theory–practice dichotomy in inquiry: meanings and preservice teacher–mentor teacher tension in...

ARTICLE IN PRESS

0742-051X/$ - s

doi:10.1016/j.ta

�Tel.: +90 5

E-mail addr

Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 889–900

www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

Theory–practice dichotomy in inquiry: Meanings and preserviceteacher–mentor teacher tension in Turkish literacy classrooms

Derya Yayli�

Department of Turkish Language Teaching, Faculty of Education, Pamukkale University, Incilipinar, Denizli 20020, Turkey

Received 9 July 2007; received in revised form 4 October 2007; accepted 25 October 2007

Abstract

This study aims at exploring the meanings constructed by preservice teachers of literacy about theory–practice

dichotomy and investigating the preservice teacher–mentor teacher tension during the internship period. Qualitative data

were collected by preservice teachers as researchers in inquiry through field notes, reflective journals, observation reports

and open-ended survey questions. Findings are discussed with respect to theory–practice dichotomy and constructed

meanings are obtained. High self-efficacy beliefs of preservice teachers of literacy, mentor teacher indifference and

supervisor–mentor teacher dichotomy seem to have a lot to do with the preservice teacher–mentor teacher tension.

r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Preservice teacher education; Literacy; Theory–practice dichotomy; Tension

1. Introduction

The engagement model of literacy development,put forward by Guthrie and Wigfield (2000),combines all instructional processes and contextualfactors that account for literacy outcomes. Themodel includes learning and knowledge goals, real-world interactions, autonomy support, interestingtexts, strategy instruction, praise and rewards,evaluation, teacher involvement, and the coherenceof instructional processes. These aspects cooperatewith motivation, strategy use, conceptual knowl-edge and social interactions to reach the desiredachievement, knowledge and practices. The extentto which students master achievement, knowledgeand practices heavily relies on their engagement.

ee front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

te.2007.10.004

33 253 21 61.

ess: [email protected]

That is, increasing engagement is the key to desiredliteracy outcomes (Guthrie & Wigfield, 2000). Thus,each aspect constitutes an important link in theengagement chain.

The International Reading Association (IRA,2007) states that a successful literacy comprehensioninstruction calls for teachers who are knowledge-able, strategic, adaptive and reflective. Teacherinvolvement is ‘‘the teacher’s knowledge of indivi-dual learners, caring about their progress, andpedagogical understanding of how to foster theiractive participation’’ (Guthrie & Wigfield, 2000,p. 415). Research has shown that teacher involve-ment has a significant effect on student engagement,which later results in positive student outcomes(Skinner & Belmont, 1993; Skinner, Wellborn, &Connell, 1990). A well-raised literacy teacher will beable to understand the components of a successfulreading comprehension instruction in the classroom

.

www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2007.10.004

mailto:[email protected]

ARTICLE IN PRESSD. Yayli / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 889–900890

(Williams, 2002) and has positive effect on studentachievement (Ruddell, 1995; Wharton-McDonald,Pressley, & Hampston, 1998). However, too manyteachers are believed not to be prepared enough tocope with the complex structure of reading com-prehension instruction (Reutzel, Camperell, &Smith, 2002). Also, they are not instructed well inmental modelling, scaffolding, lesson alignment anddifficulties in direct instruction of strategies (Duffy,2002; Pressley, 2002) to foster self-regulated learn-ing. Thus, they cannot create rich literacy environ-ments (Tracey & Morrow, 2002) to be highlyinvolved teachers of literacy.

2. Conceptual framework

2.1. Preservice teachers as researchers: inquiry-

oriented internship

In literacy teacher education, not only instruc-tion-based knowledge gained at colleges and uni-versities but fieldwork experience of preserviceteachers is thought to be critical as well (Grisham,2000). Research suggests that when prospectiveteachers are confronted with experienced andsuccessful literacy teachers in schools, they arepositively influenced (Levin, 1995). On the otherhand, ineffective models may cause them to deviatefrom the methodology they received in theirpreparation programs (Dowhower, 1990) as pre-service teachers place a very important role on theirmentor teachers (Mallette, Kile, Smith, McKinney,& Readence, 2000). Therefore, according to Bean(1997), a successful placement must be deliberatelyplanned in order to provide potential literacyteachers with effective models to follow.

Recently, there has been a movement from what

to teach towards how to teach in teacher education(Anders, Hoffman, & Duffy, 2000; Short & Burke,1989; Zeichner, 1983) in order to better understandthe real classroom conditions. The new paradigm isbacked up by the constructivist theory of teachingand learning methodology, which values learner-centred initiative in education, through which asuccessful learner constructs knowledge in a mean-ingful way. This requires learning to be an activeand social process.

In Alvermann’s (1990) view, there are threeapproaches to reading teacher education: tradi-tional craft approach, competency-based approachand inquiry-oriented approach. The traditionalcraft approach is the least structured one leaving

the preservice teacher and the mentor teachertogether hoping that the novice teacher could learneverything from the ‘master’ mentor teacher. Thecompetency-based approach requires pre- and post-assessment of learning activities and skills tobe mastered. Finally, inquiry-oriented approachis based on problem solving, critical thinking,self-regulated field learning (Gordon, Dembo, &Hocevar, 2007; Zimmerman, 1995; Zimmerman &Martinez-Pons, 1988), theory–practice balancing(Fenstermacher, 1994) and reflective practice(Schon, 1983). That is to say, inquiry-orientedapproach is backed up by the elements of learner-centred constructivism, and therefore a literacyteacher trained in inquiry-oriented approach isexpected to reflect on the field experience, to try tosolve the problems on the spot, to establish abalance between theory and practice, and also toconduct case studies (Darling-Hammond, 2000) inthe classroom, which is a social setting.

