught.</p><p>In fact, literature shows that preservice teachers have internalizedimplicit theories about teaching "before" they began theirprofessional coursework (Holt-Reynolds, 1992; La Bosky, 1993;Zeichner &amp;Tabachnick, 1981). Implicit theories regarding teachingand learning remain rooted in the preservice teachers pedagogicalknowledge base and may be elicited through narrative inquiry(Goodman, 1988; Johnson, 1988).</p><p>265</p><p>Dow</p><p>nloa</p><p>ded </p><p>by [</p><p>Was</p><p>hing</p><p>ton </p><p>Stat</p><p>e U</p><p>nive</p><p>rsity</p><p> Lib</p><p>rari</p><p>es ]</p><p> at 0</p><p>1:39</p><p> 12 </p><p>Oct</p><p>ober</p><p> 201</p><p>4 </p></li><li><p>Narrative inquiry provides the teacher educator with a windowinto the preservice teachers' life history (Bullough, 1992; Connelly &amp;Clandinin, 1990). These life histories provide the conceptualframework preservice teachers have constructed along with thesociocultural context in which they are embedded (Provenzo,McCloskey, Kottkamp, &amp; Cohn, 1989). The reflection anddiscussion that accompanies narrative inquiry including metaphorsalso empower the preservice teachers to analyze the life-forces thatshaped their pedagogical knowledge base (Bullough &amp; Stokes, 1994).</p><p>Specifically, reflective inquiry with narratives and teachingmetaphors enables preservice teachers to examine their implicittheories regarding pedagogy. In fact, examination of implicit theoriesaids in the solving of instructional situations (Johnson, 1988;Zeichner &amp; Tabachnick, 1981). Because inquiry-based teaching isfocused on teaching defined as non-linear and ill-structured, itdemands a prerequisite, creative problem-solving demonstration innarrative inquiry and the use of metaphors in the teaching of reading(Leinhardt &amp; Greeno, 1986). Narrative inquiry and teachingmetaphors empower the preservice teacher to analyze the ways theirpersonal life histories have affected their reading instructionalstrategies and their problem solving (Elbaz, 1981; Hollingsworth,1989; Knowles &amp; Holt-Reynolds, 1991).</p><p>Preservice teachers' early experiences with literacy shaped theirimplicit theories regarding reading instruction (Clay, 1992). Harste,Woodward, and Burke (1984) stated that the only way to changeteacher behavior is to change beliefs. Power (1991) ascertained thatpreservice teachers who experienced a skills-based theoreticalorientation as students may also espouse this approach in theirinstruction. Prior research determined that reflective inquiryfacilitated the analysis of preservice teachers' prior beliefs regardingreading instruction (Hynd &amp; Guzzetti, 1993).</p><p>In summary, reflective inquiry enables preservice teachers togenerate their own pedagogical knowledge base and to undertake ajourney into the self (Kagan, 1992). This reflection upon actionempowers preservice teachers to widen their repertoire ofinstructional strategies and thus affects their choices of novelsolutions for field problems in teaching reading.</p><p>PurposeThe purpose of this investigation was to determine the following:</p><p>(a) How does narrative inquiry elicit the implicit literacy theories and</p><p>266</p><p>Dow</p><p>nloa</p><p>ded </p><p>by [</p><p>Was</p><p>hing</p><p>ton </p><p>Stat</p><p>e U</p><p>nive</p><p>rsity</p><p> Lib</p><p>rari</p><p>es ]</p><p> at 0</p><p>1:39</p><p> 12 </p><p>Oct</p><p>ober</p><p> 201</p><p>4 </p></li><li><p>teaching metaphors of preservice teachers? and (b) What is the effectof narrative inquiry upon preservice teachers' instructional strategiesfor reading?</p><p>Method</p><p>ParticipantsFour seniors in a teacher education program at a small liberal arts</p><p>college agreed to participate in this study. The participants wererandomly selected from the accessible population of 27 studentteachers, which consisted of only females. Their selection wasdesigned to reflect diversity in ethnicity, academic index, and age.Each preservice teacher is described below with a short biography aswell as her unique characteristics. Pseudonyms have been used toprotect the participants' privacy.</p><p>Carmen. Carmen was a 49-year-old immigrant from Guyanawith a GPA of 3.5. She enrolled in college after raising two boys andone girl who played a major role in their mother's education. Due toher culture, Carmen was deprived of an education and was illiterateuntil her mid-20s when she began to teach herself to read bystudying her children's reading workbooks. Her own experiences withilliteracy have motivated Carmen to pursue her bachelor's degree andbecome a teacher.</p><p>Rosa. Rosa was a 22-year-old Hispanic American with a GPA of2.8. She transferred to the college after obtaining an associate's degreein early childhood education at a nearby community college. Raisedby her mother, who worked as a nurse, Rosa experienced a warm,nurturing early childhood. Rosa decided to become a teacher afterworking part time in a nursery program.</p><p>Debbie. Debbie was a 22-year-old Jewish American with a GPAof 3.4 who also transferred to the college after obtaining an associate'sdegree in early childhood education. She became motivated to teachafter experiencing the death of an 8-year-old girl she tutored. Herclose relationship with this girl fostered Debbie's love of teaching andprompted her to continue her education.</p><p>Linda. The final participant, Linda was a 21-year-old ItalianAmerican with a GPA of 3.8. She graduated with departmentalhonors and was immediately employed by her local school district.Linda has loved teaching all of her life and was constantly tutoringher peers throughout childhood. Another important influence forLinda was her third-grade teacher whose dedication and caring haveremained strong memories.