lable at ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 215–224

Contents lists avai

Teaching and Teacher Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ tate

Understanding Singaporean preschool teachers’ beliefs about literacydevelopment: Four different perspectives

Christina Lim*

National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, 1 Nanyang Walk, Singapore 637616, Singapore

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 16 May 2008Received in revised form6 February 2009Accepted 6 April 2009

Keywords:Teachers’ perspectivesSingaporean preschoolQ-methodologyEarly literacy

* 39 Bournemouth Road, Singapore 439685, Singfax: þ65 62716118.

E-mail address: christina.ratnam@nie.edu.sg

0742-051X/$ – see front matter � 2009 Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.04.003

a b s t r a c t

Investigating teachers’ beliefs may shed light on their activities in the classroom, and in turn, on thepedagogical process itself. It is, however, not easy to study teachers’ beliefs empirically. Q-methodologyhas been used over several disciplines to systematically investigate individuals’ points of view on a rangeof issues. A study involving Q-methodology was conducted in Singaporean preschools to investigatesome teachers’ perceptions of early literacy development and instruction. The study revealed fourviewpoint groups among the 30 preschool teachers who participated in the study, and possible teachercharacteristics that distinguish the viewpoints from each other. The results suggest that the differences inviewpoints are indicative of differences in cultural expectations held by various groups of teachers.

� 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

In 2003, the Singapore Ministry of Education (MOE) introduceda kindergarten curriculum framework, Nurturing Early Learners,with a view to initiating curriculum innovation in the preschoolsector (Shanmugaratnam, 2003). Researchers have argued that anyeffort to change teacher practices must first take the variousperspectives and opinions held by teachers into consideration(Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2001; Goh, Zhang, Ng, & Koh, 2005; Har-wood, Hansen, & Lotter, 2006). Research evidence indicates thatteachers’ perspectives about the subject matter and content to betaught and how they think students learn, serve as a filter throughwhich they screen and decide on the learning experiences plannedfor their students (Genishi, Ryan, Ochsner, & Yarnall, 2001; Wideen,Mayer-Smith, & Moon, 1998). It is therefore critical for teachereducators and policy makers to understand the perspectives heldby early childhood teachers about young children’s development.

In this study, I was interested to investigate teachers’ perspec-tives regarding the teaching of English literacy to children inSingaporean preschools. Early literacy development is a highlycomplex issue that is hotly debated (Chall, 1983; Snow, Burns, &Griffin, 1998). Some teachers may believe that mastery of the skill ofdecoding words is crucial for reading (Adams, 2001; Roberts, 2003),

apore. Tel.: þ65 67903594;

All rights reserved.

and that this can only be achieved through behaviorist approachesof drill and practice (Soler & Openshaw, 2007). Teachers may takea basic-skills perspective, where children are expected to respondto tasks and activities following a sequence structured by theteacher. There may be some teachers who believe that childrenshould be required to practice penmanship by tracing the outlinesof letters, or given a list of words to memorize their spellings for anefficient start in literacy. On the other end of the continuum,teachers may believe in the constructivist concepts of meaningmaking, communication and free expression (Dyson, 1993; Loni-gan, Burgess, & Anthony, 2000). These teachers would encouragechildren to scribble, draw, and invent spelling as ways to developchildren’s emergent literacy abilities.

The ‘‘Great Debate’’ (Chall, 1983) over these two orientationstowards early literacy instruction is also evident in the Singaporeanpreschool context. In the Nurturing Early Learners framework, thecurriculum developers in MOE encouraged preschool teachers touse constructivist approaches to develop children’s emergentliteracy in English. These approaches included valuing children’sattempts at experimenting with speaking and writing in Englishwhile at play. The framework also promoted shared reading ofchildren’s literature, shared writing as a group, and playinglanguage games (Lim & Torr, 2008). These approaches and conceptsare distinctly different from the more behaviorist approaches theteachers were used to (Ang, 2006). Much of the teaching inSingapore schools is centered on drilling the test format throughworksheets (Cheah, 1998). Raban and Ure (1999) pointed out thatmany Singaporean early childhood teachers felt pressured by

1 The Singapore Government mandated that by 2008, all preschool teachersshould obtain either a Certificate in Preschool Teaching (CPT) or a Diploma inPreschool Education-Teaching (DPE-T). Principals of preschools should obtaina Diploma in Preschool Education-Leadership (DPE-L).

C. Lim / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 215–224216

parents and primary teachers to ensure children could read andwrite when they entered school. Such pressure emphasized thecompletion of worksheets and formal academic teacher-directedclassroom activities. Given this discrepancy between expectationsby parents and recommended pedagogical orientation by MOE, it isnecessary to investigate teachers’ perceptions of this conflict andthe stance they would take in decision making that influence theirclassroom practice.

The literature on teachers’ perspectives, however, point out thatit is not easy to study teachers’ perspectives empirically, as view-points are often unconscious and not available for consciousreflection and communication to others (Pajares, 1992; Polanyi,1967). Likewise, we cannot infer teachers’ perspectives directlyfrom their behaviour, because teachers can have very differentreasons for following similar practices (Kagan, 1992). To unpacksuch tacit knowledge, several researchers have used Q-method-ology in several disciplines to systematically investigate the pointsof view of individuals on issues or concepts (Anderson, Avery,Pederson, Smith, & Sullivan, 1997; Bracken & Fischel, 2006; Carr,1992; McKeown & Thomas, 1988; Sexton, Snyder, Wadsworth, Jar-dine, & Ernest, 1998; Taylor, Anselmo, Foreman, Scatschneider, &Angelopoulos, 2000; Taylor, Delprato, & Knapp, 1994). The methodis firmly established in the field of developmental psychology asa legitimate way to determine the perspectives of individuals(Block & Robins, 1995; Schneider, Atkinson, & Tardif, 2001; Szente,Hoot, & Ernest, 2002). The study by Bracken and Fischel (2006), forexample, applied Q-methodology to investigate the classroompractices of 66 preschool teachers and assistants in the UnitedStates. These teachers reported engaging in significantly moresocioemotional development activities than cognitive developmentactivities. The study demonstrated that the Q-method lends itselfparticularly well to the investigation of classroom practices, as theteacher-respondent had to sort a wide but fixed range of classroompractices (49 items) into categories that are characteristic of theactivities in his or her classroom. When the concern is to investigateteachers’ perspectives of educational issues, Bracken and Fischelargued that the Q-method is superior to self-report questionnairesas the latter often suffer from several flaws. Firstly, questionnairestend to be based on predetermined scales based on the researcher’sperception of the issue. In Q-methodology, respondents are pre-sented with a wide range of potential meanings, which theyorganize according to their own subjective understanding of theissue (Anderson et al., 1997). Secondly, the questionnaire items mayreflect a certain bias. Thirdly, the responses derived from ques-tionnaires may reflect currently popular maxims that toe the line ofprogram policy rather than the respondent’s actual practice orbelief. In Q-methodology, the respondent is forced to prioritize hisor her choice, and cannot place all items into the highest category,thus reducing opportunity for bias due to social desirability effects.‘‘The focus is on internal frames of reference used by eachrespondent for decision making about the relative significance ofindividual test stimuli’’ (Sexton et al., 1998, p 96).

