Helen: In the Faculty of Education teaching reading, just the kind of nuts and bolts of reading isn't a focus. 1 mean, it least it wasn't when 1 was there a hundred.
.. Theoretical Orientations to Reading and Instructional Practices of Eleven Grade Five Teachers
•
Susan E. Elliott-Johns Department of Integrated Studies in Education Mc Gill University, Montreal September, 2004 A thesis submitted to McGill University in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
in The Department of Integrated Studies in Education
•
© Susan E. Elliott-Johns, 2004
1+1
Library and Archives Canada
Bibliothèque et Archives Canada
Published Heritage Branch
Direction du Patrimoine de l'édition
395 Wellington Street Ottawa ON K1A ON4 Canada
395, rue Wellington Ottawa ON K1A ON4 Canada Your file Votre référence ISBN: 0-494-12838-0 Our file Notre référence ISBN: 0-494-12838-0
NOTICE: The author has granted a nonexclusive license allowing Library and Archives Canada to reproduce, publish, archive, preserve, conserve, communicate to the public by telecommunication or on the Internet, loan, distribute and sell theses worldwide, for commercial or noncommercial purposes, in microform, paper, electronic and/or any other formats.
AVIS: L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive permettant à la Bibliothèque et Archives Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver, sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public par télécommunication ou par l'Internet, prêter, distribuer et vendre des thèses partout dans le monde, à des fins commerciales ou autres, sur support microforme, papier, électronique et/ou autres formats.
The author retains copyright ownership and moral rights in this thesis. Neither the thesis nor substantial extracts from it may be printed or otherwise reproduced without the author's permission.
L'auteur conserve la propriété du droit d'auteur et des droits moraux qui protège cette thèse. Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés ou autrement reproduits sans son autorisation.
ln compliance with the Canadian Privacy Act some supporting forms may have been removed from this thesis.
Conformément à la loi canadienne sur la protection de la vie privée, quelques formulaires secondaires ont été enlevés de cette thèse.
While these forms may be included in the document page cou nt, their removal does not represent any loss of content from the thesis.
Bien que ces formulaires aient inclus dans la pagination, il n'y aura aucun contenu manquant.
•••
Canada
•
Theoretical Orientations to Reading and Instructional Practices of Eleven Grade Five Teachers Abstract
•
This study explores the nature of teachers' understandings of theoretical orientation to reading and the relationships between theoretical orientations to reading and instructional practice. The participants were eleven Grade Five classroom teachers, seven female and four male, in one particular school board in Southem Ontario. A series of three in-depth, phenomenological interviews were conducted with each teacher-participant. Utilizing the concept of theoretical orientation to reading, understandings of and relationships between, theoretical orientation to reading and instructional practice were identified and described by the teachers in this study, from an 'emic' (insider) perspective. The themes of teachers' knowledge and beliefs, personal experiences, and constructivist approaches to teaching and learning emerged as highly influential in determining the kinds of instructional decisions made by the teacher participants. The data illustrate how teachers with a skills orientation to reading instruction supported a focus on explicit skills instruction within balanced, eclectic approaches to reading instruction. The results provide a multi-voice construction, showing how the teacher participants' knowledge, beliefs, personal and professional experiences were reflected not only in their efforts to articulate understandings of theoretical orientations to reading, but also in the characteristics of relationships between their theoretical orientation to reading and instructional practices. Patterns and themes in the data also indicate the need for improved pre-service teacher education, and relevant in-service professional development, to better meet the needs of contemporary teachers of reading at the junior division level.
• 11
•
Les Orientations Théoriques à la Lecture et les Instructions Pratiques d'Onze Enseignants de Cinquième Année
Résumé
•
Cette étude explore la nature de la compréhension des enseignants sur l'orientation théorique à la lecture, et le rapport entre les orientations théoriques à la lecture et les pratiques d'instruction. Les participants étaient onze enseignants de cinquième année, sept femmes et quatre hommes, dans un conseil d'école unique de l'Ontario du sud. Une série de trois entretiens phénoménologiques approfondis eurent lieu avec chaque enseignant. Utilisant la notion d'orientation théorique à la lecture, ainsi que la compréhension, et les rapports entre ceux-ci, l'orientation théorique à la lecture et la pratique d'instruction ont été identifiés et décrits par les enseignants dans cette étude, selon une perspective émique (de l'initié). Les thèmes de la connaissance et les convictions des enseignants, leurs expériences personnelles, et leurs approches constructivistes à l'enseignement et l'étude a se sont avérés extrêmement influents pour déterminer le genre de décisions d'instruction prises par les enseignants. Les données illustrent comment les enseignants ayant une orientation de compétence à l'instruction de la lecture ont soutenu une concentration sur l'enseignement de compétences précises, dans le cadre d'une approche équilibrée à l'enseignement de la lecture. Les résultats fournissent une construction à voix multiples, montrant comment les connaissances, les convictions, les expériences personnelles et professionnelles des enseignants se reflètent non seulement dans leurs efforts pour exprimer des compréhensions d'orientations théoriques aux lectures, mais aussi dans les caractère des rapports entre leur orientation théorique à la lecture et leurs pratiques d'instruction. Les modèles et les thèmes dans les données indiquent aussi un besoin d'amélioriation de l'éducation des enseignants avant leur service, et de développement professionnel pertinent pendant le service, pour mieux satisfaire les besoins des enseignants contemporains concernant la lecture au niveau de la division junior.
• 11
•
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My sincere thanks go to each of my committee members, Dr. Brian Alters, Dr. Spencer Boudreau, and Dr. Mary McGuire. AIl of your expertise, insights, and encouragement were very much appreciated. To Dr. Helen Amoriggi, my Supervisor, thank you. You have been an exceptional advisor, mentor, and friend. 1 am truly grateful for all your guidance in seeing this project through to completion. 1 am indebted to the eleven teachers who worked with me in this research study. Thank you for your contributions of precious time after teaching all day, and your willingness to share rich insights and experiences. Your sheer enthusiasm for exploring the topic with me made it all the more worthwhile.
•
1 continued to hear your 'voices' as the work took shape and was fmally finished . My thanks also go to all those students, teachers, administrators, and other educators 1 have worked with during my career to date. Our discussions about reading and reading instruction were the catalyst for much of my own thinking leading up to this study. 1 consider myself very fortunate indeed to have so many coIleagues and friends across Canada, my adopted homeland, and in the United Kingdom, Australia, and the United States, who share my passion for reading. 1 am especially grateful to the family and friends who forgave my absence from home and from many social occasions while conducting and writing up this research. Thank you for your patience and for being there when it was done. Finally, 1 am ever grateful to my best friend and dear husband, Doug, without
•
whose love, and belief in me, 1 could never have accompli shed this lifetime goal .
111
•
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
iv
LIST OF TABLES AND LIST OF FIGURES CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
2
•
•
viii
1
The Development of My Personal Research Paradigm Purpose and Significance of the Study Summary Definition of Terms
12
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
16
Teacher Beliefs and Knowledge The nature of beliefs Beliefs and knowledge Relationships between teacher beliefs and practices Exploring the consistency thesis: beliefs and practices Conclusions
3 6 11
16 16
21 25 30 34
Theoretical Orientations to Reading Development of the theoretical orientation to reading profile Towards exploring theoretical orientations to reading in the context ofpractice Conclusions
35 36
Teacher Education and Theoretical Orientations to Reading An overview of teacher education in reading An historical perspective: Teacher education in reading Pre-service Education In-service Education
44 44 45 54 56
Theoretical Orientations to Reading and Instructiona) Practices
59
Summary
72
IV
40 43
•
3
4
•
METHODOLOGY AND METHODS
73
Data Collection Gaining Access Background and Role of the Researcher Sample Selection Participants and Setting Epistemological Principles Tools ofInquiry for Data Collection
77 77 78 80 82 85 86
Data Analysis Methods ofData Analysis Profiles as a Way of Knowing
90 90 94
Summary
95
RESULTS
96
Question 1
96
Question 2
100
Exploring Understandings of Theoretical Orientation to Reading 101 C!taracteristics ofpersonal understandings of theoretical orientation to reading 102 Articulating understandings of a skills orientation 106 to reading Teacher Participants' Understandings of Contextual Enablers and Constraints Contextual Enablers Contextual Constraints Time as a Contextual Constraint Time constraints: instruction al time for reading Time constraints: personal and professional reading
•
Relationships between Theoretical Orientation to Reading and Instructional Practices Afocus on balanced, eclectic approaches to reading instruction Descriptions of reading instruction as teaching thinking skills
v
120 121 124 129 129 136
143 144 147
•
Characteristics of relationships between theoretical orientation and instruction al practice Guided Reading: an approach to skills instruction in context The importance of student motivation and teacher modeling The challenge of 'struggling readers' in Grade Five
5
•
•
151 158 167 172
Educational Beliefs Related to Teacher Efficacy Exploring understandings of the 'knowledge of reading instruction Perspectives on pre-service programmes in reading instruction Perspectives on in-service education in reading instruction What was seen as not working? What was seen as working?
176
181 187 188 189
Summary
193
DISCUSSION
195
Summary
195
Conclusions
196
Interpretations Understandings of theoretical orientations to reading Relationships between theoretical orientation and instructional practices
198 198
201
Reflections on the Research Process
206
Implications for Further Research and Teaching
210
177
REFERENCES
215
APPENDICES
231
A
Certificate of Ethical Acceptability (McGiII University)
232
B
The DeFord Theoretical Orientation to Reading Profile (TORP)
233
Certificate of Permission to Reproduce the TORP (International Reading Association)
234
C
VI
•
Preliminary Letters of Information toPrincipals and Teachers
235
E
Informed Consent to Participate in Research
236
F
In-Depth Interview Guide
237
G
Request for Teacher Participants' Biographical Information and Written Responses
238
Request for Sample Unit Plans, Lesson Plans, and Written Responses
239
D
H
•
• vu
• LIST OF TABLES Table 1
Summary of Characteristics of Participants
83
Table 2
Summary of Participants' Teaching Experience
84
Table 3
Teacher Participants' Theoretical Orientation to Reading: Scores on the TORP
97
Table 4
Teacher Beliefs about Teaching Reading
102
LIST OF FIGURES
•
Figure 1
Location of Participants on the TORP Continuum
• Vlll
98
•
CHAPTERONE INTRODUCTION
A vast amount of research regarding the teaching of reading and the best ways to teach reading already exists (Booth, 1996; Chall, 1996; Goodman, 1967, 1974; Goodman, Brooks Smith, Meredith, & Goodman, 1987; Routman, 1994; Singer, 1976; Smith, 1988a, 1988b, 2004). A survey of the related literature reveals, however, a far greater number of studies addressing issues related to the acquisition and development of reading in young children (entry level to Grade Three), than those related to the teaching of reading in the later elementary grades (Grades Four to Six).
•
As both a practitioner and educational researcher, 1 have come to see the stories and the details of teachers' lives as a way of knowing and understanding. The conspicuous absence of teachers' voices in the literature became a catalyst for my thinking and confumed my own beHef that there was still a great deal to be learned about teachers and their teaching of reading (Anders, Hoffrnan & Duffy, 2000; Barr, 2001). Attention to studies of teachers of reading, their beliefs and knowledge, theoretical orientations, and how they articulate their theoretical orientation in relation to their instructional practices, as opposed to studies of methods, was not common pertaining to either early or later elementary grades. Research studies into what teachers themselves know and believe about reading, specifically
•
2
•
c1assroom teachers in the later elementary grades, including how they articulate their experiences as teachers of reading, are not prolific in the literature. Therefore, an important aspect of my decision to conduct a research study into the teaching of reading in the later elementary grades was the fact that research findings in this particular area were more difficult to locate than studies of reading in the early elementary grades. For example, Allington & Johnston (2001), who studied effective fourth-grade teachers and the quality of reading instruction in the upper elementary grades, also found it difficult to locate research studies of a similar nature:
•
Our work was guided, in part, by that small body of studies of upper elementary grade classrooms, especially by the few available studies of exemplary upper elementary teachers. We were less interested in the studies that compared different curricula and more interested in the studies that attempted to delve into the complicated arena of good teaching . (p.151)
Allington & Johnson found studies of upper elementary grade teaching fell into three broad categories: observational studies, interview studies, and survey research. While sorne studies combined methods, one of these three research methodologies typically provided the principal data in each study. Allington & Johnson's review of related research concluded that the question of What
conceptions ofliteracy teaching and learning guides these teachers' practice? (p. 30), remains a question that has not been adequately answered in studies to date. My study, while not designed specifically with participants identified as 'exemplary' teachers in mind, most closely resembles the 'interview studies'
•
located by Allington and Johnson (Ruddell, 1997; Thomas & Barksdale-Ladd,
3
•
1995). Using in-depth interviews as the principal source of data collection, this study sought to co-construct an understanding of teachers' beliefs and their related practices in the teaching and learning of reading in the later elementary grades, specifically Grade Five.
The Development of My Personal Research Paradigm
Embedded in the description of my personal journey as an educational researcher that follows are a) references to my autobiographical background as a professional educator and b) ways in which 1 believe related experiences have contributed to the development of a personally held research paradigm reflecting a social-constructivist perspective. A discussion of sorne of the guiding principles
•
in my own thinking about epistemology follows. Aspects of my personal journey as an educational researcher and the further development, over time, of a social-constructivist paradigm, continued to inform this study during various stages of its completion. For example, as an emergent design took shape, it became clearer to me that the main aim of my study was to facilitate, explore and understand the reconstruction of teachers' knowledge of, and experiences with, the teaching of reading. 1 envisioned that this would be accomplished through a multi-voice construction generated from qualitative interview data.
Interviewing as qualitative research was a
methodological approach that would best serve my intent to inc1ude the voices of both the researcher (myself) and the 'researched' (teacher-participants).
•
4
•
A Vygotskian perspective (1978) assumes knowledge is constructed by the individual but argues that knowledge construction is also mediated through social interaction with other individuals and one's experiences (within cultural, social and political contexts). My interpretation of Vygotsky's perspective also appears to be consistent with my view of reading as a transactional process. Knowledge is constructed as a result of sensory information; mental activity and experience; and thus, knowledge depends heavily on culture, context, custom, historie specificity and sensitivity. In terms of c1assroom contexts and students' learning, Vygotsky's work has provided me with ways to think about the teacher's role in instruction (i.e., with the teacher as a 'mediator' in learning). The concept of the "zone of proximal development" (or ZPD) offers teachers sorne
•
extremely practical advice within a theoretical framework. Vygotsky's zone of proximal development was defined as: .... the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers. (p. 86)
The pragmatic influences of Dewey's work (1956) have also continued to strongly influence the ongoing development of my own epistemological 'stance' as a social constructivist. An idea circulated over a century ago in his work on 'The School and Society' is one that still resonates for me today both personally and professionaIly as an educator:
•
mind cannot be regarded as an individual monopolistic possession, but represents the outworkings of the endeavor and thought of humanity; that it is developed in an environment which is social as weIl as physical, and
5
•
that social needs and aims have been most potent in shaping it. (Dewey, 1956, p.99)
My initial education as a teacher in England (1975-1979) was heavily influenced by the thinking and writing of John Dewey. Today, 1 still fmd his philosophy of education and pivotai ideas, thought provoking and a source of inspiration. As Clandinin and Connelly (2000) aptly state, "Dewey's writings on the nature of experience (have) remained (my) conceptual and imaginative backdrop" (p.2). The personal and the social are constantly present in Dewey' s definition of experience. That is, individuals need to be understood as such, but they are always in relation to a social context or contexts (Maguire, 1994). Therefore their social contexte s) must also be part of understanding them.
•
While Dewey did not forsee the complexity of multiple contexts interacting in the same ways as more recent discourse suggests, he did regard education, experience and life as inextricably intertwined. To study education is to study experience. Thus, Dewey regarded the study of education as a reciprocal process; that is, we not oruy leam about education from thinking about life; we leam about life from thinking about education. Clandinin and Connelley remind us of the complex nature of a child's experiential classroom learning: "The term experience helps us think through such matters as an individual child's learning while also understanding that learning takes place with other children, with a teacher, in a classroom, in a community and so on" (p.2). The purpose of my study was to investigate the experiential learning of
•
teachers. Notwithstanding, 1 believe principles of constructivist theory similar to
6
•
those described by Clandinin and Connelly can be seen as equally relevant to teachers' learning in social contexts. While knowledge and beliefs are intemally constructed, they are socially and culturally mediated (Fosnot, 1996). My
personal
epistemological
perspective
is
located
on
a
contextualistlconstructivistlsocio-cultural continuum; thus, l also concur with Cunningham & Fitzgerald's (1996) assertion that: Knowledge, then, is a constructive process of transacting with ideas, either individually or within a social context. Knowers construct knowledge and are constructed by knowledge. (PA8)
It is my intent to learn more about what teacher participants in the study
knew about reading, the teaching of reading, and how their knowledge was
•
acquired, sustained, and maintained. Therefore, l set out to co-construct, with the teacher participants, an understanding of how they both articulated their theoretical orientations to reading, and how they described their perceptions of relationships between their knowledge, beliefs,
guiding principles, and
instructional practices as teachers of reading.