2.2. Meaning construction

In their classroom practicum, preservice teachersas researchers construct meanings which are combi-nations of beliefs and knowledge. Mallette et al.(2000) found that preservice teachers constructmeanings using their existing meanings as a startingpoint. These meanings account for how beliefs andepistemologies, which are conceptions of what iscalled legitimate knowledge and how you knowwhat you think you know (Schon, 1995), areformed. Korthagen (2001) makes a distinctionbetween theory and Theory, stating the formerstands for knowledge in use and the latter for off-context scientific information. Fenstermacher (1994)makes a similar distinction using the terms proposi-

tional knowledge and performance knowledge. Pre-service teachers start experiencing in the field wherethey need to balance between theory (propositionalknowledge) and practice (performance knowledge)to construct their own meanings. Thus, meaningconstruction should be considered as a significantprocess in teacher education.

2.3. Theory– practice dichotomy and preservice

teacher– mentor teacher tension

Guthrie and Wigfield’s (2000) teacher involve-ment is based on quality in teacher education, whichis a complicated process. The best teacher educationprogram has to provide preservice teachers with

ARTICLE IN PRESSD. Yayli / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 889–900 891

field experience consistent with theory (IRA, 2007).To reach the best, it is important for pre-service teachers to understand the nature of field-work and experience in schools. This view isbased upon inquiry, which dates back to Dewey’s(1929) notion of knowledge for teaching. Ifteachers are trained in inquiry, according toDarling-Hammond (2000), they ‘‘learn how to lookat the world from multiple perspectives, includingthose of students whose experiences are quitedifferent from their own’’ and they ‘‘becomesensitive to variation’’ (p. 170). By acting so, theyare trained as researchers conducting their owncase studies.

The university coursework training and micro-teaching sessions of preservice teachers of literacyare one hand, and their field experience is the other.After appropriate instruction, preservice teachersface their mentor teachers in the fieldwork. If thementors are effective teachers, preservice teachersare well guided with their modelling (Risko,Roskos, & Vukelich, 2002; Shefelbine & Shiel,1990; Wolf, Ballentine, & Hill, 2000); if they arenot, some struggle to defend the methodologylearned and become critical (Bean, 2000; Malletteet al., 2000), while some others may choose tocomply with their mentors and forget about theoryand research (Moore, 2003) as contextual factorscould have a certain impact on the teachers’teaching in the real classroom (Duffy & Anderson,1984). Research findings attract the attention tothe need for exploring how theory and practiceare treated in educational settings and also howpreservice teachers and mentor teachers interactregarding this treatment.

In recent years, theory–practice dichotomy andpreservice teacher–mentor teacher relationship havebecome the interest of the researchers. Someresearch suggests that theory is lost to some extentduring practicum and practice takes over thecontrol (Hascher, Cocard, & Moser, 2004). It isalso research proven that university professors,mentor teachers, and preservice teachers perceivethe significance of research and practice differently(Joram, 2007). Professors value theory and researchhighly, whereas preservice teachers think researchhas little to do with what is going on in theclassroom. Mentor teachers fall somewhere in themiddle, mostly consistent with preservice teachers.The nature of the shift from theory to practice andthe possible effect of preservice teacher–mentorteacher relationship on this shift need more

exploration as they might account for the dynamicsof inquiry-oriented internship.

In Volante and Earl’s (2002) study, preserviceteachers reported the difficulty of implementingtheory into the classroom owing to the conservativenature of schools. Some preservice teachers statedthat they tried to please their mentors by acting likethem in the classroom. Likewise, Moore (2003)found that preservice teachers mostly adopted thestyle and method of their mentor teachers even ifthey were in conflict with what they learned at theuniversity. Preservice teachers reported that theydid not want to risk disapproval of their mentors.Pleasing the mentor teacher seemed to be their mainconcern. On the other hand, Levin and Rock (2003)searched for the effects of collaborative actionresearch to find that one preservice teacher of thefive participants came up with some negative viewsabout her mentor teacher. This tension was held asa part of the practice and no connection was madebetween theory and practice. When findings fromprevious research are considered, it seems critical toknow whether preservice teachers go betweentheory and practice with a tension against theirmentors or only experience ‘‘particular combina-tions of knowing’’ (Ottesen, 2007b, p. 621) emergingfrom preservice teachers’ and mentor teachers’accounting practices.

2.4. Teacher education in Turkey

In Turkey, primary and secondary teachereducation is mainly held in 4-year programmesunder the supervision of faculties of education ofuniversities. In addition to that, these faculties offerthree-semester graduate programmes for the grad-uates of faculties of Letters, Science, Arts and someothers in order to raise teachers for the secondaryschools of the Ministry of National Education.Recently, there has been a movement of change inall curricula of teacher education programmes aswell as primary and secondary education curriculaadopting constructivist implementations in theoryand practice. The course books have been rewrittenand teachers have attended in-service teachertraining sessions to be acquainted with newmethodology and course books. C- akıroglu andC- akıroglu (2003) believe that importing theoryfrom other countries has always created a theory–practice dichotomy in the Turkish education sys-tem. Thus, the latest movement could be consideredto be a period of newly imported change, which is


relatively late compared with those in the UnitedStates and Western Europe. That is why teachereducation must be supported by a great deal ofresearch in order to help educational administra-tors, scientists, researchers and teachers to reflect onthe changing atmosphere in Turkey.