Through factor analysis, Q-methodology is able to determinewhat is statistically different about various viewpoints, and toidentify the number of common responses that are shared bya particular group of individuals. Q-methodology is sometimescriticized for small sample sizes and the inability to generalize thefindings from the study. In reply, researchers who have usedQ-methodology argue that the results from their studies arerepresentative of the group of individuals being sampled. Theobjective of conducting factor analysis in Q-methodology is toanalyze individuals, resulting in groups of respondents thatrepresent shared viewpoints. ‘‘The result could be a single sharedperspective, reflecting a common and powerful socialization oftraining process’’ (Anderson et al., 1997, p. 337).

As part of Q-methodology, structured interviews on howrespondents decided on their choice of items to be placed on theextreme ends of the continuum helped to explain sharedperspectives or ideological differences among the groups of view-points detected. The qualitative data gathered through the inter-views helped explain and illustrate the results from the factoranalysis of the quantitative data.

Through the Q-method, I aimed to investigate:

� What perspectives do teachers of a particular preschool orga-nization hold regarding early English literacy instruction?� Are there shared perspectives among groups of teachers from

that particular preschool organization?� What are the characteristics of the shared perspectives?

2. The present study

2.1. Participants

In this study, I focused on preschool teachers in the non-profitcommunity-based kindergartens, because this group of kinder-gartens makes up more than half the number of kindergartens inSingapore. Principals of 9 kindergartens were approached to selectteachers and for permission to conduct the study at their kinder-gartens. Each kindergarten offered 3 or 4 respondents. Altogether,30 female teachers participated in the study. They were selected toparticipate in the study because they had the necessary profes-sional qualifications1 to teach in preschool. They taught various agelevels, ranging from Nursery (4 year olds) to Kindergarten 1 (5-yearolds) and Kindergarten 2 (6-year olds). Table 1 provides more detailabout the profile of the respondents.

2.2. Data collection and analysis

In this study, each session with a teacher lasted approximately45 min to an hour. Each session comprised (a) sorting the Q-set and(b) an interview about the items found at the extreme ends of thecontinuum.

2.2.1. The Q-sortEleven green-colored index cards were placed on the tabletop

surface to serve as distribution markers. These green cards indi-cated places on a continuum, with 0 reflecting a neutral point, and�5 being strongly disagree, to þ5 being strongly agree. The greencards also showed how many statement cards the participantscould place under each of the green card distribution markers. Thisprocedure ensured a quasi-normal distribution of the sorted whitecards (i.e., 2 cards (strongly disagree), 3 cards, 5 cards, 7 cards, 9cards (disagree), 10 cards (neutral), 9 cards (agree), 7 cards, 5 cards,3 cards, 2 cards (strongly agree)). Participants sat at the table andsorted the white (Q-set) cards according to instructions given andthe visual cues provided by the green cards.

Q-method researchers have advised that a forced-choicedistribution is preferable to a free distribution whereby respon-dents are allowed to place as many items as they wish in eachcategory (Sexton et al., 1998). The forced-choice distribution ‘‘tendsto reveal stable preferences and prevents individuals from resortingto the tendency to rate more items positively than negatively’’

Table 1Profile of the teacher respondents.

Characteristic No.

Age 19–25 yrs 1526–30 yrs 131–40 yrs 1041–50 yrs 4

Ethnic group Chinese 7Malay 12Indian/Tamil 8Other 3

Education level GCE ‘O’ levelsa 11Diploma 16Bachelor’s degree 3

Professional qualifications CPTb 9DPE-T/DPE-Lc 21

Position (multiple response set) Nursery teacher 10K1d teacher 16K2e teacher 13

Preschool experience 0–5 yrs 226–10 yrs 411–15 yrs 316–20 yrs 1

Years in kindergarten 0–5 yrs 276–10 yrs 3Over 11 yrs 0

a GCE ‘O’ levels refer to the General Cambridge Examinations ‘Ordinary’ levels,which comprise a set of examinations administered at the end of secondary schooleducation in Singapore.

b The Certificate of Preschool Teaching (CPT) is the minimum professional qual-ification required of a preschool teacher in Singapore.

c The Diploma in Preschool Education-Teaching (DPE-T) is a higher level ofprofessional qualifications (from CPT). All preschool principals in Singapore arerequired to obtain a Diploma in Preschool Education-Leadership (DPE-L).

d 5-year old children attend Kindergarten 1 (K1) classes.e 6-year old children attend Kindergarten 2 (K2) classes.

C. Lim / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 215–224 217

(Bracken & Fischel, 2006, p. 421). According to Sexton et al., ‘‘quasi-normal distributions help ensure that between-people analyseswill be based on items that evoked meaningful reactions’’ (p. 98),specifically those items placed in the categories that form theextreme ends of the distribution.

2.2.2. The Q-setThe Q-sort activity involved participants sorting out a set of

statements known as the Q-set. For this study, the Q-set comprisedstatements of beliefs about how Singaporean children (from age 3to 6) should be taught reading and writing in English. The state-ments were drawn from three sources: a questionnaire used ina survey of preschool teachers in Singapore (Lim & Torr, 2007);findings from interviews with 8 Singaporean preschool teachers ina qualitative study (Lim & Torr, 2008); and an extensive literaturereview of literacy development in early childhood (Ashton &Sproats, 2000; Bracken & Fischel, 2006; File & Gullo, 2002; Graue,1992; Hyson, Hirsh-Pasek, & Rescorla, 1990; Makin, 2000;McMahon, Richmond, & Reeves-Kazelskis, 1998; Miller & Smith,2004; Snow et al., 1998). These statements fell into the followingcategories of beliefs (Fenstermacher, 1994; Schwab, 1973; Shulman,1987):

� Beliefs about subject matter: some teachers may believe thatthe content of English literacy is a set of grammar rules orphonological rules (Roberts, 2003). Others may believe that theprocess of communication and meaning making is the contentof English literacy (Lonigan et al., 2000).� Beliefs about pedagogy: some teachers may believe that the

behaviorist approach is the best way to teach children.