Purpose and Significance of the Study Reading process studies have been very weIl documented. The logical emphasis appears to have been placed upon studying the development and teaching of reading during early childhood (Clay, 1991; Depree & l versen, 1994; Durkin, 1966; Goodman, 1965, 1967; Goodman et al., 1987; Pressley, Rankin, & Yokoi, 1996; Wells & Hart-Hewins, 1994). However, Paul Kropp (1993) argues
•
the case for reading instruction to continue weIl beyond grade three, citing
7
•
Jeanne Chall's research (1983; 1990), in which she refers to the 'fourth grade slump'. Kibby (1995) also maintains that reading instruction at all levels must move beyond teaching students to find the main ideas and details in texts, to teaching higher level skills of applying "logic, inference and synthesis" to those texts. Attention to studies of teachers of reading, particularly in the later elementary grades, appears to have been limited, and specifically in terms of how teachers learn, what teachers experience as they learn (and continue to learn) about the teaching of reading, and how that learning is related to their instructional practice. Anders, Hoffman & Duffy (2000) reported on research in both pre-service and in-service teacher education in the teaching of reading. While Anders et al.
•
conclude that teacher education is gradually receiving increased research attention, the authors also pointed out that studies to date have not yet provided answers to some of the most pressing questions and unresolved problems around how best to both prepare and continue to support the professional learning of teachers in reading. In 1976 Harste (Harste, Strickler, & Fay) wrote about the teacher variable
in reading instruction increasingly becoming a topic of investigation. At that time, Harste suggested a model of teacher as decision-maker and attempted to relate teacher beliefs and characteristics with teachers' theoretical orientation to reading. The definition of theoretical orientation to reading as presented by Harste & Burke (1977) provided a conceptual framework for this study ofteachers and their
•
knowledge and beliefs about the teaching of reading:
8
•
Theoretical orientation to reading (is) the particular knowledge and belief system held toward reading, that is, those deep guiding principles that guide teachers to establish expectations about student behaviour and the host of decisions they must make as they teach reading lessons. (p. 32)
Cunningham and Fitzgerald's (1996) more recent assertions also emphasize the role of epistemology in understanding teachers and the teaching of reading: Reading instruction is driven by an underlying epistemological outlook. If you have a particular theory of knowledge, you are likely to teach and assess reading in ways commensurate with that outlook. (p. 56)
As far back as Harste, Strickler & Fay's work on the teacher variable in
•
1976, research has suggested that the teacher is an integral part of successful reading instruction. More recently, a number of other influential researchers in the field have reiterated this point (Baumann, Hoffman, Duffy-Hester, & Moon, 2000; Dudley-Marling, 1995; Duffy, 1977; Duffy & Anderson, 1984; Duffy & Hoffman, 1999; Smith, 1988a, 2004). Nonetheless, studies that have sought input from teachers about how their knowledge, beliefs, and experiences relate to the theory and practice of teaching reading still appear to be considerably underrepresented in the literature. Part of the explanation given for this dearth in the past was the lack of a consistent measure that would profile teacher-held belief systems accurately and reliably. However, the development of the Theoretical Orientation to Reading Profile (DeFord, 1985) provided an instrument with which
•
to examine models of reading and instruction based upon defined theoretical positions.
9
•
New demands are being made on teachers' own learning today as a result of the many changes occurring within the teaching profession (Hargreaves & Fullan, 1998). Increasingly, direct links between teacher education, professional development and c1assroom instruction are being made in the educational research dialogue (Commeyras & DeGroff, 1998; Ontario College of Teachers, 1999; Shanahan & Neuman, 1997). While a number of studies looking at the nature of instruction in primary grade c1assrooms have been published in recent years (Morrow, Tracey, Woo, & Pressley, 1999; Pressley et al., 1996; Strickland, 1998; Weaver, 1998a), research studies with a similar focus in grades four through six are much more limited. Nevertheless, the work of one teacher/researcher is particularly renowned for its
•
explorations of teaching reading and writing with a focus on students in Grades Four to Six (Atwell, 1998, 1990). Atwell's work provides teachers with discussions of both theory and practice and the intricate relationships between the two. A recently published text about teaching reading and writing in the 'middle years' specifically addresses approaches to teaching reading and writing in Grades Four to Eight and also emphasizes the critical role of knowledgeable and informed teachers. David Booth (2001) de scribes the complex challenges awaiting students and their teachers in the later elementary grades as follows:
•
Students .... are expected to read and write independently and more often, to read longer and more difficult texts in a variety of curriculum areas, to read faster and more selectively, to write coherently with their own voices, to remember more information and to make integrated connections with the curriculum. (p. 7)
10
•
Booth goes on to describe the teacher's role as one who guides, informs and strengthens students' abilities. However, to fulfill such a role, Booth argues teachers need to know about reading and writing processes; they need to have knowledge about how language works, the elements of craft used by authors, and how to locate books that can lead to deeper thought. In other words, teachers must be knowledgeable, informed participants in the reading process alongside their students. Attention is also directed to recognition that expectations for proficient reading continue to increase rapidly throughout the later elementary grades. Therefore, Booth stresses the need to advocate for teachers' development of a broad range of knowledge, skills, as weIl as a repertoire of instructional practices that enable them to maintain and enhance students' fluency and enthusiasm for
•
reading . Cunningham and Fitzgerald, (1996) suggest that if one considers reading itself is a way of knowing, epistemology is even more central to reading research and instruction than to most other areas of education: By examining the epistemological underpinnings in our own work as weIl as in the work of others, we can bring to light presuppositions and assumptions that might otherwise go unquestioned, and many of these presuppositions and assumptions have immediate practical consequences in that they influence what people believe and how they act. (p. 36)
Building on the work ofNespor (1987) and Pajares (1992), my topic led towards further exploration of the premise that if we are to understand teaching from teachers' perspectives, we must seek to understand the beliefs with which they
•
define their work. Thus, the focus of this inquiry became an inquiry into how
11
•
teachers articulate their knowledge, their beHefs and theories about reading and reading instruction; and how they see relationships between their theoretical orientation to reading and instructional practices. l address what appears to be a significant gap in the research literature on teachers and the teaching of reading: specifically, an in-depth exploration of how teachers' theoretical orientations to reading are related to their instructional practice in the later elementary grades. My objective is to gain a greater understanding of teacher participants' knowledge and beHefs about reading and how their knowledge and beliefs relate to instructional practices in the teaching of reading at the Grade Five level.
•
Two questions guided this research study: 1. What are the theoretical orientations to reading of the teacher participants, all teachersin Grade Five classrooms, as determined by the DeFord Theoretical Orientation to Reading Profile? 2. As revealed through in-depth interviews, how do the teacher participants describe (i) understandings of their theoretical orientations to reading and (ii) the relationships between their theoretical orientation and instructional practices?
Summary
In this chapter, l identified the main purposes for undertaking the inquiry,
presented key studies in related literature, described my own educational
•
background and professional experience that led to my particular interests in
12
•
researching teachers and the teaching of reading, and presented the research questions which guided this study. The next chapter presents an in-depth review of the related literature organized into four key themes: teachers' beliefs and knowledge, theoretical orientations to reading, teacher education and theoretical orientations to reading, theoretical orientations to reading and instructional practices.
Definition of Terms
The terms used within this dissertation are described and detined as follows: Belief(s): personally held mental constructs that do not require community
•
consensus or agreement to establish their validity (Nespor, 1987); beliefs are personal principles, constructed from experience, that are employed by individuals to interpret new experiences and information and to guide action. Construction of Meaning: understanding of what is read involves the
'construction of meaning'; i.e., the processes of building knowledge and promoting understanding and insight: When we read, we compose meaning in our minds; when we write, we compose thoughts on paper. Emic: the world of experience from the point of view of the historically and
culturally situated individual. Experience: (knowledge based on) personal observations. Guided Reading: small-group instruction for students who read the same text.
•
Groups are homogenous: the students read at about the same level, demonstrate
13
•
similar reading behaviours, and share instructional needs. Students usually read silently and independently. Explicit instruction of effective strategies for processing a variety of fiction and non-fiction texts is introduced as appropriate. These small groups are temporary; groupings change as teachers assess students' growth and needs (Fountas & Pinnell, 2001). In-service Teacher Education: professional development and additional
'formal' education for practicing teachers (e.g. workshops, seminars, conferences, and higher degrees). Instructional Practices: pedagogical skills, strategies and associated resources
employed by teachers in their instruction of reading. Junior Grades: grades four to six.
•
Literacy: literacyas social practice, involving literacy events and social practices. Pre-service Teacher Education: initial teacher education programs prior to
qualifying as a teacher. Primary Grades: grades one to three. Reading: definitions of reading and the related implications for reading
instruction have changed over time. It is therefore essential to acknowledge that a definition of 'reading' needs to be understood in the context of the theoretical and pragmatic orientations of the definer. For the purposes of this study, my own definition supports Goodman's view of reading as a sampling, selecting, predicting, comparing and confirming activity, during which the reader selects a sample of useful graphic cues based both on what he sees and expects to see
•
(Goodman, 1974) It may also be helpful to refer to Goodman's transactional
14
•
socio-psycholinguistic process. Reading is also a process where "answers are sought to questions that vary with the person asking them .... e.g. reading a novel, a poem, a social studies text, a mathematical formula, a telephone directory, a recipe, an advertisement in a newspaper. The only thing that makes aIl of these different activities reading is that answers are being sought in print" (Smith, 2004, p.180). Skills in Context (or 'balanced' instruction al programs): the provision of a
flexible and comprehensive instructional framework denoting a state of equilibrium between aIl the parts (i.e., approaches involve reading instruction in literature and rich language experiences that serve to assist readers in the construction of their own meaning and interactions with text, in order to acquire
•
knowledge and enhance understanding.) This view is not synonymous with the beHef that learning proceeds in a skills-based hierarchy (Routman, 2000). Theoretical: theoretical knowledge can be represented in the form of a model
which in turn is the basis for predicting and controlling a phenomenon involving different persons, settings and periods of time. Theoretical Orientation: the particular knowledge and belief system held toward
reading; the deep philosophical principles that guide teachers to establish expectations about student behaviour and the host of decisions they must make as they teach reading lessons (Harste & Burke, 1977, p. 32). Theory: scheme or system of ideas held to expIain observable facts. Three-Interview Series: a model of in-depth phenomenological interviewing
•
(Seidman, 1998) which promotes the understanding of people's behaviour by
15
•
placing that behaviour in the context of their lives and the lives of those around them. For, without context, there is little possibility of exploring the meaning of an expenence.
•
•
•
CHAPTERTWO REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE & THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK This study explores the relationships between theoretical orientations to reading and the instructional practices of teachers in the later elementary grades, specifically Grade Five. The review of literature inc1udes a discussion of research related to the following key themes: teacher beliefs and knowledge, theoretical orientations to reading, teacher education and theoretical orientations to reading, theoretical orientations to reading and instructional practices.
Teacher Beliefs and Knowledge
•
The nature of beliefs Beliefs are personal principles, constructed from expenence, that are employed by individuals, often unconsciously, to interpret new experiences and information and to guide action (Pajares, 1992). Beliefs are personally held mental constructs that, according to Nespor (1987) do not require community consensus or agreement to establish their validity. In sorne contemporary, crosscultural situations, however, Nespor's position could certainly be challenged. In addition to being personal and individual, teachers' beliefs also have a sociocultural dimension, are shaped over time by contexts and circumstances, and can be held individually or collectively. Richardson (1996) relies on Green's (1971) view that belief "describes a
•
proposition that is accepted as true by the individual holding the belief' (p. 104).
17
•
Richardson also goes on to distinguish beliefs from knowledge by relying on the ''truth condition" found in the philosophical literature: beliefs as propositions do not have to satisfy a truth condition, but knowledge c1aims do. While it does not necessarily follow that everything a teacher believes or is willing to act upon merits the label 'knowledge' (Feiman-Nemser & Floden, 1986), Richardson notes that the research literature does not always adhere to the convention of applying a "truth condition" either. As a result, research on teachers' knowledge can often be as much about teachers' beHefs as teachers' knowledge. For example, personal practical knowledge is a concept frrst introduced by Elbaz (1983) and elaborated upon later in the work of Clandinin and Connelly (1987). Richardson further emphasizes the " ... considerable similarity between the terms knowledge and
•
beliefs in the concept ofpersonal practical knowledge" (p. 104).
However, sorne potential dangers of the psychological representations of knowledge are presented by Borko and Putnam (1996) who state: A potential danger inherent in any description of categories of knowledge is that people may come to see the categories as representing an actual storage system in the human mind rather than a heuristic device for helping us think about teacher knowledge. That is, we may find ourse Ives thinking that teachers' knowledge is organized into abstract, isolated, discrete categories whereas, in fact, what teachers know and believe is completely intertwined, both among domains and within actions and context. (p. 677)
Borko and Putnam support a view of teachers' knowledge as richly contextualized and embedded in practice "from which it arose and in which it is used" (p.677). Smith (1982; 2004) regarded the system of knowledge, that is, our theory
•
of the world, as a structure just like any other system of organizing information.
18
•
Thus he describes theory as a filter in perceiving, understanding, organizing, and acting upon our experiences in the world:
Everything that we know and believe is organized into a personal theory of what the world is like, a theory that is the basis of all our perceptions and understanding of the world, the root of all learning, the source of hopes and fears, motives and expectancies, reasoning and creativity. And this theory is all we have. If we can make sense of the world at aIl, it is by interpreting our experience with the world in the light of our theory. The theory is our shield against bewilderment. (2004, p.14) Theories and beliefs make up an important part of teachers' general knowledge through which teachers perceive, process and act upon information in the classroom (Clark & Peterson, 1986; Munby, 1982; Munby, Russell, & Martin, 2001). According to Harvey (1986) belief systems are a set of conceptual
•
representations which signify to its holder a reality or given state of affairs of sufficient validity, truth or trustworthiness to warrant reliance upon it as a guide to personal thought and action. Many factors contribute to the shaping of a teacher's beliefs including the quality of pre-service experience in the classroom and the opportunity for reflection on the pre-service experience (Bean & Zulich, 1992; Cherland, 1989; Richards, Gipe, & Thompson, 1987). In practice, teachers' beliefs take many forms. They can be embodied, among others, in the teachers' theories about a particular subject area's learning and teaching and can affect learning and teaching in different ways. For example, a teacher's implicit theory about the nature of knowledge acquisition can affect hislher behaviours and, in turn, hislher students' learning (Anders & Evans, 1994; Hollingsworth, 1989).
•
Numerous beliefs are generated from the multi-faceted dimensions and experiences of an individual teacher's life. These beliefs become linked in a
19
•
personalized belief system which, in tum, is made up of 'clusters' ofbeliefs, each cluster being related to particular facets of the individual's experiences. Pajares (1992) explains that when researchers refer to teachers' beliefs, they are not referring to the broader, general belief system of which educational beliefs are only one part, but rather, to teachers' educational beliefs. Nonetheless, the construct of educational beliefs is still broad and difficult to operationalize for purposes of research. Therefore, a further sub-division into clusters of "educational beliefs" is helpful:
•
educational be/iefs about are required - beliefs about confidence to affect students' performance (teacher efficacy), about the nature of knowledge (epistemological beliefs), about causes of teachers' or students' performance (attributions, locus of control, motivation, writing apprehension, math anxiety), about perceptions of self and feelings of selfworth (self-concept, self-esteem), about confidence to perform specific tasks (self-efficacy). (Pajares, 1992, p. 316)
Pajares further states, "There are also educational beHefs about specific subjects or disciplines (reading instruction, the nature of reading, whole language)" (p. 316). This is of particular relevance to the topic of teachers' knowledge/beliefs about reading instruction. Epistemological beliefs, beliefs about the nature of knowledge, are central to my study. These beliefs include specific kinds of educational beliefs related to the nature of teachers' knowledge and beliefs about reading, and the ways in which the se epistemological principles are organized, interpreted and articulated in terms of a theoretical orientation toward reading. Fenstermacher (1978; Fenstermacher, 1994) and Green (1971) both regard beliefs as central to their philosophical conceptualizations of teaching and teacher
•
education. Beliefs are thought of as an individual' s understanding of the world
20
•
and how it works or should work, and may be held both consciously or unconsciously. According to Bacharach (1993), beliefs guide an individual's actions. An important responsibility of teacher educators is the provision of opportunities for pre-service teachers to explicate and examine their beliefs and beHef systems and thus to modifY and/or add to their emerging theories of reading. In the traditional philosophical literature, knowledge is dependent on a
"truth condition" that is external to the individual with the particular thought (Green, 1971; Leher, 1990). From a philosophical perspective, knowledge is not, then, viewed as a psychological concept: "A proposition is knowledge if there is rigorous evidence for the premise, and the procedures for developing the
•
argument as weIl as the conclusions are agreed upon by a community of scholars, scientists, or other professionals" (Richardson, 1994, p. 92). Alternatively, when a proposition is held psychologically, by an individual, and drives the actions of that individual, it is a belief. Evidential beliefs are beliefs derived from knowledge, but beliefs do not require a 'truth condition'. This rather positivistic stance, where verified hypotheses are established as facts or laws, is incompatible with a constructivist perspective that regards knowledge as individual reconstructions coalescing around consensus (Guba &
Lincoln,
1994).