2.5. This study

Previous studies shed a light on the issues ofteacher education concerning theory–practice andpreservice teacher–mentor teacher relations. How-ever, the tension between preservice teachers andmentor teachers and the probable roots of thistension in theory–practice dichotomy require moreattention. Although the problem of preserviceteacher–mentor teacher tension has been mentionedin several studies, it has been under-discussed inteacher education literature. Also, the previousresearch has underestimated the relationship be-tween this tension and theory–practice dichotomy.

Every individual is expected to have his or her ownculture of thinking (Joram, 2007), and that culture ofthinking might be shaped within their community.Different cultures have their own way of verbalizingproblems and tensions; that is to say, differentindividuals from different cultures construct theirmeanings and tensions differently. Epistemologies ofpreservice teachers in different cultures are a helpfulsource and strength (Gitlin, 2000) for thinking overthe value of research in teacher education. Thus,more descriptive teacher education research is neededin different communities (Moran, 2007), particularlyin the field of literacy teacher education (Anderset al., 2000; Cobb et al., 2006) in order to look intothe meaning of construction processes in differentsettings and the nature of preservice teacher–mentorteacher tension.

This study tries to investigate the meaningsTurkish literacy preservice teachers construct abouttheory–practice dichotomy and the tension betweenpreservice teachers and mentor teachers based onthis dichotomy. Thus, it aims at finding answers tothe following research questions in order to providethe field of literacy teacher education with morecritical narratives:

(a)
What do theory and practice mean to preserviceteachers of literacy?
(b)
What is the nature of preservice teacher–mentorteacher tension in literacy classroom consideringtheory–practice dichotomy?
3. Method

3.1. Participants

Participants were 90 preservice teachers (47 femalesand 43 males with age range from 21 to 30) from theDepartment of Turkish Language Teaching at aTurkish urban university and 15 teachers of Turkishlanguage (7 females and 8 males) from the 6th, 7thand 8th grades of 3 urban schools. The teachingexperience the participant teachers had at the time ofstudy ranged from 5 to 28 years. The 90 preserviceteachers who volunteered to participate in the studywere those enrolled in a 4-year teacher educationundergraduate programme in literacy. They took anobligatory 4-h methodologies course along with apracticum course, the second in three consecutivecourses, for which they had to observe a classroom4h a week in the fall semester (3 months) of theschool year. In the spring semester (3 months), theycontinued with the third course observing as well asteaching in their practicum classrooms. Preserviceteachers were assigned to 15 intact classroomsrandomly and 15 teachers agreed to mentor them inthe practicum sessions. That is, each mentor teacherworked with and was observed by 6 preserviceteachers, and this process was supervised by theresearcher (author) in this study. Preservice teacherstook the roles of researchers observing, reflecting, andcollaborating to produce data in which responses tothe research questions were inherent.

3.2. Procedure and data collection

In the fall semester, throughout the methodolo-gies course, preservice teachers were supposed tostudy theory in literacy and have microteachingsessions. They studied literacy issues, problems,practice and balancing theory with practice. Inmicroteaching sessions, they tried to apply whatthey had learned in the course. In the springsemester, they went on observing and startedteaching in their assigned schools. Qualitative datawere collected through field notes, reflective journalsand observation reports. After the spring semester,when preservice teachers completed their teachingsessions, their stances were also surveyed with open-ended questions. They were not directly instructedor asked to pay attention to theory–practicedichotomy or the preservice teacher–mentor teachertension. Data analysis of the study was confined tothe research questions.


3.2.1. Field notes

Preservice teachers were asked to take notes intheir fieldwork concerning anything in the class-room. Their notes included instant notes on theirobservation, teaching practice, problems and theirindividual solutions to problems.

3.2.2. University classroom discussions

At the end of every week, preservice teacherscame together to reflect on their observations madeduring the week, and to discuss on the problems andsuggest solutions with the help of theory. Throughgroup work, they became critical about everythingthey experienced in the real and artificial (micro-teaching) classroom settings. University classroomdiscussions also helped preservice teachers developthe quality of their field notes by reflecting on oneanother’s notes so that they could generate furtherdata for reflective journals.

3.2.3. Reflective journals

Preservice teachers also kept reflective journals inwhich they wrote weekly reflections on theirobservations of their peers in the university class-room and of their mentor teachers in the threeschools. The points and findings from the classroomdiscussions were also additional journal entries.Hatton and Smith (1995) discovered different typesof writing in journals: descriptive writing, descrip-tive reflection, dialogic reflection and critical reflec-tion. They found that most of the writing wasdescriptive reflection and little was critical. Thisstudy searched the journals mainly for ‘criticalreflection’ among the four types.

3.2.4. Observation reports

Preservice teachers in groups of six collaboratedin observing each of the 15 mentor teachers andtheir classrooms during literacy classes and eachgroup came together to write a semester final report.Throughout observation, they paid attention toteaching behavior and teacher talk. In their reports,they wrote about their observations with someverbatim teacher talk, and commented on the realclassroom conditions and their mentor teacherswith respect to what they studied in methodologiescourse.

3.2.5. Survey questions

At the end of the spring semester, the 90preservice teachers were asked to answer open-ended survey questions about their perceptions of

themselves and their mentor teachers as literacyteachers, about their practice in practicum, andabout their relationship with the mentor teachers.Their collected stances were later analyzed regard-ing to what extent they and their mentors weresuccessful in balancing theory and practice. Thetension emerging from theory–practice dichotomywas also investigated in the responses of theparticipant preservice teachers.