Behaviorist teaching methods are usually linked with the use ofstandardized textbooks and tests and the use of drills andreinforcement exercises to ensure mastery of a corpus ofknowledge such as the spellings of words (Woolley & Woolley,1999). Errors are corrected immediately so as to keep studentsfrom learning incorrect responses. On the other hand, theremay be teachers who believe that children should be guided toconstruct their own understanding of the world around them.Such teachers provide opportunities for their students toexplore concrete materials and to interact with each other tosolve authentic problems for which the teacher does not haveprepared answers (Charlesworth et al., 1993; Stipek & Byler,1997).� Beliefs about curriculum: some teachers believe that a phonics

program is the most efficient way to teach children to decodeEnglish words. Other teachers may prefer a whole languageapproach (Goodman, 1986) to encourage children to explorethe uses of literacy in English.

The Q-set for this study comprised 62 of these belief statementsand they are detailed in Appendix B. To ensure that there was nobias in the order in which the Q-set was presented to the partici-pants, the entire set was randomized and given to each participanton white index cards in the same sequence.

2.2.3. The interviewsAfter the participants had completed the Q-sorting, they were

asked how they found the sorting activity, and why they ratedparticular statements as they did, in particular the four cards at theextreme ends of the distribution. The interview protocol can befound in Appendix A. The interviews were tape recorded andtranscribed. Two participants did not allow their interviews to betape recorded and so their responses were written verbatim on thespot. The transcribed data were coded according to two categories:strong agreement and strong disagreement. Quotations from theteachers were included in the data analysis to explain theirthinking behind their choice of items in these two categories. Theteachers cited in this article were given pseudonyms to ensureconfidentiality.

3. Results

3.1. Factor analysis

The essence of the Q-method factor analysis is to group peoplewith similar viewpoints together. In Q-methodology, a factorshould be defined by at least 4 or 5 persons (Dennis, 1986). Indetermining which sets of people should be clustered together,the sorts were factored by rotating the matrix using the Varimaxmethod of orthogonal rotation. After numerous rotations, it wasfound that a total of 4 factors resulted in each factor componentcontaining at least 4 individuals. Each factor loading is greaterthan 0.34. These 4 factors account for a total of 50.2% of thevariation in the Q-sort cards. The 4 factors are reported asviewpoint groups.

Distinguishing statements associated with each viewpointgroup were identified. Large item scores would suggest partici-pants associated with the said viewpoint group share similarperspectives about the importance of the individual statements(Sexton et al., 1998). Bearing in mind the forced-choice structurethe respondents were subjected to, the middle scores were nottaken into consideration as they are not deemed as meaningful ina forced distribution context (Thomas & Watson, 2002). State-ments that are ranked at both extreme ends of the continuum ofthe composite sort of a factor describe the collective views of the

C. Lim / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 215–224218

people represented in the viewpoint group (Van Exel & de Graff,2005).

3.2. Teachers’ perspectives on literacy development and pedagogy

The 4 different perspectives or viewpoints that emerged fromthe factor analysis are summarized in Fig. 1. It must be noted thatsome viewpoint groups shared agreement over some statements.These shared beliefs held in consensus have been indicated in boldin Fig. 1. Some of the viewpoints also shared beliefs that therespondents disagreed with. These statements were identified initalics in Fig. 1. Data from the interviews were used to explain why

Viewpoint 1

Child centered pedagogy (11 teachers)

Consensus (+4, +5)

Teachers should plan according to the children’s interests Children should be encouraged to express themselves freely Teachers should try to make their lessons as interesting as possible for the children

Strong Disagreement (-4, -5)

Teachers should follow lesson plans and activities from the textbook closely Children need to do homework Teachers should complete all the activities and lessons planned / from the textbook Being able to read means understanding the story Children need to do worksheets Children should sit quietly and listen to me teach

C

S

Viewpoint 3

Child development (7 teachers)

Consensus (+3)

I am concerned with making sure my students are confident about speaking up in English Teachers should try to make their lessons as interesting as possible for the children

Strong Disagreement (-3)

Children should learn to write with the correct strokes Children should sit quietly and listen to me teach Children need to do worksheets

C

S

Fig. 1. Viewpoint groups reve

respondents from each viewpoint grouping sorted the statementsinto the extreme ends of the continuum. This data helped to lenddepth to the interpretation of the viewpoint groupings. The profileof the teachers who fell into various viewpoint groups can be foundin Table 2.

3.2.1. Viewpoint 1: child-centered pedagogyThe focus of the perspectives of the 11 teachers who made up

the first viewpoint seemed to be centered on the children. Thecluster of statements that the respondents agreed strongly withseemed to be aligned with child-centered pedagogical orienta-tions, where the curriculum emerges from children’s interest as

Viewpoint 2

Communicative development (8 teachers)

onsensus (+2)

Teachers need to give parents ideas on how to support their teaching at home Teachers should plan and design their own lessons/ activities Children should know the difference between letters and words Activities that promote listening skills, e.g. show and tell; telephone game; circle time; story time are very important Children learn better when they team up – for example, having groups of 2-3 children work together to complete a project I am concerned with making sure my students are confident about speaking up in English

trong Disagreement (-3)

Children need to do worksheets

Viewpoint 4

Emergent literacy (4 teachers)

onsensus (+3, +4)

I am concerned with making sure that my students enjoy ‘reading’ books though they are unable to read aloud all the words in the book Teachers should try to make their lessons as interesting as possible for the children I am concerned with making sure my students are confident about speaking up in English

trong Disagreement (-3)

Children learn to read by singing songs Children learn better when they team up – for example, having groups of 2-3 children work together to complete a project Being able to read means being able to read all the words aloud correctly Being able to read means understanding the story

aled by cluster analysis.

Table 2Teacher characteristic patterns based on viewpoint groups.