Furthermore, constructivist theory suggests knowledge and beliefs are internally constructed but socially and culturally mediated (Fosnot, 1996), and accepts that:
•
multiple 'knowledges' can coexist when equally competent (or trusted) interpreters disagree, and/or depending on social, political, cultural, economic, ethnic, and gender factors that differentiate the interpreters . These constructions are subject to continuous revision, with changes most
21
•
likely to occur when relatively different constructions are brought into juxtaposition in a dialectical context. (Guba & Lincoln, 1994, p. 113). While Piagetian versions of constructivism tended to focus on individual, developmental stages or processes, over time, the influences of social processes have been increasingly acknowledged by cognitive psychologists. Social constructivists normally espouse a Vygotskian theoretical framework (knowledge and beliefs are socially and culturally developed). Therefore, my own perspective is one that sees teachers constructing their knowledge and understandings within a social context; new learning is shaped by both prior knowledge and cultural perspectives, and intelligent thought involves the self-monitoring of learning and thinking ('meta-cognition' or 'reflective practice').
•
Beliefs and knowledge
Much of the research literature on teaching and learning does not differentiate between knowledge and beliefs, as described above. As previously noted, Richardson (1994) suggests one explanation for this may be that a considerable proportion of the literature treats knowledge as the result of a psychological process. For example, Alexander, Shallert & Hare (1991) equated knowledge with belief: "Knowledge encompasses all that a person knows or believes to be true, whether it is verified as true in sorne sort of objective or external way" (p. 317). In an analysis of methodological issues inherent in studying the beliefs and knowledge of teachers, Kagan (1990) also utilized the terms belief and knowledge interchangeably: "1 do so in light of mounting
•
22
•
evidence that much of what a teacher knows of his or her craft appears to be defined in highly subjective terms" (PA21). Considerable similarities can also be found between the terms knowledge and beliefs in the concept of teachers' personal practical knowledge (Clandinin, 1986; Clandinin & Connelley, 1986; Connelley & Clandinin, 1986). To elaborate, personal knowledge relates to the belief systems developed by individual teachers as a direct result of their socio-cultural experiences, those influences that have shaped the person who is the teacher. According to Lampert (1984), personal knowledge includes knowledge of "who the teacher is and what she cares about" (p.204), in addition to knowledge of students beyond what can be provided by paper and pencil style activities and tests. Feiman-Nemser & Floden (1986)
•
de scribe personal knowledge as: the teacher's vision of what a child should become is based in what that individual teacher knows about the child. This personal knowledge is essential in accomplishing what teachers care about, what students want, and what the curriculum requires. ( p.513) Practical knowledge develops both within the specific context of the c1assroom setting and through interaction within the cultural context of the school and the community beyond the c1assroom. Characteristics of teachers' practical knowledge are that it is both time-bound and situation specific, personally compelling and oriented toward action (Feiman-Nemser & Floden, 1986). Clandinin & Connelly (1986) used the term 'personal practical knowledge' to convey how the teacher knows or understands a c1assroom situation. This form of knowledge is acquired through experience and is regarded as embodied within the
•
whole person, not just in his or her mind. Emphasis on the embodiment of
23
•
knowledge represents the main departure of personal practical knowledge from 'beliefs'. Embodied knowledge goes beyond the cognitive and relates to the ways in which individuals physically interact with their environment (Johnson, 1987). In other words, within this conception of understanding, knowledge is not
separated from the "knower" (Carter, 1990); rather, knowledge is personalized, idiosyncratic, often tacit, and for Schon (1983) emerges during action and afteraction. The work of Elbaz (1981) suggested another extension of the term 'knowledge' to inc1ude concepts that might also be considered by others as 'beHefs'. Elbaz discussed the role of 'practical knowledge' and argued that this, like belief, guides teacher action in an intuitive rather than a logically, reasoned
•
manner. In fact, a teacher' s personal, practical, and professional forms of knowledge all contribute to the construction of an individual's educational knowledge base and belief systems. Consistent with a constructivist perspective, the creation and development of knowledge about teaching and leaming presents teachers as individuals who actively engage· in a process of seeking and making meaning from personal, practical and professional experiences
CVacca, Vacca,
&
Gove, 1995). Elbaz (1983) also used the term 'orientation' to indicate the way practical knowledge is held in active relation to practice. She identified five aspects of this orientation: situational, self, social, experiential, and theoretical. She argued that, "The theoretical orientation, in a sense, conditions all the others, determining the
•
contours of practical knowledge" (p. 102). Elbaz went on to suggest that how the
24
•
knower conceptualizes (either implicitly or explicitly), theory and practice and the relationships between them, will determine how practical knowledge is acquired, used and exploited for practical purposes. In a case study of a high-school English teacher, Elbaz (1983) suggests teachers use practical knowledge to express purposes, give shape and meaning to their experiences, and to structure social realities. Each of these three uses are conditioned by the way teachers conceive of theory, practice and their relationship. In my study, 1 view 'practical knowledge' as including both personal and practical forms of knowledge. 1 regard the construction
of
personal/practical
knowledge
as
deriving
from
the
knowledge/beliefs, insights, and habits that enable teachers to do their work in schools.
•
Calderhead (1996) describes attempts to chart a human knowledge base in any professional activity, including teaching, as both a challenging and potentially never-ending task. Given the "vast and somewhat idiosyncratic knowledge base that may be continuously changing and restructuring" (p. 710) such a task is essentially complex and subject to the widely differing points of view that have developed about a) what counts as professional knowledge and even b) how to conceptualize that knowledge. In their extensive discussion of research on
teachers' knowledge and how it develops Munby, Russell & Martin (2001) underscore the many epistemic puzzles underlying the knowledge of teachers:
•
To understand teachers' knowledge requires embracing the tensions that underlie the epistemology without falling prey to the dichotomies that characterize them. The essential dichotomy is the divide between theory and practice. (p. 879)
25
•
Relationships between teacher beliefs and practices Theoretical conceptions and subject knowledge reside within a teacher's belief system and are interpreted and translated into instructional action by teacher thinking (Calderhead, 1987; Clark & Peterson, 1986; Day, Calderhead, & Denicolo, 1993; Day, Pope, & Denicolo, 1990; Elbaz, 1983). Furthermore, teachers' beliefs are often implicit, making it difficult to access them directly. This has been noted in the literature as a considerable complication in studying teachers' beliefs (pajares, 1992). The relationship of teacher beliefs to practice is highly complex and appears to be dialectical rather than unilateral, in so much as practice does not always follow as a direct result of beliefs. Rather, change in beliefs may come after, or as a result of, change in practice.
•
Pajares (1992) cautions that regarding teachers' educational beliefs as separate and unconnected to their beHef systems and values, is "ill advised and probably unproductive" (p.326). Drawing on the work of Munby (1982), Pajares agrees that when teachers' beliefs in a specific area are inconsistent with their practice in that area, it may be that "different and weightier" (p.216) beliefs are the cause. He goes on to argue it is important to think of connections among beHefs rather than beliefs as independent sub-systems. Inconsistent findings can become clearer and more meaningful when educational beliefs are conceptualized carefully and implications seen against the background of a teacher' s broader belief system. The literature suggests that teachers' educational and pedagogical beHefs do influence their instructional practice, despite theoretical and
•
methodological diversity in studies of teachers' beliefs (Pajares, 1992).
26
•
Nonetheless, Pajares specifically draws attention to the need for researchers to examine and make both their assumptions and operational definitions very explicit in order to clari:fY what has been considered a 'messy construct' (p.329). Research has also shown that teachers' decisions related to practice are the result of teacher thinking and planning for instruction (Clark & Peterson, 1986). There is evidence to support the suggestion that classroom teachers possess theoretical orientations which organize and influence their instructional practice (Borko, Shavelson, & Stem, 1981; Duffy, 1982). However, research has reflected an emphasis upon teacher decision making with little or no attention to the knowledge of subject matter upon which these decisions were based. Duffy (1977) approached the importance of teachers' knowledge of subject matter.
•
Duffy found the instructional practice of half of the teachers participating in his study to be consistent with their beliefs about reading, whereas the instructional practice of the remaining teachers was found to be inconsistent with their beliefs. Teachers, whether pre-service, in-service, novice, or experienced, hold implicit theories about students, subjects taught and professional responsibilities. Fang (1996) describes teachers' theories and beHefs as representing ''the rich store of general knowledge of objects, people, events and their characteristic relationships that teachers have that affects their planning and their interactive thoughts and decisions as well as their classroom behaviour" (p. 49). Moreover, beHefs act as a lens through which a myriad of instructional judgments and decisions are filtered (Cunningham & Fitzgerald, 1996; Prawat, 1992;
•
Richardson, Anders, Tidwell, & Lloyd, 1991; Smith, 2004). DeFord (1985)
27
•
stated: "Knowledge ... fonns a system of beliefs and attitudes which direct perceptions and behaviors" (pp. 352-3) and, according to Blanton & Moonnan's work (1987), there is a clear relationship between teachers' knowledge and instructional behaviors. The most significant contribution made in recent years to our understanding of the relationship of teachers' beliefs to practices has been in the area of reading (Fang, 1996). While this body of research is still relatively small, a number of studies support the notion that teachers hold theoretical beliefs towards reading and indicate that teacher beliefs influence instructional practice and classroom interactions (Blanton & Moonnan, 1987; Harste & Burke, 1977; Kamil & Pearson, 1979; Longberger, 1992; Mangano & Allen, 1986; Rupley &
•
Logan, 1984). Richardson et al (1991) conducted a study that examined the relationship between teachers' beliefs and practices in reading comprehension and instruction. Richardson's study involved teachers in Grades Four, Five and Six; findings indicated that teachers' beliefs were very directly related to their classroom practices. For example, teachers who believed that the sub-skills of reading must be leamed before the meaning of text can be determined generally used a skills/word approach. Teachers in the study who believed learning to read is achieved by reading, utilized a literary structuralist approach. 'Real books', consistent with a literature based approach to constructing meaning from text, were used by teachers who espoused a whole-language philosophy. Within the
•
same study, a case study of a teacher's beliefs that were not consistent with
28
•
practice suggests the teacher was in the process of changing beliefs and that changes in beliefs sometimes precede major changes in practice. In general, findings from Richardson's study support the claim by Harste and Burke (1977) that "teachers are theoretical in their instructional approach to reading" (p.32) and that teachers' thinking and beliefs contribute to the shaping ofpedagogy. A study of three kindergarten teachers (Ross, 1979) identified four important factors in the ability of teachers to implement their beliefs. The four factors were: clarity of beliefs; the ability to perceive a connection between beliefs and practices; awareness and a thorough understanding of possible alternative practices; and the teacher' s perceptions of the beliefs of school system officiaIs. However, the extent to which theoretical orientations could be clearly
•
seen to influence teachers' behaviours or instructionaI practice was considered very difficult to demonstrate accurately and reliably. Researchers who attempted to study the relationships between teachers' theories and classroom practice at that time reported a range of differing results (DeF ord, 1981; Harste & Burke, 1977; Kamil & Pearson, 1979). Research in other areas of literacy instruction and practice, e.g., in writing and English as a Second Language instruction, have aIso substantiated the claim by Kamil & Pearson (1979) that aIl teachers operate with at least an implicit model of reading. For example, a study by Mangano and Allen (1986) found teachers' approaches to language arts instruction differed according to their beliefs about writing. It is reasonable to assume a teacher' s theoretical orientation
•
to writing would operate on a similar basis to a theoreticaI orientation towards
29
•
reading; i.e., influenced and constructed by those deep philosophical princip les underlying instructional decision-making (Harste & Burke, 1977). Furthermore, ESL teachers were shown to possess more clearly defined theoretical beliefs consistent with particular methodological approaches (Johnson, 1992). Johnson's study demonstrated that teachers who possessed clearly defined theoretical beliefs provided instruction consistent with those beliefs, and that teachers with different dominant theoretical orientations provided distinctly different literacy instruction for their second language learners. 1 explore the hypothesis formulated by Harste & Burke (1977). That is, teachers make decisions about reading instruction guided by the theories, or epistemological principles, they hold about reading and learning. Harste & Burke
•
(cited in DeFord, 1985, p.352) proposed that, "a teacher's theoretical orientation establishes expectancies and influences goals, procedures, materials and classroom interaction patterns." In-depth examination and representation of relationships among theoretical orientations, beliefs and instructional practices contribute to a more complete picture of teachers' cognitive activity (Johnson, 1992), and generate important findings with practical implications for teacher education and practice. It was with Johnson's findings in mind that 1 designed a naturalistic inquiry, seeking to explore particular knowledge and belief systems held toward reading by junior division teachers (specifically Grade Five teachers), and the relationships between the teacher participants' theoretical orientations and instructional practices.
•
30
•
Exploring the consistency thesis: beliefs and practice The 'consistency thesis', i.e., the consistency or inconsistency between teachers' beliefs and practices, is a dominant theme in research on teacher beliefs and practices (Fang, 1996). Fang draws attention to the fact that researchers have reached varied conclusions about the degree to which teachers' beliefs and practices are consistent with practices. Research studies, particularly studies in reading, have supported the idea that teachers possess theoretical beHefs and that these, in turn, tend to shape the nature of their teaching practices (DeFord, 1985; Harste & Burke, 1977; Richardson et al., 1991). However, other studies have presented contradictory results and tend to emphasize the apparent inconsistency between teachers' expressed beliefs, intentions, and observed classroom practice.
•
For example, Kinzer (1988) compared elementary pre-service and in-service teachers' beliefs and their instructiona1 decision making. Kinzer's study showed pre-service and in-service teachers sharing similar theoretical orientations to how reading takes place and develops, but the in-service teachers tended to be more inconsistent in their choice of instructional content. Readence, Konopak & Wilson (1991) replicated the Kinzer study and found the relationship between beliefs and instructional practices of both elementary and secondary school teachers varied from highly consistent to highly inconsistent. Their results offer further support to the contention that, although there is some congruence between teacher practices and their belief systems about reading, the relationship is not always strong (Duffy & Anderson, 1984).
•
31
•
Conversely, Duffy and Anderson (1984) found teachers' practices were often detennined by the nature of teaching and classroom life. Their study showed that differences in the degree of consistency between beliefs and practice might also be derived from the diverse contexts in which teachers work and the constraints that these impose (e.g. some imposed constraints rnight be school climate, curriculum expectations, or local policies and procedures). In an earlier study, Duffy (1977) investigated teacher beliefs and practice utilizing data gathered from post-observation interviews and research field-notes. Duffy's study involved research with eight participating teachers; findings indicated that four of the teachers' be1ief systems, to varying degrees, were inconsistent with their classroom practices. Results also suggested that the teachers whose practice
•
departed from be1iefs they held might have been constrained by mandated curriculum materials, resources, time available, habits, and student abilities. It was concluded that these constraints interposed between theory and action and thus, accounted for the discrepancies observed in the study. Fullan & Hargreaves (1994) outlined several contextual factors which he1p to shape teachers' beliefs and values. These inc1ude the time periods when teachers train and enter the profession, the dominant values of those times, the particular stage in their career, and the degree of confidence in their own teaching. Another key 'constraint factor' rnight be teachers' reluctance to express beliefs if they appear to be inconsistent with current thinking and official policy and, thus, may be perceived as potentially detrimental to career opportunities or prospects
•
for promotion (Alexander, 1992).
32
•
The 'consistency thesis' was also examined in a longitudinal study that investigated teachers' theoretical orientations to reading and changes over time (Paris, 1997). The thinking and practices of nine pre-service teachers were studied during their practice teaching experiences and again three years later in their roles as elementary school teachers. The focus of the inquiry was to explore how a well-defined theoretical orientation to reading becomes intemalized and is manifested in c1assroom practice. Findings indicated some support for the idea that teachers' theoretical orientations were intemalized and remained consistent over time. The results, however, were mixed. The theoretical orientations of eight of the nine participants remained consistent in the Theoretical Orientation to Reading Profile (TORP) scores conducted three years apart. However, an
•
examination of TORP results after three years of teaching experience indicated that the theoretical orientations and planning of four of the participants were consistent, while the theoretical orientations and planning of five of the participants were not consistent. These mixed results appear to coincide with other studies that have investigated relationships between teachers' theories about reading and their c1assroom practice (Duffy, 1977; Kinzer, 1988; Wilson, Konopak, & Readence, 1992). Grisham (2000) examined teacher participants' beliefs and practices in reading and language arts. The results of Grisham's study c1early indicated the highly complex interaction of teachers' knowledge (in the forms of personal, practical and professional knowledge) with teachers' beliefs, and the effects on
•
their c1assroom practices:
33
•
Teachers' theoretical conceptions of reading were changed as a result of the cohesiveness of the (pre-service education) program teachings (professional knowledge), and these effects appear to be steady over time. Field experiences during student teaching (practical knowledge) did not seem to form a consistent picture as far as changing the beliefs (personal knowledge) and/or practice of the participants. Once participants had their own c1assrooms, some participants' theoretical conceptions about literacy changed and it was the context of the teaching situation which seemed to make a difference. The increasing pressure for accountability in teaching may have influenced teachers' beliefs and practices as weIl. (p. 166) A degree of inconsistency between teachers' beliefs and instructional practices is perhaps not unexpected when one considers the increasingly complex c1assroom environments where teachers and students work. Poulson et al (2001) emphasize that more attention must be given to important practical concems around how teachers can apply their theoretical beliefs within the constraints
•
imposed by the complexities of classroom life (and also more global forces) . Researchers have recognized the fact that teachers' abilities to attend to their beliefs and to provide instruction consistent with their theoretical beliefs may very weIl be constrained by these same complexities (Duffy, 1982; Duffy & Anderson, 1984; Duffy & BalI, 1986; Paris, Wasik, & Turner, 1991; Roehler & Duffy, 1991). That c1assroom contexts can have a powerful influence on a teacher's beliefs and, as a result, affect instructional practice, was borne out by Duffy and Anderson's research (1984). Duffy and Anderson observed that, while teachers were able to articulate beliefs about reading outside the c1assroom, their actual instructional decisions and practices were govemed by the nature of instruction and c1assroom life. This suggests that Duffy's description (1982) of life in the c1assroom as a place where
•
teachers are "consumed with maintaining a flow of productive activities while
34
•
faced with a variety of implicit and explicit mandates that defme and limit their instructional options" (Duffy, 1982, cited in Fang, 1996, p.55), is equally applicable
to
contemporary
classrooms.