3.3. Data analysis

Qualitative data analysis began immediately afterthe fall semester. A theme-coding, revising andrecoding system was applied to analyze the vastdata collected (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998). Theresearch questions of the study helped to constructa predetermined framework to better analyze thelarge amount of data (Joram, 2007; Ottesen, 2007a).The theme-coding of the data was multiple checkedby the author and by another scientist from the fieldin order not to miss or skip any valuable informa-tion (Levin & Rock, 2003). Data from varioussources (field notes, journals, observation reportsand survey) made significant contribution to thereliability of the findings as it provided datatriangulation. For reliability, valid data from thosesources were cross-tabulated onto matrices. Ex-cerpts taken from the data were translated fromTurkish by the author.

4. Findings and discussion

Data were analyzed to answer the predeterminedresearch questions and theme-coded accordingly.The themes were confined into and discussed underthe subheadings derived from research questions.Some sample excerpts from the large number ofwritings of the individual participant preserviceteachers and observation group reports were in-cluded in the discussion with pseudonyms to protecttheir identities.

4.1. What do theory and practice mean to preservice

teachers of literacy?

4.1.1. Theory

Data analysis revealed some interesting findingsabout preservice teachers’ meanings of theory. They(86%) perceive theory as a crucial starting point forthe practice sessions they have in the internship.Theory, to them, is a good source of knowledge,


experience and research. However, they do notsound comfortable and convinced about the re-search dimension of theory they are usuallyconfronted with in their textbooks or in othersources. Almost half of the participant preserviceteachers (44%) stated that theory they learn inmethodologies courses is not domestic; that is, it ismainly based on research in other countries,particularly in the USA.

I think it is somewhat weird to talk about theorywhen it is not ours. Our conditions hardly matchthose in the USA or Europe. (Ahmet)They do research in other countries, write booksand some Turkish person translates the thingsinto Turkish. Why don’t we just produce ourtheory? (Hande)We think that Turkish scientists must do some-thing for us to make a better balance of theoryand practice. The financial, cultural and tradi-tional structures of the countries where we taketheory from are not the same as ours. (Kadir-Okan-Sevim-Sultan-Hasan-Halis)Almost all the names (of the scientists) we see inour textbooks are those of foreign people. Theyare mostly American. What is going on in Turkeymust be different from the things in the USA,isn’t it? (Alev)Yes, we read some theory in books and articles.However, when they talk about some theorybased on research in the US, for example, Icannot imagine what is going on there. I don’tknow how they live, what their likes and dislikesare, etc. (Kadir)

Considering the stances above, it is possible tostate that Turkish preservice teachers of literacythink imported research is not suitable and hardlymatches our practice in the classroom as it (1) is adirect translation and transfer without taking intoaccount Turkish setting, (2) covers names of foreignresearchers and (3) is not easy to understandwithout knowing the society in which it wasconducted.

Despite the oppositions mentioned above, almosthalf of the participants did not utter a word againstforeign theory. On the contrary, they referred to andquoted from others’ research while discussingtheory–practice relationship. Even the participantswith negative stances against imported theory tookthe existing theory and research as a base for theirdiscussions and observations as well:

My friend did everything well in terms of theconstructivist view. (Hakan)I think my mentor should be more aware ofreading strategies. (Sevim)My mentor has a strict control of the class andnever leaves the floor to a student. He doesn’tlike being interrupted while speaking and easilygets angry. So, we call this learner-centredinstruction? (Hande)She (mentor teacher) kept on asking lower levelquestions. Those questions make her classesmechanical and unbearable. (Sultan)I don’t understand why teachers don’t do any-thing with the off-task behaviour of the pupils.(Orhan)Turkish literacy instruction has lots of things todo in order to meet the expectations. We meanour expectations. We should begin with moreserious inservice training sessions for the teachersin schools. (Atakan-Ayla-Ozan-Jale-Tuncay-Necla)

These are merely a few examples from thereflective practice of preservice teachers. Althoughthe preservice teachers complain about im-ported theory, they rely on it while constructingtheir meanings, that is to say, they use avai-lable theory as a starting point (Mallette et al.,2000). Furthermore, when they become criticalabout their peers and mentor teachers, theyverbalize what Fenstermacher (1994) calls pro-

positional knowledge free from the teaching contextand it is interesting that they frequently use thescientific terminology like ‘constructivism’, ‘reflec-tion’, ‘comprehension strategies’, ‘feedback’, ‘lear-ner-centred’.

This situation appears to be a point of conflict inpreservice teachers’ minds. They have to use anddepend on the research conducted in other countrieseven though a considerable number do not enjoydoing so. Some proponents of local and nativeresearch might have a nationalistic motive or beinfluenced by some native scholars. It is alsoanother fact that preservice teachers do not valueresearch of any origin as much as their professorsdo (Joram, 2007). However, this study proves thatthey value research more highly than their mentorteachers, which differs from the findings of Joram(2007). The reason for this could be the fact thatthey are more exposed to new theory than mentorteachers, who do not receive sufficient in-servicetraining in Turkey.