</p><p>267</p><p>Dow</p><p>nloa</p><p>ded </p><p>by [</p><p>Was</p><p>hing</p><p>ton </p><p>Stat</p><p>e U</p><p>nive</p><p>rsity</p><p> Lib</p><p>rari</p><p>es ]</p><p> at 0</p><p>1:39</p><p> 12 </p><p>Oct</p><p>ober</p><p> 201</p><p>4 </p></li><li><p>Sources of DataThe materials and procedures used in this study were the</p><p>following:1. Theoretical Orientation to Reading Profile (TORP; DeFord,</p><p>1979) to assess the theoretical orientation of teachers in regard toreading.</p><p>2. Vignettes of Primary Grade Reading Problems written by theresearcher and based upon the case study method (Hughes &amp;Wedman, 1991) to ascertain the problem solving capabilities ofpreservice teachers.</p><p>3. Think-aloud protocols to record the preservice teachers' cognitivestrategies as they read the reading problem vignettes.</p><p>4. Literacy narratives written by the participants to determine theimpact of prior schooling or early childhood experiences upon theimplicit beliefs of preservice teachers and as a reflective tool tochange those beliefs.</p><p>5. Interviews were conducted to follow up comments and queriesregarding the participants' narratives or teaching metaphors and toengage in dialogue.</p><p>6. Teaching metaphors determined the participants'conceptualization of teaching or image of instructional practice.</p><p>7. Observation of preservice teachers using Classroom Analysis ofTeachers' Theoretical Orientation to Reading Instrument (Moss,1980; Richards &amp; Levitov, 1985) for assessing the theoreticalorientations that underlie preservice teachers' instructionalstrategies in regard to reading.</p><p>ProceduresThis case study was conducted in three phases during the Spring</p><p>1997 semester of the student teaching practicum, which consisted of15 weeks. Phase One of the study occurred during week 1 of thesemester before participants were assigned to primary gradeclassrooms. Participants were given the following instruments: TORP,Vignettes of Primary Grade Reading Problems, think-aloudprotocols, literacy narratives of their early childhood experiences, andteaching metaphor. Initial data collection was followed by interviewsduring weeks 2 and 3 of the semester ranging in length from 30minutes to 1 hour 30 minutes. The discussions concentrated on dataanalysis and reflections on the participants' narratives and teachingmetaphors.</p><p>268</p><p>Dow</p><p>nloa</p><p>ded </p><p>by [</p><p>Was</p><p>hing</p><p>ton </p><p>Stat</p><p>e U</p><p>nive</p><p>rsity</p><p> Lib</p><p>rari</p><p>es ]</p><p> at 0</p><p>1:39</p><p> 12 </p><p>Oct</p><p>ober</p><p> 201</p><p>4 </p></li><li><p>During Phase Two, which occurred at mid-semester week 7, theparticipants completed their teaching metaphor and literacy narrativeof their schooling history. Participants were also observed teaching aprimary grade reading lesson using the Classroom Analysis ofTeacher s Theoretical Orientation to Reading (Moss, 1980). Theobservation was conducted in Phase Two and videotaped by theresearcher. The lesson was codified at minute intervals by selecting aspecific category on the Moss instrument. In addition, eachparticipant engaged in two follow-up interviews, ranging in lengthfrom 1 hour to 1 hour 30 minutes, to discuss data analysis as well astheir teaching metaphor and literacy narratives.</p><p>Finally, Phase Three occurred during week 15 of the semester.The participants completed the TORP, Vignettes of Primary GradeReading Problems, think-aloud protocols, teaching metaphors, andliteracy narratives of their student teaching practicum. Eachparticipant engaged in one follow-up interview, 1 hour 30 minutes inlength, to reflect upon the data analysis for Phase Three as well as tosummarize the study. Each participant averaged 3 hours 30 minutesof interview time for the entire study.</p><p>Data AnalysisMiles and Huberman's (1994) data reduction techniques were</p><p>used to analyze the descriptive data. The data reduction methodconsisted of the following: (a) categorizing and pattern matching, (b)data display through matrices, and (c) conclusion drawing andverifying. Resulting themes were analyzed for patterns and trends.Initial codes were used for preliminary analysis of the narratives,interviews, and metaphors. The initial codes were (a) criticalincidents in early childhood/school and (b) metaphors andinstructional approaches (phonics, skills, whole language). A criticalincident was defined as an important or altering event that affectedthe participants' literacy history. As new categories, such as rolemodels, emerged from the data, they were added.</p><p>The think-aloud protocols were codified using Roskos andWalker's (1994) categorization of the sources of preservice teachers'pedagogical knowledge. They were the following: (a) receivedknowingnon-referenced rationales, (b) subjective knowingassumptions about the learner or generic actions, and (c) proceduralknowingfacts about the learner in the vignette used to form asolution.</p><p>269</p><p>Dow</p><p>nloa</p><p>ded </p><p>by [</p><p>Was</p><p>hing</p><p>ton </p><p>Stat</p><p>e U</p><p>nive</p><p>rsity</p><p> Lib</p><p>rari</p><p>es ]</p><p> at 0</p><p>1:39</p><p> 12 </p><p>Oct</p><p>ober</p><p> 201</p><p>4 </p></li><li><p>Miles and Huberman's (1994) cross validation method was usedto validate the data analysis. The researcher divided the data in halfand the findings of the first data sample were applied to the secondhalf of data for confirmation. Three coders also participated in thecoding for an interrater reliability of 96.12% using Miles andHubermans interrater formula.</p><p>Results and DiscussionData analysis determined several patterns that were unique to</p><p>each participant and closely linked to their literacy narrative.Therefore, patterns present in individual cases will be discussed first,followed by cross-case analysis.</p><p>CarmenThe themes that emerged from Carmen's data analysis were</p><p>literacy conflict, gender role behavior, teacher as child advocate,phonetic orientation, and reflect...</p></li></ul>


View more >