Characteristics
of
classroom
environments today, as suggested by DuftY in 1982, may indeed make it difficult for teachers to " ... remember that they are supposed to be cognitive information processors who make differential instructional decisions on the basis of rationally developed hypotheses" (p. 361).
Conclusions
A growing body of research into teacher thinking continues to investigate questions related to the consistency between teachers' theoretical beHefs and their
•
instructional practices. Few studies, however, have explicitly addressed the more practical concem of how teachers can apply their theoretical beliefs within the constraints imposed by the complexities of contemporary classrooms. As Fang (1996) suggests, solutions do not lie in simply providing teachers with more theories. Teachers must be assisted in understanding how to manage the complexities of classroom life and "how to apply theory within the constraints imposed by those realities" (p.59). Duffy and Anderson (1984) recognized this and expressed it succinctly when they wrote:
The issue is not whether teachers should possess theoretical knowledge .... They should. Instead, the issue is how teachers can apply theoretical knowledge in real classrooms where the relationship between theory and practice is complex and where numerous constraints and pressures influence teacher thinking (p.103) .
•
35
•
The issue of relationships between theory and practice is highly complex. The sources of teachers' knowledge are also intricate and complex and invariably specifie to individual experience. 1 consider opportunities for teachers to reflect upon and develop their own theoretical orientations to be an integral part of preservice and in-service teacher education. Reflections on the complex relationships between theory and practice in 'real' classrooms and how constraints, pressures and opportunities influence teacher thinking are at the heart of this inquiry: the discussion of teachers' knowledge and beliefs, and the relationships between theoretical orientation to reading and related instructional practices.
Theoretical Orientations to Reading
•
Harste & Burke (1977) defined theoretical orientation to reading, operationally, as ''the particular knowledge and belief system held toward reading" (p. 32); that is, theoretical orientation includes those deep philosophical principles that guide teachers to establish expectations about student behaviour and the host of decisions they must make as they teach reading lessons. A difference in the theory model held, or theoretical orientation, may necessitate differences in practice (Steiner, 1977). Harste & Burke were among the fust to suggest that the teaehing of reading is theoretically based. Utilizing both theoretical and interview data, they concluded that this belief system establishes expectations and influences teachers during their planning and implementation of reading instruction. Several other
•
research studies note that theoretical orientation exerts an influence on teachers' decision making in reading instruction (Borko et al., 1981; Kami! & Pearson,
36
•
1979; Shavelson, 1983; Stern & Shavelson, 1983). Rupleyand Logan (1984) also concluded "beliefs about reading influence elementary teachers' decisions" (p. 15). Barr (1974-75) and DeFord (1981) found there were consistent strategies across studies of reading instruction for children taught by a code emphasis approach and for those taught by a word recognition approach. Findings suggested that teachers of the same theoretical orientation have similar behaviors and expectations.
Development of the theoretical orientation to reading profile ln response to recognizing the need for a consistent way to profile teacher
held belief systems accurately and reliably, DeFord (1979; 1985) developed and
•
validated an instrument to determine teachers' theoretical orientations in reading instruction. The DeFord Theoretical Orientation to Reading Profile (TORP) has been used extensively since its development and is considered both a reliable and valid indicator of respondents' theoretical orientations to reading (Schleffler, Richmond, & Kazelskis, 1993). The TORP uses a Likert scale response system to determine teacher beliefs about practices in reading instruction. It categorizes theoretical orientations of reading into three broad groups: phonies, skills, and who le language. DeFord (1979) examined and categorized instructional programs in reading according to basic theoretical orientations. As a result, three c1usters of theoretical orientations emerged. One grouping initially emphasized smaller-than-
•
word level language units, with gradual movement toward word units and
37
•
attention to comprehension. The texts used in these programs were controlled for phonemic
consistency
and
systematic
introduction
of consonant-vowel
combinations. Teacher manuals suggested large segments oftime for the practice of decoding isolated letters and letter combinations. Texts became more complex and instructional activities, focusing .on fluency and comprehension, were increased when a foundation in sound/letter correspondence was accomplished. Sight word instruction was only utilized for those words that did not lend themselves to the use of phonics. This c1uster of programs was referred to as 'phonics'. A second c1uster of programs placed emphasis on building an adequate sight word vocabulary for use in reading. Sight vocabulary items were usually
•
introduced in context, with multiple opportunities provided for practice. Instruction in sound/letter correspondence was also found in these materials but appeared to focus on initial and ending consonant sounds from the vocabulary items introduced. Exercises on long and short vowel sound distinctions were dealt with in a less systematic manner than in the phonics programs. Story quality improved as a greater number of vocabulary items were incorporated. This c1uster ofprograms was referred to as 'skills'. The third orientation, found in the instructional programs examined provided readers with quality literature from the outset of instruction. Initial emphasis was on developing a sense of story or text as a framework, for dealing with smaller units of language. Activities that focused on words or letters were
•
integrated into the reading experience, with studentlgroup generation of stories
38
•
strongly recommended. Student writing and shared reading experiences were key elements of these instructional programs. This cluster of programs. was referred to as 'whole language'. In her study, DeFord made it c1ear that while each of these three types of
orientation were' characteristically different, they should be viewed as points on a theoretical continuum related to instruction. Phonies and whole language are at the two extremes on the continuum with skills located in the middle. DeFord also explained there are points of overlap in instructional practices, specifically in areas of proximity to another orientation. That is, the phonies and skills orientations tend to share sorne practices, as do the skills and whole language orientations. However, there is less likely to be sharing of practices between
•
phonies and whole language orientations . The DeFord Theoretical Orientation to Reading Profile (1979), also used in the current study in combination with in-depth interviews, served to address sorne of the problematic research issues related to methodology. DeFord's objective was to provide an effective instrument capable of c1assifying theoretical orientations to reading instruction. This would assist in enabling both researchers and teachers to examine the assumptions they hold, make research and instruction as consistent and effective as possible, and to develop comprehensive models of reading and instruction based upon c1early defined theoretical positions. DeFord (1985) argued that, "An understanding of how theory is generated, modified and practiced will further our understanding of the instructional process" (p.365) .
•
39
•
Features of the kinds of programs examined and 'c1ustered' by DeFord during construction of the TORP tend to reflect instructional practices most commonly associated with the teaching of reading in the primary grades (i.e., Grades One, Two, and Grade Three). My study focused on teachers of reading in Grade Five. Nevertheless, the Theoretical Orientation to Reading Profile assisted as a starting point in the emergent design of this study as 1 began to think more about how teachers beyond the primary grades, teachers who are also responsible for 'teaching reading', might articulate their theoretical orientations to reading. Therefore, as part of the early stages of data collection, the completion and return of the TORP by participating Grade Five teachers provided a useful point of reference during in-depth interviews as teachers reflected upon and articulated
•
their own theoretical orientations to reading . Use of the TORP also led to a consideration of the kinds of instructional materials available to teachers today, and to what extent the features of the program 'c1usters' may have changed since the design of DeFord's instrument. In Grade Five c1assrooms today, it is not unCOmmon to find basal reading series in use that, in essence, are not dissimilar to those c1ustered under a 'skills' orientation by DeFord (1985). Nor is it uncommon to find materials reflecting a literature-based or 'whole language' approach to the teaching of reading. One of the main purposes of this study is to listen to teachers as they articulate their theoretical orientations to reading and the reasons they cite for selecting the kinds of materials and teaching strategies used in their c1assrooms to teach reading.
•
Routman (1994) cautions, " ... the materials we employ are only as strong as our
40
•
theory of language learning. It is the way we teachers combine theory and practice that determines the effectiveness of our materials" (p. 25).
Towards exploring theoretical orientations to reading in the context ofpractice Drawing on the concept of teachers as reflective practitioners, DudleyMarling (1995) supports the idea that as teachers articulate and examine their beliefs, share their ideas and concems, and talk through their plans and problems, they provide researchers with patterns and themes to explore for further knowledge. Therefore, by listening carefully to the voices of teachers, DudleyMarling suggests we are better able to learn more about the realities of teachers' worlds, find improved means of support to assist them in negotiating the
•
challenges of teaching, and provide increased opportunities for collaborative inquiry. Earlier in this chapter 1 discussed the complexities involved in the systematic study of teachers' beliefs, in accessing implicit theories and thereby making beliefs explicit. Examining the way a teacher elects to plan for reading instruction can be seen as one way to represent the teacher' s implicit theory becoming explicit (Boschee, Whitehead, & Boschee, 1993). Characteristics of learning environments which may be created by teachers working from one (or more) of the three orientations identified by the TORP (phonics, skills, or whole language), serve to assist in illustrating various theoretical orientations in the context of practice, as follows:
•
41
•
Firstly, the source of meaning in the phonies orientation is the text or the teacher. The teacher's role is to direct the les son and to monitor the accuracy of students' responses; the student's role is to read selections from the text and learn through isolated practice of discrete skills. Examples of materials inc1ude basal textbooks and worksheets, and evaluation is carried out through objective tests with predetermined answers. Secondly, the source of meaning in the skills orientation, involves the use of both text infonnation and personal knowledge to develop meaning. The teacher's role is to direct the lesson but also to plan for individual differences within the group. Students learn to use a variety of reading strategies and engage in sorne personal writing. Materials inc1ude a variety of reading materials and
•
worksheets, and evaluation occurs through both objective and subjective tests . Thirdly, the source of meaning in the whole language orientation is the meaning students bring to the text in a particular context. The teacher's role is to activate prior knowledge, to mode!, and guide the les son; the students' role is to use the prior knowledge they bring to the text to anticipate and confmn understanding. Materials inc1ude a wide variety of books, as weIl as print materials and stories writien and shared by the students. Assignments involve journal writing, group work, in addition to individual work. Evaluation through, for example, portfolio assessment, allows for multiple interpretations of meaning and ongoing assessment in the fonn of recorded data rather than test scores. Dechant (1993) also studied the three orientations, phonies, skiIls, and
•
whole language, in tenns of implicit theoretical orientations becoming explicit
42
•
through practice. According to Dechant, teachers who work primarily from a phonies orientation are most likely to plan for and create the kind of learning environment where prescribed directions are given by the teacher. For example, students would frequently be asked to read for the purpose of fmding specifie information; to 'sound out' words; to work with a list of words with a common phonetic element; to 'drill' on the sound-symbol relationships; and to complete an assigned text and workbook pages within a specifie period of time. Teachers with a skills orientation are most likely to create a learning environment that reflects a balance of both phonies and whole language orientations. That is to say, neither graphophonic information nor prior knowledge is utilized predominantly. Readers are encouraged to begin by using either
•
graphophonic information or prior knowledge to make predictions about the text and to assist themselves in the construction of meaning. Teachers who work from a whole language orientation are most likely to create the kind of learning environment where students are immersed daily in a wide variety of reading and writing activities that also include listening and speaking. The focus is on reading for meaning, interest, and pleasure. Teachers stress that the reader' s prior knowledge and experience in relation to the writer' s message trigger information processing during reading (by making predictions about the meaning inherent in the text). The classroom itself is a 'print-rich' environment and students have open access to a wide range of reading materials; there is a focus on communication, and the students are read to daily; personal
•
43
•
reading is shared with others; and time is set aside frequently for silent reading by both students and teachers.
Conclusions
A critical element in being an effective educator today is active participation in developing self-awareness and a knowledge of one's own beliefs and practices in relation to the professional context of teaching. Knowledge and understanding of the 'continuum' (along which different theoretical orientations to reading lie) may, therefore, serve to assist classroom teachers in articulating their own beliefs about reading; in recognizing the assumptions underlying their teaching; and in planning and implementing reading instruction in practice that is
•
consistent with their theoretical beliefs. With the increased confidence such knowledge and experience bring, a teacher may consider the blending of orientations to reading and the integration of a variety of methodologies, rather than adhering to one orientation or another. Work in this area has begun to explore the combining of perspectives in reading instruction (Baumann, Hoffinan, Moon, & DuflY-Hester, 1998; Weaver, 1998b; Wharton-McDonald, Rankin, Misretta-Hampston, & Ettenberger, 1997). An examination of research related to teacher education and theoretical
orientations to reading will follow, with particular attention to an historical perspective ofteacher education in reading .
•
44
•
Teacher Education and Theoretical Orientations to Reading In addition to the teacher' s own socio-cultural, historical and educational
background, teacher education (including both pre-service and in-service education), is a very important contributing factor in the development of a teacher's knowledge and educational beHef system, or 'theoretical orientation'.
An overview of teacher education in reading The field of reading research is both complex and extensive. Furthermore, contemporary reading research is not neutral; rather, it mirrors the social and political context in which it occurs (Calfee & Drom, 1986). Studies that examine researchers' theories about the reading process from the learner's perspective
•
have been very weIl documented. However, inquiries into teachers' knowledge and what teachers experience as they learn (and continue to learn) about the teaching of reading are more difficult to locate in the literature (what Shulman (1986a) called the 'missing paradigm'). Anderson and Mitchener (1994) conclude, "The big advances in understanding about student learning have not been matched by equivalent advances in understanding about teaching" (p.36). Nonetheless, there is evidence that the situation is beginning to change (Anders, Hoffman, & Duffy, 2000). For example, a sampling oftwo Yearbooks of the National Reading Conference (Kinzer, Hinchman, & Leu, 1997; Zutell & McCormick, 1990) revealed a considerable increase in the number of articles dealing with teacher education over a seven year period: 17 articles (37%) in
•
1997, as compared with 9 articles (2%) in 1990. These findings would suggest
45
•
teacher education as a topic has (during the previous decade), begun to receive increased attention from the reading research community. The history of teacher education in reading corresponds conceptually to three trends in teacher education (Russell & Korthagen, 1995): From approximately 1900 until the 1960s, the 'apprenticeship' model was central to the preparation of teachers to teach, emphasizing what teachers should learn in coursework and from their mentors. Then, from the 1960s to the early 1980s, the trend was to assist teachers in improving both their knowledge base and the application of knowledge about both content and methods (the basal textbook era which controIled reading practices). Finally, from the mid 1980s through the 1990s, these models were challenged and there was a shift towards more 'holistic'
•
approaches emphasizing reflective teaching, journal writing and action research.
An historical perspective: Teacher education in reading
The knowledge that teachers needed was identified in two reviews (Gray, 1961; Russell & Fea, 1963). At this time, the focus on content knowledge was a theme throughout the development of reading teacher education. Both Austin (1968) and ChaIl (1975) reviewed research on preparing classroom teachers to teach reading. Austin suggested an increase in practical activities, and Chall' s conclusion was that elementary school teachers educated "during the 1960s and 1970s were not receiving adequate instruction" (p.47). Artley (1978) concurred. After reviewing key survey studies of teacher preparation (Austin & Morrison,
•
1961), Artley recommended a teacher education program that required future
46
•
teachers to take an increased number of credit hours in reading and more preservice experiences in the teaching of reading. The recommendations of both Chall and Artley appear consistent with the 'apprenticeship' model of teacher education that dominated the field prior to the 1980s. During the 1980s, reviews of research about teaching reading suggested that if teachers employed research-based practices effectively, students' learning would improve (Barr, 1984; Calfee & Drum, 1986; Otto, Wolf, & Eldridge, 1984; Raphael, 1987; Rosenshine & Stevens, 1984; Tiemey & Cunningham, 1984). However, the mere 'translation' of theory into practice resulting in increased student learning represents an erroneous and naive assumption. Teacher education in reading was also viewed as the translation oftheory into practice. For example,
•
a review of research by Calfee & Drum (1986) presented what reading teachers needed to know. While not describing how teachers actually accompli shed the teaching of reading, Calfee & Drum referred to the lack of attention (to both the teacher and instruction) when they wrote, "the present study would have been more informative if grounded in a theoretical framework of the curriculum and the pedagogy of the task" (p.819). - Barr {-1984)addressedthe-question:"How shou.ld-children betaught to read?" Although teachers were participants in only two of the studies included in Barr' s review of research about teaching reading, she at least considered that "it may be important to characterize the behavior ofteachers ... (a) general description of teaching may not adequately represent that received by different groups in a
•
class" (p.573). Barr's review was organized around instructional methods, thus
47
•
perpetuating the process-product paradigm, as did the subsequent review completed by Raphael (1987). According to Raphael, teachers should use strategies and methods to increase student learning. However, there was neither discussion of the acquisition of this knowledge or the ways teachers may apply it in practice, or discussion of theoretical understandings of the research and reading processes. Central to a review of research conducted by Otto et al. (1984) were themes of management of reading instruction, teachers' planning and decisionmaking. Recommendations inc1uded that further studies of teachers' personal perceptions and beliefs be undertaken. Otto et al, like Barr, called for more indepth studies of teachers' behavior as indicators of their beliefs and perceptions.