4.1.2. Practice

Practice is ‘‘the kind of activity central to thedevelopment of spontaneous concepts and impli-cated in the development of scientific concepts’’(Smagorinsky, Cook, & Johnson, 2003, p. 1406).Most of the preservice teachers in the study statedthat it is not easy to foresee those spontaneous

concepts in the classroom of literacy from theuniversity classroom. They came to classroom readyto solidify theory and eager to become perfectteachers. They valued theory highly during observa-tion and when it came to their teaching practice,they tended to sympathize more with their mentorteachers, mostly in despair:

When I was observing my mentor teacher, I oftensaid ‘‘Why doesn’t he do this and that?’’ in mycomfortable desk. However, no sooner had Istarted teaching in the same classroom than I feltas if I would never be able to be a good teacher.(Serap)Practice in the classroom made me under-stand that theory does NOT work well here.Yes, what my mentor teacher was right: This is adifferent world. Different from what is ideal.(Sevim)We don’t say that theory is trash, but practice isreally tough. There are lots of dimensions youshould take care of. You cannot feel secure evenif you are very good at theory. It is essential todiscover and learn about the atmosphere in theclassroom. After a good practice, theory could berevisited to assess what happened during thepractice. (Imge-Zehra-Necmi-Meral-Buket-Nuri)I think practice must come first and theory next.Why couldn’t I do things as written in the book?(Zehra)I think my mentor is right. I am reallydisappointed here. I promised myself not to,but I am. My supervisor will be unhappy to hearthat. (Okan)The constructivist theory of learning is OK, butthe kids in the classroom are not aware of that.Neither is the (mentor) teacher! (Ahmet)We just go to schools like a blind person walkingin the street. In our first experience we are allstunned and disappointed. Our relations with theschool settings must be more frequent and betterplanned starting from the first observation phase.We hope more practice will be useful to under-stand why theory is important. (Arif-Hacer-Caner-Serap-Ali-Ayhan)

If only we had had more practice in this four-yeareducation! (Devrim)

Almost 70% of the preservice teachers state thatpractice is more important than theory as everybodymust experience the real classroom setting tounderstand what teaching is. They also (almostall) believe that university–school cooperation inTurkey is quite weak, and this link should bestrengthened. That is why more or efficient practiceat schools is needed as emphasized in the reflectivepractice of preservice teachers of literacy.

To some preservice teachers, disappointmentmainly stems from their management problems ofclassroom and time. Their stances reveal that theyhad difficulty in applying theory into practice dueto lack of these management skills. Some ofthem (64%) stated that they really wanted to usetheoretical knowledge in the classroom but the timeand discipline obstacles prevented them fromdoing so:

They (students) are so noisy and the (mentor)teacher doesn’t do anything to stop that racket!How am I supposed to be a learner-centredconstructivist teacher in noise? (Nalan)Teaching is so hard, especially when youtalk about classroom management and timing.(Serap)Working with small children is a really difficultjob. (Taner)I planned everything very well before my teach-ing practice and I felt ready for anything.However, things turned to be unexpected in theclassroom. I was slow, there were too manystudent questions, and some students were notlistening. I almost cried. The next time, I didn’tplan well and I felt better. (Ayhan)When you are nervous, you lose all the control.Once you lose the control, you forget everythingyou know. (Fatih)Why can’t I use time efficiently to keep up withthe proposed curriculum pace? (Sevim)

These opinions of preservice teachers aboveindicate that they panic when they are confrontedwith unexpected problems. While they are confes-sing about their mistakes, they somewhat put theblame on theory again. They perceive theory assomething threatening their freedom and confi-dence. Thus, they are inclined to let practice takeover the control (Hascher et al., 2004).


Preservice teachers (89%) believe that the field-work gave them a sense of development in boththeory and practice. In their words, they emphasizethat theory and practice are inseparable. Topreservice teachers, practice means the most im-portant phase of teacher education, and being aresearcher in the classroom should be an inevitablepart of practice. That is, they wholeheartedlysupport the inquiry in preservice teacher education.This feeling gets stronger and more visible in theirlate writings:

I am very different from what I was in thebeginning. I have learned a lot about methodol-ogy and real school conditions. I wish I hadstarted my practicum earlier as a researcher.(Ayhan)If you a are teacher and want to improveyourself, you must be a researcher observingthe classroom all the time. The research we haveconducted is of great value to us. (Kadir-Okan-Sevim-Sultan-Hasan-Halis)This year has been the greatest at the universityas I have understood what it is to be a teacher forthe first time. (Kadir)We, as prospective teachers of literacy, feel luckyfor experiencing an inquiry in a real classroomsetting. We also understand that it requires a lotto become a successful teacher. It has beenreal fun, though. (Altan-Mehmet-Rukiye-Ceyda-Selin-Ata)Now I feel sort of ready to swim in the ocean ofteaching. (Can)

4.2. What is the nature of preservice teacher– mentor

teacher tension in literacy classroom considering

theory– practice dichotomy?

The preservice teacher–mentor teacher tensionportrayed a slight change from the beginning to theend of the inquiry. Early reflection and observationof preservice teachers revealed that they had afeeling of knowing a lot about teaching. Theybecame highly critical in their observations saying:

I can replace with my mentor teacher easilytomorrow. I know better and haven’t learnedanything from him. (Ali)Old teachers do not know anything aboutmethods and constructivist view. I think theyare tired of teaching and waiting for theirretirement. This practice will not help me at all.(Lale)

When we take our places in schools, I think a lotof things will change. (Murat)There are only small techniques that I can learnfrom my mentor teacher. Maybe I can teach herhow to teach in the classroom. She doesn’t treatstudents as individuals. She teaches in a tradi-tional way. Her classes are so boring! Maybe Ican learn what I shouldn’t be like. (Sultan)My mentor’s method is somewhat traditional,but in the classroom I teach like her, whichmakes her very happy. I don’t want to look like asuperb teacher in her classroom. That mightoffend her. (Taner)