Characteristic Viewpoint groups

Viewpoint1

Viewpoint2

Viewpoint3

Viewpoint4

Age 19–25 yrs 5 4 3 326–30 yrs 0 1 0 031–40 yrs 5 2 2 141–50 yrs 1 1 2 0

Ethnic group Chinese 2 2 3 0Malay 5 2 3 2Indian/Tamil 2 4 1 1Other 2 0 0 1

Education level GCE ‘O’ levels 5 4 1 1Diploma 5 4 4 3Bachelor’sdegree

1 0 2 0

Professionalqualifications

CPT 3 4 1 1DPE-T/DPE-L 8 4 6 3

Position(multipleresponse set)

Nursery teacher 4 4 2 0K1 teacher 5 4 4 3K2 teacher 5 3 2 3

Preschoolexperience

0–5 yrs 7 6 6 36–10 yrs 2 0 1 111–15 yrs 2 1 0 016–20 yrs 0 1 0 0

Years inkindergarten

0–5 yrs 10 8 6 36–10 yrs 1 0 1 1Over 11 yrs 0 0 0 0

C. Lim / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 215–224 219

they discover the world around them (Aubrey, 2004). As they feltchildren should be encouraged to express themselves freely, theteachers have to ensure that lessons are as interesting as possible,and therefore would plan with the children’s interests in mind. Itis therefore not surprising that this group of teachers stronglydisagreed that teachers should follow lesson plans and activitiesfrom the textbook closely. As one of the teachers explained,

‘‘Each child has a different learning style from the rest – theirlevel of learning is different – so, some of the children mightcatch up very fast, some might be slower – so, if I follow lessonplans very closely, I have to keep rushing all the things I’mdoing’’ (Guat Hoon).

According to this viewpoint, children should not be subjected tothe completion of worksheets or homework. They should not beexpected to sit quietly and listen to the teacher. As one of therespondents explained,

‘‘I strongly disagree that children should sit quietly because Iencourage children to talk – even if I’m wrong, I don’t mind ifthey point out, ‘teacher you are wrong.’ So I can tell them that Iam also learning with them at the same time’’ (Mrs Xavier).

As can be seen from the profile of the teachers who fell into thisviewpoint in Table 2, it is notable that the majority of the teachersin this cluster taught the younger children (Nursery and K1). Thissuggests that such a viewpoint may be more suitable for youngerchildren than for the older ones who need to be prepared for thenext stage of education (primary one).

3.2.2. Viewpoint 2: communicative developmentEight teachers made up the second viewpoint, and their focus

tended to be on the subject matter content of communicativedevelopment. These teachers were concerned with nurturing theirstudents’ confidence in speaking up in English, and therefore feltthat they needed to give children opportunities to interact through

group work, and activities that promote listening skills. These ideastend to align with the communicative development orientationpromoted by Dyson (1993) and Purcell-Gates (1996), where child-ren’s use of language in social context is valued as the precursor ofliteracy development. The teachers who subscribed to this view-point therefore felt the need to design their own lessons so as tomake them interesting enough for the children to be involved. Asone of the teachers explained,

‘‘We understand the children and we know what’s their level ofcognitive development – so I believe that when we plan, weknow exactly what we are doing. So we should plan interestinglessons and we should involve the students too so that we cangauge whether they learn the lesson and how much they areable to understand’’ (Umu).

The teachers felt that parents should support their children’scommunicative development at home. ‘‘I think it won’t be enoughfor just the teacher to read together with the children. The bondingbetween the parents and the children also helps them to readbetter’’ (Tinayati).

It is not surprising that these teachers would not agree thatchildren need to do worksheets, as their focus would be on moreauthentic communication through interactive means. As oneteacher explained, ‘‘worksheets don’t serve any purpose – theyneed to experience in functional situation – be able to carry outconversation’’ (Siew Choo). The profile of the teachers who fell intothis viewpoint cluster can be found in Table 2. Unlike the profileseen among the respondents in the child-centered pedagogyviewpoint, the teachers in the second cluster of viewpoints taughta spread of different levels, ranging from Nursery to K1 and K2.

3.2.3. Viewpoint 3: child developmentThis viewpoint seems to be focused on nurturing the develop-

ment of children’s dispositions. The teachers who subscribed to thisperspective stressed nurturing dispositions such as confidence andenjoyment for learning. The statements that the teachers stronglyagreed with tended to align with developmentally appropriatepractices (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997). As one of the teachersexplained,

‘‘Students must enjoy reading because to inculcate the love forbooks, they have to enjoy reading. So once they enjoy reading,they themselves will venture out to pick up books to readthemselves – so this enjoying reading is the first basic step’’(Brenda).

Two teachers from this viewpoint group explained why theystrongly disagreed that children should sit quietly to listen to theteacher teach. Abigail explained she believed in giving childrenthe opportunity to ask questions. Hisnah’s focus was on developingthe disposition of self-control:

‘‘I let the children know that they should have self-control – Iuse the word self control because as I teach, they get excited andthey start to shout the answer – so I set rules for them – like, youcan answer my question at any time but you must raise yourhand’’ (Hisnah).

The data from the interview help to explain the distinctionbetween this viewpoint group and the group that held theperspective of child-centered pedagogy. The latter seemed to focuson the teaching of children while the former seemed to emphasizethe development of dispositions. The profile of the teachers whofell in the child development viewpoint group is found in Table 2.As with the group espousing child-centered pedagogy the majorityof the respondents in this viewpoint group tended to teach theyounger children.

2 In 2001, the Ministry of Education announced that all preschool teachers shouldobtain at least a CPT or DPE-T (please refer to footnote 1).

C. Lim / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 215–224220

3.2.4. Viewpoint 4: emergent literacyAt a glance, the items in this viewpoint seemed similar to the

items in the communicative development group, as both had to dowith language and literacy development. The difference betweenthe two groups lay with the focus on evidences of reading andwriting among the respondents in the emergent literacy group.Thanks to the work of Clay (1991), evidences of children’s emergentliteracy, such as mark-making and pretend-reading, are valued bysome teachers as indicators of early literacy abilities. The fourteachers in the emergent literacy group consider ‘‘pretend-reading’’as an indicator of emergent literacy. Hence children need not beexpected to know how to decode words correctly, or evencomprehend the story, to be considered readers. Caryn, one of theteachers in this factor group felt that drawing was a form ofexpression and strongly encouraged it of her children.

‘‘They like to draw and they are always asking me how to spellout all these words – I feel that it is good because by drawingthen we know what they are interested in – what they arethinking – so, we have to facilitate their learning by encouragingthem to write about what they draw.’’