•
Otto et al considered that predictions ofteachers' personal perceptions and beliefs might be as influential in how one teaches, e.g. with regard to the selection of materials or methods. Tiemey & Cunningham (1984) presented a review of the methods teachers might use to teach reading comprehension and conc1uded with a plea for "reading-comprehension instructional researchers to have a vision of how research being reported fits into a larger picture of 'best program'" (p.640). Two of the four components they suggested were "a vision of teachers" and "a vision ofteacher support and change" (p.641). The reviews of reading research by Barr (1984), Otto et al. (1984) and Tiemey & Cunningham (1984) all implied that new questions about teachers' decision-making, beliefs and ways of learning and teaching needed to be studied;
•
similar questions were also being asked by teacher education researchers .
48
•
Consequently, new approaches to teacher education began to emerge (Russell & Korthagen, 1995). This led to a move away from the old process-product paradigm, with an emphasis on new directions that included reflective teaching, action research, teacher narratives, and reflective journal writing. Shulman's (1986b) description of the state of teacher education paralleled the profile of reading teacher education: "Teacher education programs ... seem to be based on the view that teacher candidates will teach effectively once they have acquired subject matter knowledge, become acquainted with models of innovative curriculum, and have practiced using them" (p.8). Sorne of the research from the mid 1980s on through the 1990s did indicate changes were ahead. Former models (both the apprenticeship and
•
process-product models) were being challenged. Researchers were increasingly concemed with notions of the reflective practitioner and connections among formal, theoretical, and abstract knowledge; informal, personal and practical knowledge (Fenstermacher, 1994; Schon, 1983). However, reading research of the 1990s did not reflect particularly dramatic shifts from process-product studies to studies of teachers and their beliefs, their understandings and practices. Changes in teacher education were, in fact, represented in the work of only sorne reading researchers. For example, of nine chapters organized in a section entitled 'Literacy and Schooling' in the Handbook ofReading Research II (1991), only three discussed the implications of research reviewed for teacher education (Hoffinan, 1991; Pearson & Fielding, 1991; RoehIer & Duffy, 1991). Pearson &
•
Fielding focused on "principles of comprehension instruction" (p. 849) and also
49
•
discussed subtle differences between the teacher's role in explicit instruction and scaffolded instruction. In addition, Pearson & Fielding drew particular attention to the developing trend that considered the teacher "a facilitator of learning and as a co-equal with students in a learning community" (p.849). Roehler & Duffy (1991) described the instructional actions of prospective teachers and questioned how teacher educators might assist teachers in learning how to make the instructional moves that seem to promote learning. Roehler & Duffy concluded that not enough was known and that the next wave of reading teacher education must better inform the field. Hoffman (1991) discussed the lack of research related to teacher and school effects on learning. He wrote that a breakthrough would come as "more
•
researchers, without enormous resources but with a scientific model, move into schools to observe and systematically study reading instruction and learning to read in classrooms" (p.948). Paris, Wasik & Turner (1991) suggested similar new directions for teacher education research, while others (Ehri & Williams, 1996; Graves, Pauls, & Sallinger, 1996) continued to represent the processproduct paradigm. For example, Ehri & Williams (1996) discussed learning to teach reading as a process that develops over a teacher's career and pre-service education as providing background knowledge about the "structure of written language, the nature of reading pro cesses and reading disabilities, alternative methods ofteaching reading, and how to assess students' reading capabilities" (p. 240). Similarly, Graves et al. (1996), placed an emphasis upon the content
•
knowledge beginning teachers must possess. These studies aIl reflect social and
50
•
political contexts of North America, and provide a strong contrast with what was happening in Australia (Cambourne, 1988, 1999) and the V.K. (Meek, 1991) Alvennann (1990) studied both reading specialists and classroom teachers and reviewed research relating to trends in teacher certification and licensure. Her framework of teacher education included descriptions of three dominant traditions: the traditional-craft, the competency-based, and the inquiry-oriented. Alvennann described sorne of the common themes among inquiry-oriented researchers:
•
Nearly aH of the studies reported have incorporated teacher decisionmaking and reflection, either as part of an interview or as a means for studying teachers' thought processes. Most have been long-term studies, sorne extending for a year or more. ThematicaHy, the studies have been concemed with how teachers acquire knowledge of complex reading instructional strategies and what beliefs, or implicit theories of teaching they use to guide their reading instruction. (p.689) Alvennann conc1uded by noting, "a growing interest in the inquiry-oriented approach ... promises new perspectives on how pre-service and in-service teachers acquire knowledge and how their beliefs influence practice" (p.704). A concise appraisal of the sense of the reading research community's position on teacher education was provided by Barr (2001). Rer position statement is of particular relevance in that it emphasizes the need for research into how teachers think and what constructs can be seen to guide their instructional decision-making and practices:
•
We do not gain an understanding from these global descriptions of how teachers using the same approach differ, or leam about how teachers think: what guides their participation and how they evolve instructional patterns that differ in unique ways from other teachers espousing similar philosophical perspectives. Studies that focus on leamer response provide
51
•
the basis for understanding learners, but they are not useful in developing an understanding of how teachers think and act. The descriptions of how children make sense of their instruction would be of interest to new and experienced teachers, but the description might be more informative with a more elaborated representation of teaching. The assumption that researchers must choose between a focus on teaching and learning can be questioned; we learn most when both aspects of this interactive whole are represented. (p. 398) Moreover, Barr went on to argue that an important question still remains for both reading researchers and teacher educators: "How do teachers learn and how can teacher educators foster this process?" (p. 407). This review of reading research is of particular relevance to my study that seeks to directly address particular limitations in the research literature; specifically, studies of teachers, teacher education, and the teaching of reading in
•
the later elementary grades. The comprehensive work of Anders et al. (2000) locates CUITent thinking in context and c1early indicates one consistent emphasis in reading research over the decades, the emphasis being that reading researchers have overwhelmingly devoted attention to the processes of reading and learning to read. The fact that there is very little empirical information available to address related problems facing teacher educators is a serious issue. More recently, however, reviews of research have begun to pay more attention to studies that investigate how teachers learn and how that learning is enacted in their instructional practice. Reviews of both pre-servIce and in-service research in reading teacher education offer valuable insights into questions concerning what teacher educators should do in order to promote teachers' learning. Pre-service education
•
has not been a high priority within the reading research community but there has
52
•
been a demonstrated increase in teacher education research. For example, the number of articles published between 1985 and 1995 was more than four times the number that appeared from 1965 to 1975 (Anders et al, 2000). Furthermore, a distinct change was seen to occur in the research perspectives on in-service teacher education during the 1990s. The emphasis shifted from a previous focus on teacher behaviors correlated with student gains as a basis for curriculum in teacher education, to viewing pro cesses of teacher learning as a model for constructing more effective contexts for in-service education: This change in perspective suggests that the complexities of teacher change are constituted by shifting definitions of reading, of increased awareness of the contexts in which teachers teach, and of sensitivity to the possibilities of collaboration among educators. (Anders et al., 2000, p.730)
•
In summary, research to date appears to reveal very few answers to the many questions about teacher education. Traditional models of teacher education involve both pre-service and in-service experiences. However, teacher education research to date does not reveal much about or explain, "how teachers of reading are created, how they teach, nor how they change" (Anders et al., 2000, p. 732). Generally speaking, in-service education remains subject to geographicallocation, available resources, and local priorities. As a result, in-service teacher education appears to have offered a somewhat haphazard approach to developing teacher expertise. In other words, what we know to date about teacher learning in practice suggests approaches to in-service have not always had significant effects on improving or changing instruction.
•
53
•
More information is needed about the distinction between the 'training' of teachers and 'teacher education'. Research reveals we know how to 'train' teachers (Le., by targeting and assessing specific behavioural outcomes), but few studies have investigated the 'education' of teachers (which has quite different, more complex goals of conceptual change, decision-making abilities, or strategic teaching). Hoffmann and Pearson (2000) have suggested the teaching of teachers must take a broad approach in selecting strategies that nurture excellence: "Our goal is not to reject training as a useful heuristic for he1ping teachers acquire a part of their teaching repertoire but rather, to situate training within a broader vision of teaching and teacher learning" (p.36). Research does reveal that there is an enormous need for studies that pursue
•
the critical questions, issues, and gaps in the CUITent literature. For example, what should be the goals of reading teacher education? What kinds of knowledge do experienced teachers who attend in-service on reading need? How do we prepare, and sustain, teachers for meeting the multifarious needs of the student readers they teach? It appears more research is needed to both inform and strengthen our working knowledge base and to explore questions raised by CUITent gaps in the literature. Furthermore, inquiries that reflect the insights, perspectives, and 'voices' of teachers of reading in regular c1assrooms are needed if we are to reach an enhanced understanding of the complexities of instructional decision-making, with which teachers operate on a daily basis. Studies such as this inquiry can add valuable information to that knowledge base, promote more active involvement of
•
teachers in the research process, and generate deeper understandings about
54
•
teachers' knowledge, beliefs, experiences, and ways of learning, from an 'emic' (or 'insider') perspective. The next section focuses on related research pertaining to theoretical orientations to reading and the two main aspects of teacher education: pre-service education and in-service education. Pre-service Education
The study of theoretical orientation and teachers' beHefs has several practical implications for future development of teacher education programs in reading. Teacher educators can develop critical awareness skills by guiding prospective teachers in the analysis of their beliefs and the devising of professional action plans. Further, teacher educators responsible for developing
•
pre-service programs, field experiences for student teachers, and in-service education opportunities have a vital role to play in the 'bridging' of theory and practice. Pre-service and in-service teachers alike should be encouraged to foster greater self-awareness of the theoretical beliefs that form the basis of their pedagogical knowledge; this, in turn, serves to promote the learning and application of skills of the reflective practitioner. For example, Bean and Zulich (1992) noted that student teacher placement is often more a matter of convenience than careful thought about potential impacts on student teachers and educational beliefs. Other researchers have investigated pre-service programs, methods utilized for placement of student teachers in their field experiences, and potential
•
alternatives to traditional models (Bowen, Potter, & Roth, 2002; Sanford &
55
•
Hopper, 2002; Zeichner, 1992). Cooperating teachers are frequently seen as a central figure in student teaching field experiences. More research is needed into the relationships between student teachers and cooperating teachers with a focus on how classroom processes are shaped by the beliefs of cooperating teachers (and student teachers). Studies of this nature may offer additional potential alternatives to teacher educators and administrators who make decisions about student teacher placements. Researchers have concluded the pressures and constraints pre-service teachers face that force them to modify their beliefs are due to a variety of contextual factors (O'Brien, Stewart, & Moje, 1995; Zeichner & Tabachnick, 1985). Examples of contextual factors may include school climate, curriculum
•
expectations, local policies and procedures as weIl as the degree of confidence in one's own teaching. Teacher preparation programs need to attend to the personal, social, and pedagogical factors that can affect a novice teacher' s instructional decisions. The practical implication here is that teacher preparation programs must promote and support the recognition and analysis of influences that shape constraints and opportunities in the complex environments in which classroom teaching takes place (Fang, 1996). Studies that have examined the ways in which teachers might continue to develop awareness of their theoretical orientations to reading as a result of in-service education (and professional development over time) are reviewed next.
•
56
•
In-service Education
A number of quantitative studies investigating relationships between teachers' beliefs, teacher education and instructional practice were also found to have utilized the Theoretical Orientation to Reading Profile (DeFord, 1985), to gather data on practicing teachers' beliefs about reading. Key studies were conducted by Bean, Bishop and Leuer (1982), Bruinsma (1985), and ScheIDer, Richmond, and Kazelskis (1993). In their study, Bean, Bishop and Leuer investigated the effect of a weekend mini-conference on classroom application of psycholinguistic research and teachers' theoretical orientations to reading. A statistical comparison of pre- and post-test scores on the TORP for the eightyeight teacher participants indicated an overall shift in the subjects' theoretical
•
orientation. However, the post-test was administered immediately following the conference; therefore, no conclusions could be drawn as to the long-term effects of the noted shifts in orientation. Bruinsma (1985) replicated Bean et al's 1982 study, administering a preand post-TORP to twelve teachers participating in a nine-day workshop on whole language theory. Bruinsma also used a control group of six teachers participating in an unrelated workshop during the same nine-day period. A statistical comparison ofmeans from the pre- and post-TORP scores of the treatment group indicated a shift to a whole language orientation. The control group showed no appreciable shift in orientation of any kind. On the basis of these results, Bruinsma concluded that teachers' beliefs about reading can be influenced by
•
professional development activities .
57
•
The longevity of teachers' shifts in theoretical orientation to reading was still in question following these studies. Schleffler, Richmond, and Kazelskis (1993) utilized pre-, post-, and delayed post-measures of the TORP to examine shifts and durability of the shifts, in theoretical orientations of teachers. The TORP was administered to fifty-five elementary school teachers attending two full days of whole language workshops. The pre-measure was administered immediately before the first of the two whole language workshops; the postmeasure was administered at the end of the second workshop (held four weeks later); and the delayed post-measure was administered six weeks later. Scores on the pre-measure indicated eleven teachers fell within the range described as phonics, forty-two within the range described as skiIls, and two within the range
•
described as whole language. After intensive exposure to workshops promoting a whole language orientation, there was a movement along the orientation continuum away from the phonics and skills orientations and toward the whole language orientation. The delayed post-measure indicated that the subjects became less phonics-and skills-like in their orientations, but did not maintain the initial shift toward a more whole language-like orientation. Schleffler et al. (1993) speculated that the significant decrease in the shift toward whole language scores from the post-to delayed post-measure was influenced by the traditional orientation of school systems and school administrators. 1 would suggest the prevailing political climate at the time might also have been an influential factor in these results:
•
Schleffier et al. noted that unsolicited written comments by
teachers participating in the workshop were anticipatory of contextual constraints,
58
•
and strongly suggested this 'mismatch' be a basis for questions m ongoing research. Evans (1995) conducted a study that examined the durability of theoretical beliefs about reading. Five interns participated in the study over a two-semester period in an elementary classroom laboratory setting. The TORP was the instrument used to assess theoretical orientation four tîmes over the course of the year. Results indicated that, throughout aIl four administrations of the TORP during the year, all five intems' scores fell within the skills theoretical orientation. Thus, the results of Evans' study would appear to support the view that teachers internalize a theoretical orientation to reading that tends to remain consistent over time. Once again, however, and probably predominantly due to the quantitative
•
nature of most of the relevant studies located, very little is learned in terms of the actual teacher-participants, their situation-specific contextual information and backgrounds. In other words, who are the teachers in these studies? and what more can they tell us about their experiences with the teaching of reading? The studies of theoretical orientation and pre-service, and in-service education reviewed here underscore the importance of the articulation of teacher beliefs in the development of a theoretical orientation to reading and related instructional practices. A number of studies and their fmdings (Bean et al., 1982; Bruinsma, 1985; Evans, 1995; Schleffler et al., 1993), suggest practical implications for the development of teacher education programs and serious consideration of the contemporary pressures and constraints that may cause
•
teachers to 'modify' their beliefs. However, what appears to be missing from
59
•
these primarily quantitative studies is attention to the very same contextual factors and information about ''who the teachers (are) and what (they) care about" (Lampert, 1984, p. 204). Instruments utilized in most ofthese studies were paperand-pencil profiles of theoretical orientations, and derived from a research perspective.
Richardson,
Anders, Tidwell and Lloyd (1991)
suggested
contradictory results (Duffy, 1981; Hoffman & Kugle, 1982) point to the need for researchers to encourage teachers to generate commentary on their beliefs and practices (i.e., not to rely upon belief inventories alone). With this in mind, 1 designed and conducted a qualitative interview study, combining the use of the TORP with in-depth, phenomenological interviewing and written teacher responses. My intent was to access implicit knowledge and
•
be1ief systems about the teaching of reading, and to co-construct and interpret fmdings with a distinct emphasis on the background and perspectives of the teacher participants themselves. A discussion of literature related to theoretical orientations and teachers' instructional practices follow.