Early notes and reflections of preservice teachersrevealed that they hardly consulted their mentorteachers about theory. They usually talked to theirmentors about issues like time management, class-room management, textbooks and individual stu-dents. They reported that 9 of the 15 mentorteachers told them to forget about what theylearned at university and that they could not discussthat in order not to offend their mentors. Preserviceteachers preferred to discuss such issues with theirpeers in the classroom and put them in theirjournals and reports. They (50%) also mentionedthis problem in the survey given to them at the endof the spring semester. However, their criticalbehaviour towards the mentors began to change asthey practised in the real classroom. They continuedrespecting theory but they started verbalizing thedifficulties of teaching in the classroom. Accord-ingly, the theoretical tension decreased and morecases of mentor–mentee talk appeared in theirwritings:

My mentor used a very good technique yester-day. I think I can use it as well. (Okan)We (with the mentor) decided to meet and talkabout the things happening in the classroomregularly. (Ayhan)My mentor says I am doing fine and that shelearns from me. That is very encouraging. (Emre)Another point preservice teachers made in theirwritings was that there appeared to be sometension emerging from individual and situationalfactors:Last week, when I talked about some problems Iobserved and asked questions, she seemed a bitdisturbed and didn’t listen. I think I shouldchoose some other discussion topics. (Sinan)


My mentor is usually in a changeable mood. Icannot decide when to communicate with her.(Kerim)My mentor speaks little outside the classroom. Iwant to learn from his experience but he is tooreserved. He normally gives me short answers.(Pelin)

Many preservice teachers (46%) consider theirsupervisor as a source of knowledge and tend toreflect on every practice issue accordingly. Thiscauses the tension to increase between the preserviceteacher and the mentor teacher as the supervisor isconsidered to be knowledgeable while the mentorteacher is not:

I frequently wished my supervisor was with me inthe classroom so that I could ask instantquestions. (Hacer)I know my mentor is an experienced teacher, butexperience is not everything. My supervisor is notas experienced as he is, but he (supervisor)sounds to be the very person to consult to.(Meltem)When I thought I made a mistake, I rememberedmy supervisor and imagined him giving mefeedback. (Umut)I think I should have listened to my supervisorwith more attention in the methodologies course.I sometimes suffer from the need for spontaneousdecisions. (Ali)

Findings from this study indicate that preserviceteacher–mentor teacher tension has various sources.At the beginning of the internship period, the mainproblem seemed to be the fact that preserviceteachers went to their classroom with a high feelingof self-confidence and self-efficacy. They believedthey knew everything about teaching better thantheir mentors. Depending on their knowledge oftheory was the first reason for the tension in thebeginning. Some preservice teachers and mentorsreduced this tension in time as the practiceprogressed whereas some others endured it untilthe end of the internship period. This findingindicates that preservice teachers might go betweentheory and practice with a tension against theirmentors, or they might choose to experienceparticular combinations of knowing from theiraccounting practices with mentor teachers (Ottesen,2007b) sometimes by complying with their mentors(13%), pretending to adopt the methodology of the

mentors (7%), and thus not risking their disap-proval (Moore, 2003).

The second reason for tension was the indifferentmentors who neglected their mentees. Some pre-service teachers had a difficult time in settingcommunication with their mentor teachers resultingfrom some personal traits, which could just be apart of the practice (Levin & Rock, 2003).

Finally, perceiving the supervisor as the symbolfor theory and knowledge made some preserviceteachers construct a supervisor–mentor teacherdichotomy. This dichotomy caused tension betweenpreservice teachers and mentor teachers, which wasnot easy to overcome. Preservice teachers tended tocompare and contrast between their supervisor andmentors, and many of them came up with the ideathat their mentors could hardly contribute to theirteaching practice.

5. Conclusions and implications

5.1. Limitations of the study

This study focused on the written statements ofpreservice teachers on theory–practice dichotomyand preservice teacher–mentor teacher tension inTurkish schools. In order to avoid biased resultsand speaking for the researcher effect, data werecollected indirectly. Therefore, some significantinformation might have remained hidden.

The theory–practice dichotomy and the tension inthe classroom were investigated depending on datafrom stances of preservice teachers. Thus, futureresearch could extend this study including thestances of mentor teachers and supervisors alongwith those of preservice teachers.

5.2. Meanings and tension

Preservice teachers of literacy in Turkey believethat theory taught in the university classroom isbased on imported research. Translating fromforeign research, seeing foreign names in textbooksand not knowing much about education in othercountries make some of them construct negativemeanings about theory. Therefore, their participa-tion in the study as researchers made them implicatefor more domestic theory. They do not completelythrow away the research findings in other countries;on the contrary, they try to take this scientificknowledge as a reference. To them, theory meansthe main source of scientific knowledge that should


be taken into consideration in practice. It was notedin the early observation notes and reflections of thepreservice teachers that they become very criticalabout their peers and mentor teachers with respectto theory (Mallette et al., 2000). They do notquickly forget the theory in the real classroom. Thismight happen as a result of their search for theoryto base everything on.

The preservice teachers in this study yielded highpriority to theory. At first, they saw the fieldworkas a testing area of their university knowledge(Smagorinsky et al., 2003). However, as theypractised their teaching in a real setting, some ofthem tended to forget about theory because a lot ofthem had difficult time in classroom and timemanagement, which corroborates Moore’s (2003)study. Findings suggest that 64% of the participantpreservice teachers partly (not completely) changedtheir meanings about theory and practice in a shorttime. However, few of them seemed to adopt themethodology of their mentor teachers, and very fewpretended to adopt to make their mentor teachershappy (Volante & Earl, 2002). It is certain that thereis a change in meanings as well as skills andknowledge (Hascher et al., 2004; Moran, 2007)throughout the preservice teacher education pro-cess. That is, the meanings preservice teachersconstruct during preservice education are highlyvulnerable to change and they need continuousscaffolding. Thus, careful planning in placement ofpreservice teachers (Bean, 1997) and in-servicetraining are of critical importance.