Etta, another teacher in this factor group further explained:

‘‘It’s OK if you are able to share with me verbally, with whateverlimited or wide vocabulary that you have but I also believe that Ishould also at least be able to, through your sharing, be able towrite down what you think – for example, you draw yourselfkicking a ball – you can spell ball as b-l-l – it’s alright, as long asyou try to label – it shows that you can actually connect theword to the picture drawn.’’ (Etta)

Kuna, another teacher in this viewpoint group explained whyshe disagreed that understanding the story is an indicator of abilityto read.

‘‘Being able to read doesn’t mean that they understand what thestory means. Sometimes they are really smart – they just look atthe picture and they can read the book. They just guess –somehow guess the word – and then they will look at you,whether we are giving the sign of approval whether they arecorrect or not– so, actually children are very smart. It’s a mix ofboth – what I do is I teach them all the sounds first and newwords and the sight words – once they are really familiar withthose words then I introduce the book to them and tell them thestory – what the story is all about and who are the characters sothat when we start reading the story, they are able to under-stand what is happening – what is the story. They mustunderstand the story if not it will defeat the purpose. This wordis used for this – when you ask them to act it out, they knowwhat they are doing. They can feel the story.’’ (Kuna)

Interestingly, though Viewpoints 2 and 4 seemed to havecommonalities in language development, they deferred contrast-ingly over the statement, ‘‘children learn better when they teamup’’. Logically, teachers who emphasize communicative develop-ment would want students to work in pairs or groups, so as tointeract more. Etta, a teacher from the emergent literacy viewpointexplained her reservations towards group work:

‘‘From my past experience when I tried this out – usually, what Iget is the stronger ones doing their work and the weaker oneshave to agree with them so that at the end of the day, they canget to play – OK, they finished their worksheet first. So, gener-ally, if I do sense that they need help, I will be the one sittingwith them. Because I feel that if I were to sit beside them, it willbe different than having a peer to sit beside them. When yougive a stronger peer to sit with them and monitor them, they

will tend to slack in a way – but if there is a teacher, they will situpright and try to put in effort in getting what I want them to do.The stronger ones are doing a good job in trying to make theweaker ones understand – but it is the weaker one who tends todream away and say, ‘you do for me!’’’ (Etta)

The profile of the teachers who fell into the emergent literacyviewpoint can be found in Table 2. None of the teachers teachingthe nursery level expressed this viewpoint.

4. Discussion and conclusion

The findings from the Q-sorts surfaced several interestingpatterns for discussion, namely, the appropriateness of Q-meth-odology for this study and teacher characteristic patterns based onviewpoint groups. In this section, I will include limitations of thestudy and discuss its implications.

4.1. Appropriateness of Q-methodology for the study

As a research method, Q-methodology more than fulfilled theobjective of this study, which was to discover core perspectivesabout literacy development held by teachers in a particularpreschool organization. Several of the respondents felt that it wasa useful tool to help them reflect on their beliefs and found ita meaningful exercise: ‘‘It made me think of how much I reallybelieve in what I’m doing, and whether I carry it out whole-heartedly, or out of duty. It was an eye opener’’ (Etta).

The factor analysis that Q-methodology lent itself so easily to,grouped respondents into various categories, indicating that thereare different types of perspectives held by teachers regardingliteracy development. At a glance, the 4 viewpoints that surfacedfrom the factor analysis seemed very similar as they shared over-lapping statements. Upon closer examination supported by datafrom the interviews, the 4 groups reflected characteristics that arepeculiar to their respective viewpoints, thus distinguishing themfrom each other. For example, the child-centered pedagogy view-point seemed almost similar to the child development viewpoint,as both groups shared consensual items as well as items with whichthey expressed strong disagreement. The difference seemed tocentre around the teacher’s role in child-centered pedagogy whilethe child development viewpoint seemed to focus on children’sdispositions. The communicative development viewpoint alsoseemed to be similar to the emergent literacy viewpoint. Bothviewpoints, however, disagreed concerning group work by chil-dren. While the communicative development viewpoint felt thatchildren would learn better when they team up to completea project, respondents subscribing to the emergent literacy view-point seemed to disagree with it. This indicated that there are finedifferences between the various viewpoints held by the teachersthat are worthy of note as they may affect the teachers’ classroompractices.

The similarity among the viewpoints shows that such educa-tional orientations are not exclusive in themselves. It is hearteningto note that all 4 viewpoints indicate that the respondents tend tosubscribe to perspectives that veer towards child development.Prior to the introduction of professional development of preschoolteachers from 20012, the non-profit community-based group ofpreschools was known to emphasize the teaching of academic skillssuch as the memorization of spelling. The results of this study of 30professionally qualified teachers from this group of non-profit

C. Lim / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 215–224 221

community-based preschools suggests that the professionaldevelopment may have been effective in moving the teachers awayfrom the teacher-centered, basics skills orientation and towardsa more child-centered orientation.

4.2. Teacher characteristics based on viewpoint groupings

It is interesting to note that the majority (5 out of 12) of theMalay teachers expressed the child-centered pedagogy viewpoint,and 3 expressed the child development viewpoint. This seems toindicate that these Malay teachers were very concerned with child-centered pedagogy and child development. One teacher from thechild-centered pedagogy viewpoint explained that she was verymuch influenced by the way children are perceived in the Malayculture: ‘‘We view children as our future – they will be helping usespecially when we are old. So we need to develop and educatethem – doesn’t have to be academic – it can be social – the way theysocialize with other children – and according to their interests’’(Fauziah).

These findings suggest that teachers with a Malay heritage maybe more concerned with child development and are child-centeredin their pedagogy. From the interviews, the Indian and Chineseteachers did not indicate that their cultures influenced theirperspectives, and therefore there are no cultural explanations as towhy 50% of the Indian teachers expressed the communicativedevelopment viewpoint while none of the Chinese teachersexpressed the emergent literacy viewpoint. Further research witha wider participant sample could be undertaken to see if theseviewpoints fell along cultural lines as suggested from this data.