Theoretical Orientations to Reading and Instructional Practices
Studies of teachers' theoretical orientation to reading have tended to focus on specifying teachers' personally held beHef systems about the processes involved in reading, rather than examining links between teachers' beliefs, knowledge, and their instructional practices. However, a growing number of re1atively recent studies have contributed to knowledge about teachers' theoretical
•
orientations to reading and the re1ationship to instructional practices. My study
60
•
was an in-depth exploration of the relationships between teachers' theoretical orientation to reading and their instructional practice at the Grade Five level. Kinzer (1988) conducted an investigation of teachers' belief systems about the reading process, and whether or not pre-service and in-service teachers' instructional practices in reading were consistent or inconsistent with their belief systems. Results indicated that both groups (i.e., pre-service and in-service teachers) shared similar beHef systems and that these tended to be reader-based. Identical instruments were administered to eighty-three pre-service teachers and forty-four in-service teachers in Kinzer's study. Each teacher received a packet containing two sets of fifteen statements. One was a set of statements targeting theoretical positions about how one reads, the other, targeted positions about how
•
reading ability develops. In each set of fifteen statements, five statements represented each of three possible explanations for how reading takes place and how reading develops. Participants were instructed to select five statements oruy, from each set of fifteen, that constituted the most important or valid statements a teacher should know. Based on these selections, a teacher's theoretical orientation was discemed as being text-based, reader-based, or interactive. Consistency with potential instructional practices was also determined: nine lesson plans were included in each packet, three each in the areas of vocabulary, comprehension, and syllabification. One les son plan was written to reflect text-based explanations, one to reflect reader-based explanations, and a third to reflect interactive explanations in each of the three areas (vocabulary, comprehension, and
•
syllabification). After reviewing the lesson plans, teacher participants were asked
61
•
to indicate which of the three plans they would ideally choose to teach a les son in each of the three areas. While findings did indicate that both pre-service and in-service teachers shared similar belief systems, in-service teachers' beliefs tended to be inconsistent with their potential instructional practices. Kinzer (1988) suggested that the inconsistency might have been due to specific curriculum requirements; i.e., to use a skills-based approach to instruction. He also acknowledged a limitation of his study was the hypothetical situation in which teachers' beHefs and their instructional practices were compared. Kinzer argued that teachers would probably make decisions somewhat differently when planning lessons in a realistic c1assroom context and recommended more research into questions related
•
to teachers' beliefs and instructional practices . Richardson, Anders, Tidwell and Lloyd (1991) studied the relationship of beliefs about reading comprehension instruction to the c1assroom practices of thirty-eight elementary teachers. They found that the beliefs of the teachers in the sample, as assessed in a belief interview and observation data, consistently related to their c1assroom practices in the teaching of reading comprehension. Teachers' dec1ared (or 'public') beliefs·about reading comprehension and how children learn to read in general were accessed by using "a beliefs interview technique borrowed from anthropology, rather than a paper and pencil measure" (p.565). More private beliefs, or beliefs in action, were accessed by a second set of questions which asked teachers to talk about specific students (e.g. about what students should
•
know and be able to do in reading in grades four, five, and six, how children learn
62
•
to read, different definitions of 'comprehension', and what students like to read) . Researchers also observed each teacher participant twice when they said they were teaching reading comprehension. Codes and categories were developed from the interview data using constant comparative methods of analysis (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Research data revealed the teachers could be placed along a theoretical orientation continuum, not unlike DeFord's (1985) continuum, that moved from a focus on words and skills approach at one end to a literature approach at the other. McGee and Tompkins (1995) conducted a study in which relationships between beliefs and reading instruction of four elementary teachers were demonstrated. The authors de scribe a second stage of literature-based pro gram
•
implementation, one that goes beyond decisions concemed with the 'what' and 'how' of instruction. For example, What do 1 do tomorrow? What books to read? How to group students? How to plan for response activities? When teachers become more aware of, and concerned with, the 'why' of instruction, "They struggle to articulate beliefs that can guide their curriculum decisions. They become far more concerned with the importance of understanding theory related not only to reading processes but also to literary interpretation" (PA05). McGee and Tompkins focused on the theory-based stage of implementing literature-based reading instruction.
Teachers' les son plans and personal reflections were
examined within the framework of differing theoretical perspectives emerging from the data. These perspectives included schema-theoretic, literary structuralist,
•
readers' response, and criticalliteracy.
63
•
Each teacher in the study was requested to develop a lesson plan for the story Stone Fox (Gardiner, 1980) and to verbally reflect on the beliefs about reading and literature they used in developing the lesson plan. Teachers' lesson plans and related reflections were aligned with a particular theoretical perspective toward reading instruction. Findings showed teachers' lesson plans varied widely, even though the four plans presented were all generated from working with the same story. It was concluded that variances occurred due to the influences of the differing theoretical perspectives that emerged from the descriptive reflections as each teacher articulated personal beliefs about reading and literature. McGee and Tompkins conclude:
•
When teachers become aware of the differing and sometimes seemingly competing theoretical perspectives about reading and literature that might be used to guide literature-based reading programs, they seem to make particularly thoughtful guides as children journey through literature. Becoming a literature-based teacher means moving beyond romantic notions about teaching and learning. It includes knowing more about theories that can be used to guide thinking about reading, responding to, and interpreting literature. (p. 413) Primary school teachers in the process of developing a literacy program based on whole language principles were the focus of another study linking teacher beliefs and practices (Bruneau & Vacca, 1996). Conducted over a fiveyear period, the study researched beHefs and practices of six teachers and their principal, as the literacy program evolved. Teachers were given opportunities to engage in reflection as they defmed their beliefs about teaching and considered how these beHefs matched ongoing curriculum development. Conversations with the participants were audiotape recorded and analyzed inductively for themes. As
•
a result, four themes were seen to emerge as important in facilitating the
64
•
development of a match between the whole language beliefs and practices. The four themes teacher participants identified as supportive in developing the literacy program were: time, trust, modeling, and opportunities for focused conversations and collaboration. Participants
10
Bruneau & Vacca's study emphasized the need for
sustained time for students to engage in reading and sustained time for teachers to leam and share ideas together. The teachers reported an increased confidence in their ability to trust students to respond in their own ways and recognized more authentic situations to talk and leam about literacy. The provision of time to engage in daily focused conversations about literacy was seen as directly enhancing their abilities to provide modeling strategies for both students and
•
colleagues. These 'conversations' were also regarded as opportunities in which teachers and students could work together collaboratively to develop programs. Bruneau and Vacca concluded sorne factors, previously regarded as constraints, had become opportunities due to an atmosphere of increased mutual support. Sorne of these factors were: helping children to develop self-reflection strategies and providing more opportunities for children to share in decision-making. Beyond immediate 'school-based' support for staff development and the involvement of their principal in this study, the teachers in this study felt the school district both supported and encouraged innovative practices and placed value on teacher-initiated professional development. Paris (1997) investigated the consistency between teachers' theoretical
•
orientations to reading and plarming for reading instruction over time. The
65
•
theoretical orientations to reading of nine teachers were examined, first when the participants were student teachers, and again after three years of elementary school teaching. Ail nine participants in Paris's study completed the Theoretical Orientation to Reading Profile (TORP) at the beginning of their student teaching semester and data were also gathered from observations and interviews, lesson and unit plans, and daily joumals. Towards the end of the participants' third year of teaching, the TORP was administered once again and data were gathered from interviews and written lesson plans. The researcher' s focus was an investigation of the durability of theoretical orientations to reading over time; consistency between theoretical orientations and planning for instruction, and the identification of enabling or constraining factors that influenced consistency
•
between theoretical orientations and planning. Results showed that, after three years of teaching experience,
theor~tical
orientations and planning for instruction
were consistent for four teacher participants and inconsistent for five. Findings indicated that the participants' theoretical orientations to reading appeared to be intemalized and then remained consistent. With the exception of one participant, the teachers' orientations to reading did not change over the three-year period. Paris notes that where the TORP data and teachers' planning were not consistent, the opposite was noted between interviews conducted (in which participants articulated personal beliefs) and the lesson plans that were developed. She also concluded that administrative support was considered an enabling factor in carrying out personal beliefs about instruction, and that the use of basal readers
•
was both an enabling and constraining factor in planning for reading instruction.
66
•
Factors related to teacher stress emerged throughout the study as an area of signiticant concern as participants described teaching as an exhausting, extremely stressful profession. While Paris' s study is described as a qualitative, longitudinal and 'in-depth' investigation, there was a lack of detailed contextual and background information related to the teacher participants. Grisham (2000) conducted a longitudinal study to learn about the reading beliefs and instructional practices of twelve teachers over a three-year period. Grisham' s study followed the group of twelve teachers during their pre-service teacher education program and through their tirst two years of elementary school teaching. The researcher was particularly interested in assessing the impact of a "carefully designed and theoretically cohesive pre-service program ... upon their
•
teaching practice" (p.147). Grisham cites constructivist theory as a useful framework for studying how teachers conceptualize literacy learning both in and out of school: Constructivism is a theory about knowledge and learning; it describes both what "knowing" is and how one "cornes to know". Based on work in psychology, philosophy, and anthropology, the theory describes knowledge as temporary, developmental, nonobjective, internally constructed, and socially and culturally mediated. Learning from this perspective is viewed as a self-regulatory process of struggling with the conflict between exciting personal models of the world and discrepant new insights, constructing new representations and models of reality as a human meaning-making venture with culturally developed tools and symbols, and further negotiating such meaning through cooperative social activity, discourse, and debate. (Fosnot, 1996, p. ix) The twelve participants in Grisham's study were purposively selected from more than thirty volunteers. The criteria for sample selection were based
•
upon the participants' scores obtained from the administration of the TORP. Six
67
•
participants were c1assified as skills oriented; six participants as whole language oriented. Data were analyzed inductively and resulted in the construction of twelve case studies and cross-case analysis. The results of Grisham's study provide a more comprehensive sense of the 'in-depth' nature of data related to teacher participants' background and contextual infonnation. Three sources of data infonned the study: the self-report of interviews; teacher storylines (Beijaard, 1998), and corroboration by observations of teaching. A major finding was that constructivist orientation of the pre-service program had a definite impact on the students and their future beliefs and practices. Furthennore, the significant influence of contextual factors as mediators between theory and practice (Duffy & Anderson, 1984) were also borne out in Grisham's
•
findings: For example, at Jessie's school she was able to find colleagues who shared her orientation (personal knowledge) towards constructivist teaching. In her interviews she states that teachers at her school are divided into "camps" in tenns of their beliefs. Mamy, on the other hand, "wanted" to believe in constructivism, but found herself in a school where colleagues shared her doubts and affinned a more reductionist view of teaching. Despite sorne participants' retum to a more conservative stance, other participants' experience supported their evolution toward a more constructivist stance. (p. 161) The participants' awareness of the pre-servIce teacher education program' s influence on their practice stayed with them for the first two years after graduation but was mitigated by the contexts in which they found themselves teaching. Grisham found prevailing influences of the pre-service program tended to be more apparent in their practice than their beliefs. For example, teachers in
•
the study discussed reading theory in tenns of practice (how to do it), rather than
68
•
in terms of theoretical orientations. That said, by the end of the second year of teaching, participants' professional knowledge and practical knowledge were integrated to such an extent the teachers had difficulty acknowledging their respective influences on practice. These findings are of particular importance for teacher educators in reading as they suggest students in pre-service teacher education programs are influenced by the nature of their pre-service programs "although the relationship is neither direct nor simple" (Grisham, p.164). Poulson, Avramidis, Fox, Medwell & Ray (2001) explored theoretical beliefs about literacy with a sample of two hundred and twenty five primary school teachers identified as successful in teaching literacy. The study took place in England over a two-year period. The primary aim of the research was to
•
examine the characteristics of effective teachers of literacy - in particular, their background, experience, professional development, knowledge, beliefs and classroom practice - and to compare them with a sample of seventy-one primary teachers who represented the 'range of effectiveness' in literacy teaching. Data gathering involved the administration of a modified version of the TORP. This questionnaire also included statements relating to three orientations to the teaching of writing. Data were also gathered from interviews, observations, and tasks related to specific aspects of literacy teaching. Results indicated there were differences
fi
the 'effective' teachers'
theoretical beliefs about reading and writing in three specific areas: years of experience, type of teacher training, and highest levels of qualification. The group
•
of teachers with one to five years' experience appeared to be more positive
69
•
toward a phonie theoretical orientation, more neutral towards whole language theories, and more negative towards a skills/word approach. The second and third groups of 'effective' teachers, those with six to ten years' experience and those with more than ten respectively, were more neutral toward the phonie orientation. However, aIl three groups of 'effective' teachers were positively oriented towards a whole language theoretical perspective. The 'effective' teachers demonstrated a greater degree of consistency between their responses relating to a particular theoretical orientation and the teaching activities that would accompany such an orientation than the teachers in the comparison sample:
•
Overall, the theoretical orientation of effective teachers of literacy appeared, in many respects to be constructivist: prioritizing pupils' ability to make sense of, and produce, written texts in a range of contexts and for authentic purposes. (Poulsen et al., p. 288) Based on their fmdings, Poulson et al. raise several significant issues for consideration and further investigation. They argue that the kinds of differences in teachers' theoretical orientation revealed by their investigation may lead not only to differences in practice, but also to differences in interpretation of policy requirements related to literacy. "This is particularly important where ambitious nation or state-wide programmes are being implemented, such as the British National Literacy Strategy" (p.290). Poulson et al. point out that in Britain, as in other parts of the world, preparation to implement new programmes appears to have paid little attention to the historical and socio-cultural contexts in which the theoretical beliefs of teachers have been formed:
•
70
•
Rarely has provision for professional development been differentiated to take account of teachers' levels of expertise, experience, qualifications, or theoretical perspective. The discourses which frame educational reforms tend to construct the new as good, and the old as bad; yet fail to provide ways of helping teachers to accommodate, or adjust to, innovations by relating them to their existing theoretical belief structures. (p. 290) The authors of this study also concluded that research on teachers' thinking has tended to focus on the extent to which their teaching practice is consistent with their theoretical beliefs. However, they note that less attention has been paid to a more practical concem: how teachers can apply their theoretical beliefs within the constraÏnts imposed by the complexities of classroom life. Poulson et al. strongly suggested the need for more research in this area. The significance of theoretical orientation to reading and its relationship to
•
instructional practice appears to reside in understanding the relevance of three critical areas of educational research, teaching and leaming: 1) investigations of teachers' particular educational knowledge and belief systems and related thought processes; 2) practical implications for the future development of pre-service and in-service teacher education in reading; and 3) the development and articulation by teachers of their own theoretical knowledge and beliefs related to reading instruction in the coIitexts of contemporary classrooms. Pajares (1992) noted that research on teachers' thought processes and the investigation of teachers' beliefs is "an avenue that continues to be lightly traveled although it is a necessary and valuable avenue of educational inquiry" (p. 326). He went on to suggest there is a need for research on the nature and effects of the beliefs of teacher candidates, in
•
order to offer insight into teachers' construction oftheir professional reality.
71
•
Raising standards in reading has become a politically sensitive issue in Canada and is a high priority issue for education policy and practice in this country, as it is in many other countries around the world (Cambourne, 1999; DFEE, 1998; National Reading Panel, 2000; National Research Council, 1998; Shiel, 2002). However, these efforts are not without their controversies and have been received with mixed reviews. Take, for example, the criticisms of the work of the National Reading Panel and the proliferation of charges of a serious 'imbalance' in the reading research studies reviewed (Yatvin, 2000). Likewise, in Britain, the National Literacy Strategy has been met by very mixed reviews from practitioners. With particular relevance to my study, it has also been argued that the professional development for teachers in the implementation of the 'Literacy
•
Hour', an important aspect of the National Literacy Strategy in British primary schools, provides teachers with very little in terms of a theoretical or research basis that will sustain them in the long term (Fisher, 2000). If the quality and consistency of teaching are regarded as critical factors in any attempt to improve education, it follows that there should be an increasing interest in the teachers themselves. The studies presented in this review of related literature demonstrate the importance of examining the relationships between teachers'
theoretical orientations to reading and instructional practices.
Knowledge of the literature provides a context for the present study that seeks to contribute to a better understanding of the implicit knowledge and belief systems (theoretical orientation) held towards reading by teachers, and how these guiding
•
principles 'drive' instructional decision-making and action in practice .
72
•
Qualitative approaches to inquiry facilitate the increased articulation by both teachers and researchers, of what teachers know, what they believe, and how their particular knowledge and beliefs relate to both CUITent and future instructional practices. Summary
In this chapter 1 have reviewed related literature organized into the four
key themes of teachers' beliefs and knowledge, theoretical orientations to reading, teacher education and theoretical orientations to reading, and theoretical orientations to reading and instructional practices. In the next chapter 1 will present the methodology and describe details of how the study was conducted.