At the end of their research and practice period,the preservice teachers ended up with positiveattitudes towards the practice they had. Almosthalf of them believe that more time should bedevoted to university–school partnership and men-tor teachers should also be trained as researchers.Some stated that their practice was a good butpainful transition between roles, from student roleto teacher role and that they could learn frominefficient teachers as well as the efficient ones(Ottesen, 2007b).

When preservice teachers start their research atschools, they suffer from moving along the theory–practice continuum. They start with rigid loyalty totheory, but in time they develop a sense of under-standing the conservative nature of schools (Volante& Earl, 2002). The theoretical instruction theyreceive at universities makes them think that theyare highly knowledgeable and that they can over-come anything in real settings. This feeling of self-

efficacy is seriously injured during the practice.Thus, a balanced instruction of theory and practiceshould be introduced from the very beginning.

As interaction with mentor teachers improvesduring the practice period, preservice teachers feelcloser to their mentors. Accordingly, the preserviceteacher–mentor teacher tension is reduced to someextent. Therefore, social ground should be carefullystructured from the very beginning of the univer-sity–school partnership. Preservice teachers shouldparticipate in inquiry in order to better understandand to be able to solve their instant problems asconscious researchers. Inquiry in preservice and in-service teacher education should be fostered toscaffold the constructivist theory.

Preservice teachers tend to create a supervisor–mentor dichotomy in their minds emerging fromtheory–practice dichotomy as a result of their actionresearch. For example, this struggle is readable in‘‘My supervisor will be unhappy to hear that’’statement. This dichotomy should be seen as one ofthe reasons for the tension in the classroom.University–school partnership, thus, should takethe supervisor into the social ground in order toestablish an ongoing interaction and a dialogueamong the preservice teacher, the mentor teacherand the supervisor.

5.3. Implications for further research

Research in literacy teacher education should besupported with different meaning constructionprocesses and tensions of preservice teachers. Thechange in meanings and its relation with preserviceteacher placement in schools (Bean, 1997; Moran,2007) should also be studied in detail. Longitudinalresearch should combine preservice teacher educa-tion with in-service teacher education to observe thelong-term expedition of meanings and tensions inchange. Also, this study revealed that a possiblerelationship between self-efficacy beliefs of preser-vice teachers and preservice teacher–mentor teachertension needs investigating.

In addition, further research paying attention topossible treatment for balancing theory and practiceand reducing tension between the preservice tea-chers and the mentor teachers in the school willcontribute to the field. Further research shouldcollect data from preservice teachers, mentorteachers and supervisors to study the clashingmeanings and epistemologies in university–schoolpartnership in order to provide researchers and


practitioners with a richer environment for reflectivepractice.

The imported methodology in Turkey should betaken into consideration for further study as anindirect reason for the tension in the classroombecause it might have an effect on the theory–practice dichotomy (C- akıroglu & C- akıroglu, 2003).This problem does not source from classroompractices or implementations, yet it is based uponpolitical and administrative dimensions of theeducation system. More research on Turkish uni-versity–school partnership will give a deeper insightinto the dichotomy and the tension; besides,depending on domestic research will make preser-vice teachers feel better.

References

Alvermann, D. E. (1990). Reading teacher education. In W. R.

Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education

(pp. 687–704). New York: Macmillan.

Anders, P. L., Hoffman, J. V., & Duffy, G. G. (2000). Teaching

teachers to teach reading: Paradigm shifts, persistent pro-

blems, and challenges. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D.

Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, Vol.

3 (pp. 719–742). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bean, T. W. (1997). Preservice teachers’ selection and use of

content area literacy strategies. Journal of Educational

Research, 90(3), 154–163.

Bean, T. W. (2000). Reading in the content areas: Social

constructivist dimensions. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal,

P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading

research, Vol. 3 (pp. 629–644). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1998). Qualitative research in

education: An introduction to theory and methods (3rd ed.).

Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Cobb, M., Fox, D. L., Many, J. E., Matthews, M. W., McGrail,

E., Sachs, G. T., et al. (2006). Mentoring in literacy education:

A commentary from graduate students, untenured professors,

and tenured professors. Mentoring & Tutoring, 14(4),

371–387.

C- akıroglu, E., & C- akıroglu, J. (2003). Reflections on teacher

education in Turkey. European Journal of Teacher Education,

26(2), 253–264.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). How teacher education matters.

Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3), 166–173.

Dewey, J. (1929). The sources of a science of education. New

York: Horace Liveright.

Dowhower, S. (1990). Students’ perceptions of early field

experiences in reading. Yearbook of the American Reading

Forum, 10, 163–179.

Duffy, G. G. (2002). The case for direct explanation of strategies.

In C. C. Block, & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension

instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 28–41).

New York: Guilford.

Duffy, G. G., & Anderson, L. (Eds.). (1984). Editorial comment:

Guest commentary: Teachers’ theoretical orientations and the

real classroom. Reading Psychology, 5(1–2), 97–104.

Fenstermacher, G. D. (1994). The knower and the known: The

nature of knowledge in research on teaching. Review of

Research in Education, 20, 3–56.

Gitlin, A. (2000). The double bind of teacher education. Teaching

Education, 11(1), 25–30.

Gordon, S. C., Dembo, M. H., & Hocevar, D. (2007). Do

teachers’ own learning behaviors influence their classroom

goal orientation and control ideology? Teaching and Teacher

Education, 23, 36–46.