Another finding from the factor analysis of the Q-sort was thatthe grade levels in which they teach seem to influence the view-points held by the teachers. As noted in Table 2, the teachers whosubscribed to the child development viewpoint and child-centeredpedagogy viewpoint tended to teach the younger children (Nurseryand K1). This corroborates with Vartuli (1999), who found that thebeliefs held by early childhood teachers tended to vary across gradelevels. This is further borne out by the finding in this study, thatnone of the teachers teaching the Nursery level (4 year olds)expressed the emergent literacy viewpoint. This seemed to suggestthat the Nursery teachers viewed emergent literacy as applicablefor older children, as a start to literacy learning. This may not betheoretically aligned with the concept of emergent literacy asdefined by the literature (Clay, 1991; Dyson, 1993), where signs ofemergent literacy such as mark-making through scribbling areaccepted as the beginnings of literacy. It is important to ascertain ifthe teachers have misconceptions about emergent literacy, orwhether they choose to agree with some aspects of emergentliteracy, such as experimenting with invented spelling, while dis-regarding other aspects, such as valuing scribbles and social talkduring play. Such misconceptions or partial agreement with theconcept could then be dealt within teacher professionaldevelopment.

4.3. Limitations of the study

This study aimed to discover the viewpoints held by a group ofteachers concerning literacy development in Singaporeanpreschools. If the analysis could be replicated with a larger numberof participant samples, it is possible that additional perspectiveswould have emerged. While I may not be able to account for otherperspectives that may exist among the larger population ofpreschool teachers in Singapore, I can, with certainty, conclude thatthe viewpoints found in the sample of teachers studied reflect thebiases inherent in these particular preschool settings, which maydiffer from preschool to preschool (Bracken & Fischel, 2006). It

would be interesting to see what patterns would arise if this studycould be replicated in other preschools that cater to a differentpopulation of students.

Another limitation involves my labeling of the viewpointgroups. I gave labels to each viewpoint, taking into considerationthe statements that surfaced as being salient either in agreement ordisagreement among members within the group. I used quotationsfrom the interviews to help me interpret each viewpoint. Theparticipants, however, did not explicitly use those labels whenexplaining their choice. They may not agree with the labels that Iinferred from the cluster analysis. This limitation, however, bringsto light any misconception the respondents may have concerningthe orientation the label refers to. For example, the teachers in theemergent literacy viewpoint do not seem to value group work.Proponents of emergent literacy would, however, provide as manyopportunities for children to interact in groups, as children wouldthen engage in social talk and writing that arise from working andplaying in groups. Clarifying this with the respondents may bringabout awareness about appropriateness of strategies according tothe theoretical orientations, and in that manner, provide profes-sional development to the teachers’ knowledge about the subjectmatter, pedagogy and curriculum.

4.4. Implications

The Q-sort results raise important concerns regarding literacydevelopment in Singaporean preschool classrooms. The viewpointsseemed to espouse broad beliefs extolling child development andchild-centric pedagogy that are notably vague. This seems tosuggest that teachers may believe in the development of children ingeneral terms, but do not know how it translates into actual prac-tice. The limited mention of literacy activities in the strong agree-ments of all the viewpoints may reflect either the teachers’conscious decisions not to focus heavily on literacy activities, ortheir lack of pedagogical content knowledge and understanding ofapproaches that nurture the development of emergent literacyskills. As pointed out by Bracken and Fischel (2006), ‘‘doesa preschool teacher’s decision not to engage in alphabet activities topromote letter knowledge reflect the belief that letter knowledge isnot a skill that should be taught during preschool, or does it reflecta lack of knowledge that alphabet games are an important,developmentally appropriate way to promote letter knowledge?’’(p. 426). More research has to be carried out to make this distinctionclear, and it has implications on teacher professional development,both pre-service as well as in-service.

The ultimate significance of this research lies in the potentiallinks between preschool teachers’ perceptions of early literacydevelopment and their classroom practices. If teachers’ beliefs ofearly literacy development do shape their pedagogy, this piece ofresearch may shed light on the nature of the early literacy activitiesSingaporean preschoolers experience in their classrooms. There isvalue in making teachers aware of the viewpoint they espouse, sothat they can critically examine themselves if that is indeed theviewpoint they value. They could be made aware of other aspects ofthat particular viewpoint that seemed to be given low priority intheir Q-sort, so that the teachers could work towards being true totheir profession of educational beliefs.

Appendix A. Interview protocol

1. How did you find the Q-sorting exercise?2. Could you tell me why you put these 2 statements under �5

(strongly disagree)?3. Could you tell me why you put these 2 statements under þ5

(strongly agree)?

Appendix B. Q-set on beliefs

SN Q-set (beliefs)

1 Teachers should try to make their lessons as interesting as possible for the children2 Teachers should plan according to the children’s interests3 Teachers should plan and design their own lessons/activities4 Teachers should follow lesson plans and activities from the textbook closely5 Teachers should complete all the activities and lessons planned/from the textbook6 Children should be encouraged to express themselves freely7 Children should express themselves in writing even if they are ungrammatical or invent spelling8 Children should experiment and use invented spelling9 Children should try to pretend write even if they can only scribble10 Children should try sounding out words on their own11 Children learn better if they make mistakes12 Children learn English better if they are confident about expressing themselves in English13 Children should be given the opportunity to interact (for example, during circle time) daily in class14 Each child should get the chance to speak up in class at least once a day15 By the end of K2, children should read and write correctly16 Children should learn to write with the correct strokes17 Children should learn to write in complete sentences18 Being able to read means being able to read all the words aloud correctly19 Children should learn to pronounce words correctly20 Children should learn the correct spelling from the start21 Children learn to read and spell by memorising rules (e.g. phonics rules/spelling rules/grammar rules)22 Children should sit quietly and listen to me teach23 Children learn better when they team up – for example, having groups of 2–3 children work together to complete a project24 Children learn better when the stronger students are paired off with the weaker ones so that they can teach each other25 Children learn to read by breaking words into their letter sounds26 Being able to read means understanding the story27 Children need to be exposed to a lot of stories from books28 Teachers should read storybooks aloud to their class29 There should be a classroom library of books for the children to read30 Teachers should teach the parts of book – front and back of a book, title, author’s name, etc.31 Teachers should read big books aloud to their class32 Teachers should ask questions about the story when reading aloud33 Reading should be taught in a systematic and structured manner34 Children learn to read by the phonics approach35 Children learn to read by singing songs36 Children learn to read by reciting nursery rhymes37 Children learn to read by the word families approach38 Children should role play or act out stories that we read together in class39 Teachers should teach spelling and reading by breaking the word into syllables and pointing out the word families in them40 Children should know the difference between letters and words41 Children should learn to read labels (e.g. on tins and boxes) and the calendar42 Children should retell stories that have been read aloud in their own words43 Children should be given the chance to illustrate the stories read (e.g. draw scenes or characters from the story)44 Children understand the meanings of words best when it is in context of the topic being discussed45 Children should be encouraged to write messages to each other and to the teacher46 Children should be encouraged to write during their play (e.g. making posters, taking food orders)47 Children should be encouraged to label or write about their drawings48 Activities that promote listening skills, e.g. show and tell; telephone game; circle time; story time are very important49 Activities that require children to follow directions, for example, games such as ‘Simon says’ are very important50 Teachers need to point out words and sentence structures that the children can use at the dramatic play corner51 I am concerned with making sure my students are confident about speaking up in English52 I am concerned with making sure that my students are able to read a set of sight words53 I am concerned with making sure that my students enjoy ‘reading’ books though they are unable to read aloud all the words in the book54 I am concerned with making sure that my students are interested in reading and in books55 Children should be allowed to choose books to take home to read56 Children should be allowed to choose what they want to do, and read/write57 Children need to do homework58 Children need to do worksheets59 Parents should be updated on their children’s progress60 Parents should read to and with their children61 Teachers need to give parents ideas on how to support their teaching at home62 Teachers need to explain to parents what they are doing and how they teach their children