•
•
•
CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY AND METHODS
This chapter describes the research design and methodology of the study, the methods followed, and the data collection and data analysis processes. An explanation is included of the methods utilized to construct narrative profiles of teacher participants during the analysis of data that is consistent with the concept of 'Profiles as a Way ofKnowing' (Seidman, 1998). My goal was to explore teachers' own understandings about the nature of relationships between their theoretical orientations to reading and their instructional practices in the later elementary grades (also referred to in Ontario as
•
the 'Junior Division', Grades Four to Six). Therefore, 1 sought to describe, interpret and co-construct an understanding of the participants' experiences as teachers of reading in the junior division. Participants were asked about their experiences of being a teacher of reading, specifically at the Grade Five level. Indepth, phenomenological interviewing (Seidman, 1998) facilitated the exploration of complex issues within the topic under study by examining concrete experiences of the participants and the meaning their experiences had for them. 1 used a qualitative approach in the study for the following reasons: a) the study was conducted in a natural setting and my insights were key during collection and analysis of data; b) 1 was concerned with the process of developing understanding; c) 1 analyzed descriptive data inductively as themes and patterns
•
74
•
emerged; and d) holistic meaning was at the centre of the approach (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992). Phenomenology is a complex, multi-faceted philosophy. A straightforward characterization is difficult as phenomenology is not representative of any one single, unified, philosophical stance. Schwandt (1997) offers this explanation:
•
It includes the transcendental phenomenology of Edmund Husserl (18591938), the existential fonns of Maurice Merleau-Ponty (1908-1961) and Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980), and the henneneutic phenomenology of Martin Heidegger (1889-1976). Generally speaking, phenomenologists reject scientific realism and the accompanying view that the empirical sciences have a privileged position in identifying and explaining features of a mind-independent world. Phenomenologists are opposed to the empiricist idea that genuine, legitimate knowledge can be had only by rejecting the way we perceive the world of everyday life as 'mere appearance'. Hence, phenomenologists insist on careful description of ordinary conscious experience of everyday life (the life-world), a description of 'things' (the essential structures of consciousness) as one experiences them. These 'things' we experience include perception (hearing, seeing, and so on), believing, remembering, deciding, feeling, judging, evaluating, aIl experiences of bodily action, and so forth. Phenomenological descriptions of such things are possible only by turning from things to their meaning, from what is to the nature of what is. (p. 114)
Furthennore, contemporary qualitative methodologies include two major variants of phenomenological thinking. These two variants are the henneneutic and the existential. The method of phenomenological, in-depth interviewing utilized in my study is oriented toward "describing the experience of everyday life as it is intemalized in the subjective consciousness of individuals." (Schwandt, p.lIS) Most directly relevant to this method is the work of Alfred Schutz (1967). The writings of Mishler (1986) and Moustakas (1994) were also infonnative in the
•
further development of my own understandings
of "phenomenological
75
•
interviewing" (Schuman, 1982). This method combines life-history interviewing (Bertaux, 1981) and focused in-depth interviewing informed by assumptions drawn from phenomenology and, as noted, especially from the work of Alfred Schutz. Seidman (1998) explains that in order to share the details of their experience, individuals must reflect on their experience: It is this process of selecting constitutive details of experience, reflecting on them, giving them order, and thereby making sense of them that makes telling stories a meaning-making experience. (p. 1)
Vygotsky (1987) argued that every word individuals use in telling their own stories is a microcosm of their consciousness. Seidman's approach to
•
phenomenological interviewing, as utilized in my study, is rooted in an understanding that,
"Individuals' consciousness gives access to the most
complicated social and educational issues, because social and educational issues are abstractions based on the concrete experiences of people" (p. 1). At the very heart of in-depth interviewing is an interest in understanding the experience of others and the meaning they make of that experience (Seidman, 1998). Thus, indepth, phenomenological interviewing was selected as the primary source of research data and 1 adapted Seidman's (1998) structure for conducting in-depth, phenomenological interviews. The following questions guided my research study: 1.
What are the theoretical orientations to reading of the teacher participants, all teachers in Grade Five c1assrooms, as determined by
•
the Deford Theoretical Orientation to Reading Profile?
76
•
2.
As revealed through in-depth interviews, how do the teacher participants describe (i) understandings of their theoretical orientation to reading and (ii) the relationships between their theoretical orientation to reading and instructional practices?
Harste & Burke (1977) defined theoretical orientation in reading as ''the particular knowledge and belief system held towards reading, that is, those deep philosophical principles that guide teachers to establish expectations about student behaviour and the host of decisions they must make as they teach reading lessons" (p. 32). My particular research interests focus on elementary teachers' knowledge
•
and beliefs about reading in the later elementary grades and building on our understanding of this topic from an emic or 'insider' perspective. Specifically, 1 wanted to investigate the relationships between teachers' beliefs and their instructional practices in reading. Qualitative inquiry has been defmed as an umbrella term for various philosophical orientations to interpretive research (Glesne, 1999; Glesne & Peshkin, 1992). One such orientation includes what Geertz (1973) typically caUs an 'emic' perspective. The aim of emic understanding and the discerning of meaning, is elaborated in hermeneutic and phenomenological methodologies (Gubrium & Holstein, 2002; Kvale, 1996). 1 sought tounderstand more clearly what it is like to be a Grade Five teacher of reading in one particular school board in Ontario, from the perspectives of the
•
teachers who participated in my study.
77
•
Data Collection
Gaining access
The McGill University Faculty of Education Ethics Review Committee responsible for ethical acceptability of research involving humans approved my application on February 13 th, 2002 (Appendix A). 1 received written approval to conduct the study within the Webster District School Board in early April 2002. Subsequently, 1 mailed an initial questionnaire 'The Theoretical Orientation to Reading Profile' (DeFord, 1985) to all public schools with Grade Five teachers in the particular school board where the study took place (n =
~
250). The reason for
this approximation is that the school board did not maintain exact numbers of Grade Five teachers per se; rather, they recorded the number of Grade Five
•
'classes', which include split classes of Grades FourlFive and Grades Five/Six. A copy of the instrument and the certificate of permission to use it in this study as granted by the International Reading Association, are located in Appendix B and Appendix C, respectively. A letter also accompanied the TORP questionnaire inviting Grade Five teachers to participate. Consistent with the Webster Board's policy and procedures for approved research undertaken by 'external' researchers, principals in each school also received a covering letter of explanation. Principals were requested to forward the package of material to the attention of the Grade Five teachers in their schools. Copies of the preliminary letters of information distributed to principals and teachers are included in Appendix D. Interested
•
teacher participants were asked to retum the completed questionnaires and
78
•
infonned consent documentation (Appendix E), no later than May 17th, 2002 . The timeline was necessary in order to contact potential participants prior to the summer break:. The teacher' s individual decision to participate in the study was to be completely voluntary. Background and role of the researcher
A brief review of my historical and personal/professional background, and my role in this research, is inc1uded to allow the reader to discem any reasons for bias in the work. 1 am a Caucasian-Canadian who has lived and worked in Canada since 1982. 1 emigrated from England after teaching in East London for three years. Since my emigration to Canada, 1 have lived and worked in several different provinces in both urban and rural settings. 1 have worked with private
•
and public school systems and universities (Faculty of Education), in Quebec, Nunavut, Ontario, and Prince Edward Island. My professional background inc1udes being an elementary c1assroom teacher (in both England and Canada), and a language arts consultant, elementary school principal, and teacher educator in Canada. Within and across these multifaceted roles, 1 have maintained an active interest in teachers and the teaching of reading, particularly in the later elementary grades. The rich and varied experiences in my own background have continued to shape these interests. The opportunity to conduct this research study with c1assroom teachers of reading came about as a result of my decision to pursue doctoral studies at McGill University. Thus, a number of factors related to my own knowledge, experience,
•
79
•
and interests have led me to venture forth on yet another educational 'adventure', this time in the role of 'researcher': 1 completed my initial teacher education in London, England in the late
1970s and was a graduate ofholistic approaches to teaching 'language across the curriculum', as professed by Jimmy Britton et al. Required studies included coursework in reading theories and instructional practices in reading. In retrospect, 1 believe this comprehensive grounding, aligned with my personal passion for sharing language and literature with others (children and adults), has continued to shape my own perceptions of the philosophy of 'whole language' as just that: providing opportunities to develop the necessary skills and strategies to promote reading fluency in the context of literature and language-rich
•
experiences. 1 regard the professional knowledge and judgment of teachers as crucial in the effective teaching of reading for understanding: As educators, 1 believe we must know what our beliefs are about reading, be able to articulate how our beliefs and knowledge have developed (and are developing), and how these intersect with our preferred instructional practices (contextual opportunities and constraints included). As an elementary classroom teacher in Grade One through to Grade Eight, over time, 1 was responsible for teaching all aspects of the curriculum. As a school principal, teacher educator, and consultant, 1 consistently advocate that the teaching of reading is the responsibility of every teacher, every administrator, and every parent. Embedded in this belief is the argument that all adults who have
•
contact with children must be seen as readers if we are to foster lifelong learners
80
•
who thrive on reading (Bouchard, 2001) and independent leaming. In other words, the modeling of effective reading processes is central to teaching and learning processes. My role in this research study was to facilitate the inquiry process through in-depth interviews with the teacher participants. 1 wanted to co-construct knowledge related to the topic with the teacher participants, thus creating a discursive space for their voices. For me, the reciprocal processes of reading and the rejection of 'dualism' in transactional reading theory (Rosenblatt, 1978, 1994) also seem to mirror the reciprocal pro cesses involved in qualitative research. It is my belief the perspectives, insights, and intuition 1 bring to the
research enterprise energize my research and enhance the processes of choice of
•
topic, data collection and analyses. As Ruth Queen Smith (1998) writes, "1 did not try to isolate my experienced self in order to facilitate a type of technical purity" (p. 83). Neither did 1 consciously 'muffle' my intuition. However, 1 did employ methods to work through the intricate processes of sifting, identi:fYing, prioritizing, and theorizing about the data in order to minimize a potentially biased view or interpretations, and to maintain the credibility of results. These methods are discussed later in this chapter within 'Data Analysis' .
Sample Selection
Seventeen teachers completed and returned the TORP questionnaire, the informed consent, and indicated their willingness to be interviewed. AlI of these
•
teachers were contacted by telephone and/or electronic mail to further discem if
81
•
they met with the criteria established for the inquiry and selection of the sample. Criteria for selection of the purposeful sample were as follows: the Theoretical Orientation to Reading Profile (TORP) was completed and retumed with the informed consent to participate; participants were to be teaching in a Grade Five classroom, the teacher's experiences were central to the topic under study, the teacher was willing to participate in a series of three consecutive interviews, the teacher was willing to provide additional written documentation (second phase of data collection, September - December, 2002). Beginning with the completed TORP questionnaires retumed by mail (first phase of data collection April - May, 2002) and follow-up contacts, key characteristics and experiences of potential participants related to the topic under
•
study were noted. A purposeful sample was gradually developed (patton, 1990). Six of the responding teachers were not included in the final sample. Two of the six had received word that their grade level assignments were to be changed within their school for the next year, and a third teacher left the Webster Board to teach at another grade level in another school board. The three remaining teachers did not have experiences central to the topic under study. During follow up contacts by telephone, these three teachers expressed insufficient interest in being interviewed about the topic under study. As it tumed out, all teachers in the final sample were represented as having a skills orientation, as determined by the DeFord Theoretical Orientation to Reading Profile (TORP). Teacher participants in the final sample all scored
•
82
•
from 74 - 90 within the range for skills, indicating a considerable spread along the TORP continuum related to this orientation. Total scores on the TORP may range from 28 - 140. The score places the respondent along a numeric continuum as follows: scores from 28-64 are representative of a phonics orientation; scores ranging from 65-111 are representative of a skills orientation; scores from 112 to 140 are representative of a whole language orientation.
Participants and Setling
The eleven participants purposively selected for this study were all currently teaching in regular Grade Five classrooms in the Webster District
•
•
School Board (pseudonym), a large multi-cultural school board in Southem Ontario. Table 1 presents a summary ofcharacteristics of participants .
83
•
•
Table 1 Summaœ. olCharacteristics olParticill.ants
Name
Gender
Hlghest Degree
Peter
M
B.A, B.Ed.
None
Lynda
F
B.Sc., B.Ed.
Library Part 1
Mark
M
B.A., B.Ed.
None
Helen
F
B.A, B.P.H.E., B.Ed.
None
Edward
M
B.A., B.Ed.
None
Cindy
F
B.A., B.Ed.
Donna
F
M.Ed.
None
Joanne
F
B.A., B.Ed.
Reading Part 1
Nancy
F
MA
None
Kim
F
B.A., B.Ed.
Reading Part 1
Sean
M
B.P.H.E., B.Ed.
None
AQ* Courses ln Reading
Reading Parts 1 & 2
*AQ - Additional Qualification
Pseudonyms have been used to maintain anonymity. As indicated in Table 1, seven participants were female and four were male. Their years of teaching experience ranged from two to twenty-seven years. Table 2 presents a summary of participants' teaching experience, inc1uding the number of years teaching and assignments in addition to those in the junior division .
•
84
•
•
Table 2 SummaO!. olParticil!anls' Teachinr. EXll.erience Name
Total # Years Total # Yean Teaching Teaching Teaching Grade 5 Location
Teaching Experience'" in addition to Junior Division
Peter
15
12
Urban
None
Lynda
27
6
Rural
Primary
Mark
10
5
Urban
Intermediate
Helen
16
6
Urban
High Schoo)
Edward
3
1
Urban
None
Cindy
1
1
Rural
None
Donna
8
3
Urban
Primary
Joan ne
14
4
Urban
Primary
Nancy
12
5
Rural
Primary
Kim
8
3
Urban
Intermediate
Sean
21
10
Urban
Intermediate *High Schoo) =Grades 9 - 12 *Intennediate = Grades 7 - 8 * Primary = Grades 1 - 3
The e1ementary schools in which the participants taught ranged in size from small schools with enrolments of approximately 300 students, to larger schools with enrolments of 800-900 students. AlI schools included classes of students from Junior-Kindergarten (JK) to Grade Eight. Grade Five classes were generally made up of 28-32 students. When interviewed, eight participants were teaching in specifically urban school locations, while the other three were teaching in rural
•
settings .
85
•
Epistemological principles
Qualitative interviewing is based on conversation (Kvale 1996), with an emphasis on researchers asking questions and listening, and respondents answering (Rubin & Rubin, 1995). Essentially, the qualitative interview seeks to understand the world from the participant's point of view, to investigate the meaning of the individual's experiences, and "to uncover their lived world prior to scientific explanations." (Kyale, 1996, p.1) The purpose of interviewing the participants for this study was to access their thinking about reading instruction at the Grade Five level, and to understand the meaning of the participants' experiences. Therefore, a structure of in-depth, phenomenological interviewing
•
was employed in order to investigate the topic under study (Seidman, 1998). Seidman's model also draws upon the work of Kvale (1996) who states:
Phenomenology is interested in elucidating both that which appears and the manner in which it appears. It studies the subjects' perspectives on their world; attempts to describe in detail the content and structure of the subjects' consciousness, to grasp the qualitative diversity oftheir experiences and to explicate their essential meanings. (p.53).
Interviews conducted in the present study were focused (Kyale, 1996), and utilized an interview guide developed to elicit information about how the teacher participants' knowledge and beliefs about reading guide their instructional decisions in the context of their experience. All interviews attempted to elicit details related to this central information. A copy of the in-depth interview guide
•
is located in Appendix F .
86
•
Tools of inquiry for data collection In-depth phenomenological interviewing
In October 2002, appointments for a series of three in-depth interviews were arranged with each of the eleven teacher participants. Interviews took place between October and December 2002. Each interview was approximately ninety minutes long, and spaced approximately seven to ten days apart. This allowed time for both teacher participants and the researcher to reflect on the preceding interview, while reducing the risk of losing the connection between the two. Prior to conducting the first interview, the researcher made contact visits with aIl eleven individuals in their schools. This visit provided the opportunity to
•
meet face-to-face prior to beginning the interviews, to finalize logistical arrangements, and to answer any questions or concems individual participants might have about the study. The subsequent interview schedule allowed further opportunities to consult with each teacher participant in person over the complete school semester (twelve weeks). Sustained engagement during time spent in the field enhanced the development of rapport in each interviewing relationship, the quality of the interviews conducted, and the written data/documentation coUected.
Types ofdata col!ected
Qualitative interview data were the primary source of information in this study. Teacher participants' biographical information, written responses and reflections, and sample unit plans and les son plans prepared for use in their
•
c1assroom reading programs, were requested, collected, and coUated for analysis:
87
•
'Focused Life History' data was gathered during the first interview. In addition, biographicaI information was requested from aIl teacher participants (Appendix G). A copy of the request for sample unit plans and lesson plans sent to aIl participants is included (Appendix H). Data from the se additionaI sources served to enhance information, interpretations, and understandings derived from participants' in-depth interview data.
Adaptation ofthe three-interview structure
The three-interview structure was adapted as follows in conjunction with an in-depth interview guide (Seidman, 1998):
•
In-depth interviewing is not designed to test hypotheses, gather answers to questions, or corroborate opinions. Rather it is designed to ask participants to reconstruct their experience and to explore their meaning. The questions most used in an in-depth interview follow from what the participant has said. (p. 76) In-depth interviewing utilizes an essentiaIly open-ended method making preparation, planning, and structure criticaI to the interviewing process. Each interview requires a series of instantaneous decisions about what direction to take, and the interview guide provides a plan, sense of purpose, or structure upon which to base those decisions (Seidman, 1998). The interviews conducted for this inquiry focused on particular themes. Interviews were neither strictly structured with standardized questions, nor entirely 'non-directive'. As interviewer, my role was to lead participants toward certain themes but not to certain opinions about those themes (Kyale, 1996).
•
Therefore the in-depth interview guide was prepared (Appendix F) and this guide assisted in maintaining a focus on the topic under study during
88
•
interviews while, at the same time, enabling active listening as participants shared their reconstructions of experiences. Throughout the series of three interviews, questions and explorations were adapted as necessary in order to facilitate the reconstruction of each individual' s experience, and to support relevant and effective research conversations.
The in-depth interviews In each of the separate interviews in the three-interview series, 1 asked
participants to reconstruct specifie examples of their understandings and experiences as a way of eliciting details relevant to the study. Participants elected to be interviewed in their own classrooms after students had been dismissed for
•
the day. Interview One ('Focused Life History'), asked "How did you come to be
a teacher of reading in Grade Five? " This interview sought to elicit details of the
participant' s experience in context by asking them to tell as much as possible about him or herself in light of the topic up to the present time (Seidman, 1998). Patton (1990) emphasizes that without context there is little possibility of exploring the meaning of an experience. Therefore, the main objective of the first interview was to discover as much as possible about the context of the participant' s life and experiences leading up to the present position as a Grade Five teacher of reading: early experiences with reading in hislher own family? in school? with friends? in adult
•
life? during teacher education? in other words, what were the perceived origins of their knowledge/beliefs/attitudes towards reading and the teaching of reading?