Grisham, D. L. (2000). Connecting theoretical conceptions of

reading to practice: A longitudinal study of elementary school

teachers. Reading Psychology, 21(2), 145–170.

Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and motiva-

tion in reading. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D.

Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, Vol.

3 (pp. 403–422). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hascher, T., Cocard, Y., & Moser, P. (2004). Forget about

theory–practice is all? Student teachers’ learning in practicum.

Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 10(6), 623–637.

Hatton, N., & Smith, D. (1995). Reflection in teacher education:

Towards a definition and implementation. Teaching and

Teacher Education, 11(1), 33–49.

International Reading Association. (2007). Teaching reading well:

A synthesis of the International Reading Association’s research

on teacher preparation for reading instruction. Newark, DE:

Author.

Joram, E. (2007). Changing epistemologies: Aspiring teachers’,

practicing teachers’, and professors’ beliefs about knowledge

and research in education. Teaching and Teacher Education,

23, 123–135.

Korthagen, F. A. J. (2001). Linking practice and theory: The

pedagogy of realistic teacher education. In Paper presented at

the annual meeting of the American Educational Research

Association, Seattle.

Levin, B. B. (1995). Using the case method in teacher education:

The role of discussion and experience in teachers’ thinking

about cases. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11, 63–79.

Levin, B. B., & Rock, T. C. (2003). The effects of collaborative

action research on preservice and experienced teacher

partners in professional development schools. Journal of

Teacher Education, 54(2), 135–149.

Mallette, M. H., Kile, R. S., Smith, M. M., McKinney, M., &

Readence, J. E. (2000). Constructing meaning about literacy

difficulties: Preservice teachers beginning to think about

pedagogy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(5–6), 593–612.

Moore, R. (2003). Reexamining the field experiences of preservice

teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(1), 31–42.

Moran, M. J. (2007). Collaborative action research and project

work: Promising practices for developing collaborative

inquiry among early childhood preservice teachers. Teaching

and Teacher Education, 23, 418–431.

Ottesen, E. (2007a). Reflection in teacher education. Reflective

Practice, 8(1), 31–46.

Ottesen, E. (2007b). Teachers ‘‘in the making’’: Building accounts

of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 612–623.

Pressley, M. (2002). Metacognition and self-regulated compre-

hension. In A. E. Farstrup, & S. J. Samuels (Eds.),

What research has to say about reading instruction (3rd ed.,

pp. 291–309). Newark, DE: International Reading

Association.

Reutzel, D. R., Camperell, K., & Smith, J. A. (2002). Hitting the

wall: Helping struggling readers comprehend. In C. C. Block,


L. B. Gambrell, & M. Pressley (Eds.), Improving comprehen-

sion instruction: Rethinking research, theory, and classroom

practice (pp. 321–353). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Risko, V. J., Roskos, K., & Vukelich, C. (2002). Prospective

teachers’ reflection: Strategies, qualities, and perceptions in

learning to teach reading. Reading Research and Instruction,

41(2), 149–176.

Ruddell, R. B. (1995). Those influential literacy teachers:

Meaning negotiators and motivation builders. The Reading

Teacher, 48, 454–463.

Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals

think in action. New York: Basic Books.

Schon, D. A. (1995). Knowing in action: The new scholarship

requires a new epistemology. Change, 27, 27–34.

Shefelbine, J., & Shiel, G. (1990). Preservice teachers’ schemata

for a diagnostic framework in reading. Reading Research and

Instruction, 30(1), 30–34.

Short, K. G., & Burke, C. L. (1989). New potentials for teacher

education: Teaching and learning as inquiry. The Elementary

School Journal, 90(2), 193–206.

Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the

classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student

engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 85, 571–581.

Skinner, E. A., Wellborn, J. G., & Connell, J. P. (1990). What it takes

to do well in school and whether I’ve got it: A process model of

perceived control and children’s engagement and achievement in

school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 22–32.

Smagorinsky, P., Cook, L. S., & Johnson, T. S. (2003). The

twisting path of concept development in learning to teach.

Teachers College Record, 105(8), 1399–1436.

Tracey, D. H., & Morrow, L. M. (2002). Preparing young

learners for successful reading comprehension: Laying the

foundation. In C. C. Block, & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehen-

sion instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 219–233).

New York: Guilford.

Volante, L., & Earl, L. (2002). Teacher candidates’ perceptions of

conceptual orientations in their preservice program. Canadian

Journal of Education, 27(4), 419–438.

Wharton-McDonald, R., Pressley, M., & Hampston, J. M.

(1998). Literacy instruction in nine first-grade classrooms:

Teacher characteristics and student achievement. The Ele-

mentary School Journal, 99, 101–128.

Williams, J. P. (2002). Reading comprehension strategies

and teacher preparation. In A. E. Farstrup, & S. J. Samuels

(Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (3rd

ed., pp. 243–260). Newark, DE: International Reading

Association.

Wolf, S. A., Ballentine, D., & Hill, L. A. (2000). ‘‘Only connect!’’:

Cross-cultural connections in the reading lives of preservice

teachers and children. Journal of Literacy Research, 32, 5

33–569.

Zeichner, K. M. (1983). Alternative paradigms of

teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 34(3),

3–9.

Zimmerman, B. J. (1995). Self-regulation involves more than

metacognition: A social cognitive perspective. Educational

Psychologist, 30(4), 217–221.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1988). Cons-

truct validation of a strategy model of student self-

regulated learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3),

284–290.

theory–practice dichotomy in inquiry: meanings and preservice teacher–mentor teacher tension in...

Documents