C. Lim / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 215–224222

Appendix C. Characteristics of sorters for each factor

The factor loading indicates the extent to which each of therespondents correlates with the identified factor. A positiveloading value may be interpreted as a common subjectivity withthe other participants loaded onto the same factor whilea negative loading value suggests rejection of the factor’s

perspective (McKeown & Thomas, 1988). As the factor loadingvalue is proportional to the association of a particular participantand that this person’s statement array is highly correlated withthe factor, one can observe from Table 3 that statement arraysthat hold stronger association to factor 1 include Guat Hoon(0.83), Zubaidah (0.75) and Mrs Xavier (0.76), among the 11teachers that were loaded onto factor 1.

Table 3Rotated 4 factor solution.

Q-sort Factor

1 2 3 4

Brenda 0.34 0.00 0.38 �0.10Caryn 0.30 �0.07 0.37 0.50Denise 0.24 0.54 0.03 0.45Etta �0.09 0.01 �0.16 0.67Fauziah 0.63 0.35 0.12 0.05Guat Hoon 0.83 0.10 0.07 0.22Hisnah 0.30 0.28 0.50 0.18Idayu 0.26 0.03 0.67 0.22Joyce 0.55 0.10 0.23 0.32Kuna 0.16 0.06 0.11 0.71Lane 0.44 0.29 0.09 0.41Marianne 0.46 0.26 0.26 0.29Norhati 0.31 0.29 0.31 0.35Olivia 0.74 0.17 0.11 0.19Pearlie 0.58 0.26 0.34 0.09Queenie 0.30 0.41 0.25 0.02Rohaya 0.27 0.38 0.44 �0.17Siew Choo 0.00 0.53 0.49 �0.06Tinayati 0.05 0.71 �0.20 0.15Umu 0.24 0.56 0.24 0.09Valerie �0.03 0.45 0.56 �0.06Wasanthi 0.16 0.01 0.46 0.18Mrs Xavier 0.76 0.07 0.14 0.06Yasmeen 0.48 0.29 �0.10 0.37Zubaidah 0.75 0.30 0.11 �0.17Aacharna 0.37 0.50 0.19 0.11Abigail �0.01 0.02 0.77 �0.08Adilah 0.46 0.62 0.06 �0.02Anita 0.20 0.37 0.34 0.35Achan 0.73 0.12 0.18 0.13

Variance explained (%) 19.3 11.4 11.1 8.3Cumulative variance explained (%) – 30.7 41.8 50.2Number of defining variables 11 8 7 4

C. Lim / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 215–224 223

Of the 8 teachers identified to be associated with factor 2,Tinayati (0.71) and Adilah (0.62) are more closely associated withthe factor than the others. Similarly, Abigail (0.77) and Idayu (0.67)are identified to hold stronger relationships with factor 3 out ofa total of 7 teachers. Lastly, Joyce (0.71) and Etta (0.67) havesignificant associations with factor 4.

References

Adams, M. J. (2001). Alphabetic anxiety and explicit, systematic phonics instruction:a cognitive science perspective. In S. B. Neuman, & D. K. Dickinson (Eds.),Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 66–80). New York: The Guilford Press.

Anderson, C., Avery, P. G., Pederson, P. V., Smith, E. S., & Sullivan, J. L. (1997).Divergent perspectives on citizenship education: a Q-method study and surveyof social studies teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 34(2),333–364.

Ang, L. (2006). Steering debate and initiating dialogue: a review of the Singaporepreschool curriculum. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 7(3), 203–212.

Ashton, J., & Sproats, E. (2000) Reconceptualising literacy understanding andpractices in early childhood settings. In Paper presented at the European EarlyChildhood Education Research Association (EECERA) Conference (10th, London,England) (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 445 825).

Aubrey, C. (2004). Implementing the foundation stage in reception classes. BritishEducational Research Journal, 30(5), 633–656.

Block, J., & Robins, R. W. (1995). A longitudinal study of consistency and change inself-esteem from early adolescence to early adulthood. In M. E. Hertzig, &E. A. Farber (Eds.), Annual progress in child psychiatry and child development: Aselection of the year’s outstanding contributions to the understanding and treat-ment of the normal and disturbed child (pp. 97–118). Psychology Press.

Bracken, S. S., & Fischel, J. E. (2006). Assessment of preschool classroom practices:application of Q-sort methodology. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21,417–430.

Bredekamp, S., & Copple, C. (Eds.). (1997). Developmentally appropriate practices inearly childhood programs. Washington D.C.: National Association for theEducation of Young Children. (revised ed.).

Carr, S. C. (1992). A primer on the use of Q-technique factor analysis. Measurementand Evaluation in Counselling and Development, 25(3), 133–139.

Chall, J. S. (1983). Learning to read: The great debate (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Charlesworth, R., Hart, C. H., Burts, D. C., Thomasson, R. H., Mosley, J., & Fleege, P. O.(1993). Measuring the developmental appropriateness of kindergartenteachers’ beliefs and practices. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 8, 255–276.

Cheah, Y. M. (1998). The examination culture and its impact on literacy innovations:the case of Singapore. Language and Education, 12(3), 192–209.

Clay, M. M. (1991). Becoming literate. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, A. L. (2001). Beyond certainty: taking an inquiry

stance on practice. In A. Lieberman, & L. Miller (Eds.), Teachers caught in theaction: Professional development that matters (pp. 45–58). New York: TeachersCollege Press.

Dennis, K. E. (1986). Q methodology: relevance and application to nursing research.Advances in Nursing Sciences, 8(3), 6–17.

Dyson, A. H. (1993). Social worlds of children learning to write in an urban primaryschool. New York: Teachers College Press.

Fenstermacher, G. D. (1994). The knower and the known: the nature of knowledgein research on teaching. Review of Research in Education, 20, 3–56.

File, N., & Gullo, D. F. (2002). A comparison of early childhood and elementaryeducation students’ beliefs about primary classroom teaching practices. EarlyChildhood Research Quarterly, 17(1), 126–137.

Genishi, C., Ryan, S., Ochsner, M., & Yarnall, M. M. (2001). Teaching in early child-hood education: understanding practices through research and theory. InV. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. Washington DC: Amer-ican Educational Research Association.

Goh, C., Zhang, L., Ng, C. H., & Koh, G. H. (2005). Knowledge, beliefs and syllabusimplementation: A study of English language teachers in Singapore. Singapore:Nanyang Technological University.

Goodman, K. S. (1986). What’s whole in whole language. Portsmouth, NH:Heinemann.

Graue, M. E. (1992). Social interpretations of readiness for kindergarten. EarlyChildhood Research Quarterly, 7(2), 225–243.

Harwood, W. S., Hansen, J., & Lotter, C. (2006). Measuring teacher beliefs aboutinquiry: the development of a blended qualitative/quantitative instrument.Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(1), 69–79.

Hyson, M. C., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Rescorla, L. (1990). The classroom practice inven-tory: an observation instrument based on NAEYC’s guidelines for develop-mentally appropriate practices for 4- and 5-year-old children. Early ChildhoodResearch Quarterly, 5, 475–494.

Kagan, D. M. (1992). Implications of research on teacher belief. EducationalPsychologist, 27(1), 65–90.

Lim, C., & Torr, J. (2007). Singaporean early childhood teachers’ beliefs about literacydevelopment in s multilingual context. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education,35(4), 409–434.

Lim, C., & Torr, J. (2008). Teaching literacy in English language in Singaporeanpreschools: exploring teachers’ beliefs about what works best. ContemporaryIssues in Early Childhood, 9(2), 95–106.

Lonigan, C. J., Burgess, S. R., & Anthony, J. L. (2000). Development of emergentliteracy and early reading skills in preschool children: evidence from a latentvariable longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 36, 596–613.

Makin, L. (2000) Literacy and starting school: views of parents and early childhoodstaff and issues for transition, data presented in the paper are part of the EarlyLiteracy and Social Justice Project, funded by the New South Wales Departmentof Community Services and the New South Wales Department of Education andTraining (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 447 468).

McKeown, B., & Thomas, D. (1988). Q methodology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.McMahon, R., Richmond, M. G., & Reeves-Kazelskis, C. (1998). Relationships

between kindergarten teachers’ perceptions of literacy acquisition and child-ren’s literacy involvement and classroom materials. Journal of EducationalResearch, 91(3), 173–182.

Miller, L., & Smith, A. P. (2004). Practitioners’ beliefs and children’s experiences ofliteracy in four early years settings. Early Years, 24(2), 121–133.

Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: cleaning upa messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332.

Polanyi, M. (1967). The tacit dimension. New York: Anchor Books.Purcell-Gates, V. (1996). Stories, coupons, and the TV guide: relationships between

home literacy experiences and emergent literacy knowledge. Reading ResearchQuarterly, 31(4), 406–428.

Raban, B., & Ure, C. (1999). Literacy in three languages: a challenge for Singaporeanpreschools. International Journal of Early Childhood, 31(2), 45–54.

Roberts, T. A. (2003). Effects of alphabet-letter instruction on young children’s wordrecognition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 41–51.

Schneider, B. H., Atkinson, L., & Tardif, C. (2001). Child-parent attachment andchildren’s peer relations: a quantitative review. Developmental Psychology,37(1), 86–100.

Schwab, J. J. (1973). The practical: translation into curriculum. The School Review,81(4), 501–522.

Sexton, D., Snyder, P., Wadsworth, D., Jardine, A., & Ernest, J. (1998). Applying Qmethodology to/investigations of subjective judgments of early interventioneffectiveness. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 18(2), 95–108.

Shanmugaratnam, T. (2003). Speech by Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam Senior Ministerof State for Trade and Industry & Education official launch cum seminar of MOE’spre-school curriculum framework at Nanyang Polytechnic Auditorium 20 Jan, 2003.from: www.moe.gov.sg/speeches/2003/sp20030120_print.htm. Retrieved on 6December, 2005.

C. Lim / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 215–224224

Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reform.Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.

Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in youngchildren: Committee on the prevention of reading difficulties in young children.Washington DC: National Academy Press.

Soler, J., & Openshaw, R. (2007). ‘To be or not to be?’: the politics of teaching phonics inEngland and New Zealand. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 7(3), 333–352.

Stipek, D. J., & Byler, P. (1997). Early childhood education teachers: do they practicewhat they preach? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 12, 305–325.

Szente, J., Hoot, J., & Ernest, J. (2002). Parent/teacher views of developmentallyappropriate practices: a Hungarian perspective. International Journal of EarlyChildhood, 34(1), 24–36.

Taylor, H. G., Anselmo, M., Foreman, A. L., Schatschneider, C., & Angelopoulos, J.(2000). Utility of kindergarten teacher judgments in identifying early learningproblems. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(2), 200.

Taylor, P., Delprato, D. J., & Knapp, J. R. (1994). Q-methodology in the study of childphenomenology. The Psychological Record, 44(2), 171–184.

Thomas, D. M., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Q-sorting and MIS research: a primer.Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 8, 141–156.

Van Exel, N. J. A., & de Graff, G. (2005). Q methodology: a sneak preview. Retrievedon 5 October, 2007 from: http://www.jobvanexel.nl/.

Vartuli, S. (1999). How early childhood teacher beliefs vary across grade level. EarlyChildhood Research Quarterly, 14(4), 489–514.

Wideen, M., Mayer-Smith, J., & Moon, B. (1998). A critical analysis of research onlearning to teach: making the case for an ecological perspective on inquiry.Review of Educational Research, 68, 130–178.

Woolley, S. L., & Woolley, A. W. (1999) Can we change teachers’ beliefs? A surveyabout constructivist and behaviorist approaches. In Paper presented at theAnnual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (Montreal,Quebec) (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 430 965).