89
•
Participants were asked to put their experience as teachers of reading in the context of their life history; i.e., 1 asked, "How did you become (a Grade Five teacher of reading)?" rather than ask, "Why did you become ... ? This afforded
participants an opportunity to reconstruct a range of constitutive events in their past family, school, educational, and work experience that placed their role as teachers ofreading in the context oftheir lives (Seidman, 1998). Interview Two ('The Details of Experience') involved an in-depth
discussion of the details of the participant's work as a Grade Five teacher of reading (i.e. related to their knowledge and beliefs, and instructional practices). The focus of the interview was to explore, "What is if li/œ for you to be a teacher of reading at the Grade Five level? What are the detai/s ofyour work as a Grade
•
Five teacher ofreading? "
The objective in the second interview was to gather as much infonnation as possible about details of the participant's current work as a Grade Five teacher, and thus, to co-construct an understanding of the nature of relationships between the teacher's theoretical orientation to reading and instructional practices. Interview Three ('Reflection on the Meaning') asked teacher participants
to articulate how they understood their work in the context of their experience, thereby inviting them to reflect on the meaning of their experiences: "What does your experience ofworking as a Grade Five teacher ofreading mean to you?" 1
used Seidman's (1998) rationale for the third interview:
•
The question of meaning is not one of satisfaction or reward, although such issues may play a part in the participants' thinking. Rather, it addresses the intellectual and emotional connections between the participants' life and work .... The combination of exploring the past to
90
•
clarify the events that led participants to where they are now, and describing the concrete details of their present experience, establishes conditions for reflecting upon what they are now doing in their lives. (p. 12)
Consistent with Seidman's model, participants in this study constructed meaning throughout all three interviews - the very process of putting experience into language being a meaning-making process in and of itself (Vygotsky, 1987). However, in the third interview the focus was specifically on 'making meaning' in the context of the previous two interviews.
Data Analysis
Methods of data analysis
•
In-depth interviews were conducted in person, audiotape-recorded and transcribed. 1 transcribed the tape-recorded interviews after each interview took place in order to create texts from the interviews while, at the same time, to review and become increasingly familiar with the data gathered from participants (individually and collectively). While it was not my intention to try to completely separate the processes of generating data from analysis of data (Seidman, 1998), any in-depth analysis of the material was avoided until all interviews and transcripts were completed. Once the intensive process of transcribing all the interviews was complete, 1 read over each one carefully and listened to the tapes again as text versions of
•
each interview were read and re-read. My intent was to 'make sense' of the data rather than to present generalizable hypotheses. Utilizing the concept of
91
•
theoretical orientation to reading, as explored by previous researchers and examined in detail in Chapter Two, an analysis was made of the kinds of relationships and experiences teacher participants described during our discussions as they related their theoretical and practical approaches to the teaching of reading. Data pages of transcripts were coded for easy identification, following a process described by Lincoln & Guba (1985) as 'unitizing' the data. Notes were made in the margin to indicate where the unit was located in the data set. Roman numerals were used to identiry interview transcripts, one through three. For example, IITIK-12 refers to Transcript of the second interview (i.e., Roman numeral II) with Kim (K), Page Twelve (12). Items and passages of interest in the
•
texts were then marked with brackets and detailed notes were written into the margins. Brief conceptual memos (1-3 pages in length) were written for each interview describing the following: a)
the important information provided in the interview
b)
how the interview corresponded to themes emerging from the data
c)
any new ideas or potential questions for further consideration/exploration (researcher's ideas, hunches, and interpretations were kept in a journal)
The conceptual memos served to assist in my own understanding of the relationships between the conceptual framework of theoretical orientation to reading and the knowledge and experiences shared by the teacher participants .
•
92
•
Concurrently, 1 identified and annotated units of meaning in 'chunks' of text (passages in the text, repeated concepts and phrases, even single words) that were of particular interest in preparation for coding data. Words or phrases indicating the essence of the unit's meaning were noted beneath the data source annotation. The search for significant patterns, connections, categories and themes in the unitized data was continuaI and iterative as 1 moved between both the data and related literature during the analysis process. At fuis stage in the process of qualitative analysis, it is important for researchers to acknowledge they are exercising judgment about what is of significance in the transcript. Seidman (1998) emphasizes that in reducing the material, interviewers have begun the process of analysis, interpretation, and
•
making meaning of the data: The interviewer-researchers can later check with participants to see if what they have marked as being of interest and import seems that way to participants. Although member checking can inform a researcher' s judgment, it cannot substitute for it. That judgment depends on the researcher' s experience, both in the past in general and in working with and internalizing the interviewing material; it may be the most important ingredient the researcher brings to the study. (p. 100-101) Annotated transcripts were subsequently photocopied and segments of data that were considered pertinent to the research questions were cut out and attached to index cards. Index cards were then clearly coded for identification and location in the original transcript. The use of inductive category coding, which represents a constant
•
comparative approach to data analysis (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Lincoln & Guba,
93
•
1985) provided a clear path for engaging in the rigorous analysis of substantial amounts of data generated from the interview processes (Maykut & Morehouse, 1994). This method of data analysis was both challenging and illuminating and made it possible to "... stay close to the research participants' feelings, thoughts, and actions" (p. 126), as they broadly related to the focus ofinquiry. The constant comparative method of data analysis involves a process of utilizing unitized index cards, research journal, focus of inquiry sheet, and initial discovery sheet of recurring words, concepts and themes (Maykut & Morehouse, 1994). As l completed processes of inductive category coding, the refinement of categories, and the ongoing exploration of relationships and patterns across categories, l systematically utilized the 'look/feel-alike' criteria as advanced by
•
Lincoln & Guba (1985). In this way, the graduai integration of data and search for significant patterns and themes yielded an in-depth understanding of the teachers (and their contexts) under study. The ongoing inductive approach to data analysis revealed themes and patterns emerging from the teacher participants' responses, while at the same time remaining flexible and recursive. The approach also included what Rowan (1981) has called a "dialectical" (p. 134) process with the material, and resulted in what Seidman (1998) succinctly describes as follows: The participants have spoken, and now the interviewer is responding to their words, concentrating his or her intuition and intelligence on the process. What emerges is a synthesis of what the participant has said and how the researcher has responded. (p. 109)
•
94
•
ln order to minimize potentially biased views or interpretations, 1 used
three methods throughout the research process, (Lincoln & Guba, 1985): member checks, triangulation of data, and peer debriefing. To elaborate: as data collection was completed and analyses continued, interpretations of data and fmdings 'in process' were periodically presented and discussed with teacher participants who served as member checkers. 1 also employed the triangulation of multiple sources of data (i.e., in-depth interview data, teachers' written reflections, teachers' lesson planning materials, and researcher' s notes). The independent judgment of a peer debriefer was utilized in order to reduce potential researcher bias and to maintain logical representations of the data and the credibility of findings. The peer debriefer had a master's degree in education, had experience with the teaching of
•
reading at the elementary level, and was very familiar with qualitative research methodology. Throughout the research process, consistent overlap occurred between both the debriefer' s interpretations and my own. The peer debriefer continued to read field notes, contributed to the process of defining and refining categories, and served as a knowledgeable person with whom to discuss questions and concems. Profiles as a way of knowing
ln his discussion of 'Profiles as a way of knowing', Seidman (1998)
describes how in-depth interviewing is capable of capturing momentous experiences, but is also "perhaps even more capable of reconstructing and finding the compelling in the experiences of everyday life" (p. 105). In addition to
•
identifying significant themes emerging from the data analysis, narrative profiles
95
•
of all eleven participants were constructed from data gathered in Interview One ('Focused Life History'). Re-construction of these narrative profiles was a sequential process that involved selecting and presenting compelling interview data from the first interview and weaving this together as a first-person narrative. The resulting profiles provided the researcher with detailed additional (and contextual) information related to the background experiences of each of the teacher participants, consistent with the topic under study. Interpretations in this study were enhanced by the processes of making explicit what was learned from the teacher participants through qualitative interviewing, and co-constructing knowledge pertinent to the research questions as a result of analyzing and synthesizing their shared experiences. A synthesis of
•
these findings, illustrated by and presented in the words of the participants, is presented in Chapter Four.
Summary
In this chapter 1 outlined the methodology and methods of the study, and the processes followed related to data collection and analysis. In Chapter Four 1 will present my interpretations of the participants' comments.
•
•
CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS
This chapter presents the results of the inductive analysis of data yielded from my study in response to two guiding questions.
Question 1
What are the theoretical orientations to reading of the teacher participants, all teachers in Grade Five classrooms, as determined by the DeFord Theoretical Orientation to Reading Profile? The eleven Grade Five teacher participants in this study completed the
•
DeFord (1979) Theoretical Orientation to Reading Profile (TORP) (May 2002) and participated in a series of three in-depth interviews. Pseudonyms have been used throughout the dissertation in order to identify individuals while maintaining anonymity. The TORP is an instrument that was designed to determine a respondent's theoretical orientation to reading. A copy of the instrument can be found in Appendix B. The instrument was developed and validated by DeFord (1979, 1985), and utilizes 28-items and a Likert scale. The TORP categorizes theoretical orientations to reading into three broad groups: phonics; skills; and whole language. DeFord (1985) emphasized that while the three types of theoretical orientations are characteristically different, they are best considered as points along a continuum of orientations to instruction. Therefore, phonies and whole
•
language are located at the two extremes of the continuum with skills located in
97
•
between these two. Consistent with the nature of a 'continuum', there are also likely to be points of overlap in instructional practices, especially where one orientation is in close proximity to another. For example, the phonies and skills orientations have a tendency to share practices, as do the skills and whole language orientations. Total scores on the TORP may range from 28 to 140. The score places the respondent along a numeric continuum as follows: scores from 28 to 64 are representative of a phonies orientation; scores ranging from 65 to 111 are representative of a skills orientation; scores from 112 to 140 are representative of a whole language orientation. Table 3 below displays the TORP scores of the eleven teacher participants in this study, and Figure 3 indicates the corresponding
•
location of participants along the TORP continuum.
Table 3 Participants' Theoretical Orientations to Reading: Scores on the TORP
Peter Lynda Mark Helen Edward Cindy Donna Joanne Nancy Kim Sean
•
Theoretical Orientation
TORP Score
Name
74 75 75 76 81 82 82 84 87 87
90
Skills Skills Skills Skills Skills Skills Skills Skills Skills Skills Skills
98
•
Figure 1 Location ofParticipants on the TORP Continuum
28 - 140 range of scores places the respondent along a numeric continuum.
28-64
representative of a phonies orientation
65-111
representative of a skills orientation
112-·· 140
representative of a whole language orientation
TOR P Continuum
•
28
65 Phonies
65
Skills
75
70
1 1 1 1 1 1 ..:.c: j ~ ~ ~
i
i
..J
•
140
112
80
]
!
90
85 1 1 1
1
1 1 1
1
] ~
:>.
u
~
8
~
Whole Language
~
e
~
1 1
= ~.
95
100
105
111
99
•
The skills orientation is understood as promoting the use of both text information and a reader' s personal knowledge to develop meaning. Examination of the results indicated the scores of aU teacher participants feH within the lower half of the range described as a skills orientation, indicating sorne possible overlap with the phonics orientation. The theoretical approach, or model, a teacher elects to use in reading instruction may be seen to represent the teacher' s implicit theory becoming explicit (Boschee, Whitehead, & Boschee, 1993). For example, in the skills orientation, students utilize both information derived from the text and their personal knowledge to develop meaning. The teacher's role is to direct the lesson but also to plan for individual differences among students. A wide variety of reading skills and strategies are used and reading activities are
•
frequently related to writing. Materials used include a variety of reading resources and associated assignments, and students' progress is evaluated through both formative and summative assessments. In descriptions of teacher planning for these three orientations to reading
(phonics, skiUs, and whole language), Dechant (1993) suggested teachers who are primarily skills based in their theoretical orientation are also most likely to create learning environments that promote a combination of both phonics and whole language orientations. In other words, neither prior knowledge nor graphophonic infonnation is utilized predominantly. Rather, readers are encouraged to begin to construct meaning by using either graphophonic infonnation, prior knowledge, or a combination of the two .
•
100
•
Inasmuch as the results of completing the TORP placed teacher participants on the continuum for a skilIs orientation to reading, data were then explored in more depth during a series of three qualitative interviews. The interviews were conducted in order to elicit further details about the Grade Five teachers' own understandings of and experiences with their theoretical orientation,
and relationshlps between their theoretical orientation and
instructional practices. AlI teacher participants also provided additional data for analysis in the form of written personal reflections and information indicative of their planning for reading instruction (e.g. sample lesson plans prepared for reading instruction. See Appendix H). Interpretations resulting from the analysis of data colIected throughout
•
interviews with all eleven participants during the school semester from October to December 2002 are presented in the next section ofthis chapter.
Question 2
As revealed through in-depth interviews, how do the teacher participants describe (i) understandings of their theoretical orientation to reading and (ii) the
relationships between their theoretical orientation to reading and instructional practices? The outcomes ofthis study were organized as follows: exploring teachers' understandings of theoretical orientations to reading, teachers' understandings of contextual enablers and constraints seen as imposing between theoretical
•
orientation and practice, time as a contextual constraint, relationships between
101
•
theoretical orientation and instructional practice, and educational beliefs related to teacher efficacy. Excerpts from interview data have been inc1uded and coded as follows: Roman numerals indicate which of the participants' three interviews is being referenced (Interview l, II, or III); followed by the initial of the participant's pseudonym and the page number of the interview transcript. For example, IIT/S-5 refers to Transcript II (i.e., the second interview) with Sean, Page 5.
Exploring Understandings of Theoretical Orientation to Reading
When teachers articulate and share their beliefs, their ideas and concerns about teaching, they provide researchers with patterns and themes to explore for
•
further knowledge (Dudley-Marling, 1995). The 'voices' ofteacher participants in this study, and analysis and interpretation of the data, made it possible to leam more about teachers' theoretical orientations to reading and their related instructional practices, from an emic (or 'insider') perspective. Routman (2000) suggests our beliefs about teaching and learning directly affect how and why we teach the way we do, and argues this is the case even when we do not, or cannot, verbalize these beliefs. She contends it is important for teachers to articulate their beliefs, seeking to understand how they may influence instructional practices. Therefore, Routman encourages teachers to reflect on their theoretical beliefs and instructional practices. For example,
influence what l do in the classroom?
•
if this is what l believe, how does that
102
•
Characteristics ofpersonal understandings of theoretical orientation to reading
Table 4 presents a summary of the teachers' beliefs about teaching reading, derived from their completion of the TORP. Teachers in this study appeared to have less difficulty identifying and articulating more 'global' beHefs in terms of teaching in general and, specifically, the teaching of reading in the
completion of this paper and pencil task.
Table 4 Teacher Beliefs About Teaching Reading
Belief Statements
Participants' Responses Agree
•
Uncertain
10
0
1
2. The construction ofmeaning is more important than the reader's exact rendition oftext.
8
0
3
3. It is often easier to read texts written in natura! language than it is to read texts written with restricted vocabulary and short sentences to meet reading-Ievel requirements.
5
2
4
4. When coming to something that is unknown, a reader should be encouraged to make an educated guess and go on.
8
1
2
5. Making connections with the text is an important indication of comprehension.
11
0
0
6. When encountering new words within texts, readers should first attend to the graphophonic eues before attending to the semantic and syntactic eues.
2
4
5
7. Good expression in oral reading indicates good comprehension.
7
2
2
8. Errors made during an ora! reading need to he corrected immediately.
0
8
3
9. There is a certain level of competency that students must obtain before they can take ownership oftheir own Iiteracyand literacy leaming.
7
1
3
10. Language is best leamed when using it for meaningful purposes.
11
0
0
II (lntrinsie) Motivation is an essential factor in the reading process.
11
0
0
12.The goal ofteaching reading is to develop fluent, confident readers.
11
0
0
13. Paying close attention to conventions of print is necessary to understanding story content.
7
0
4
14. It is important to teach skills in relation to other skills.
11
0
0
15. It is important forreaders to verbalize phonies mies to beeome profieient readers.
1
2
8
16. Children leam to read best by reading texts with a controlled vocabulary.
2
1
8
1. Vocabulary may be taught during or following reading of a text.
•
Disagree
103
•
In using the TORP, 1 adapted belief statements that would also provide a tool for further identi:fying and confirming the teachers' beliefs. Table 4 indicates the incidence of belief statements emerging in data from teacher participants' completion ofthe TORP, and during interviews. Out of the sixteen total belief statements, teachers' responses about their beliefs converged in agreement on five particular items, as indicated in Table 4. (i.e., Numbers 1, 5, 10, 11,12, and 14). Furthermore, on completion of analysis of interview data, the same five items were found to be very consistent with the beliefs described and supported by teachers during interviews exploring their theoretical orientations to reading and instructional practices. For example, teachers repeatedly discussed their beliefs in the provision of opportunities for
•
students to develop purposeful reading within authentic, meaningful contexts (see Belief Statement #10). Furthermore, a great deal of the teacher participants' interview data was also related to intrinsic motivation as an essential factor in the reading process (see Belief Statement #11). Lynda commented on the need for explicit skills instruction (see BeliefStatement # 14): Lynda: 1 believe children learn by doing. But they need the knowledge and skills to put what they learn into practice. (IITIL-2)
Throughout the interviewing process Lynda described how she active1y sought to deve10p students as motivated problem-solvers who 'share' responsibility for their learning with teachers, parents, and other community members. Teacher participants were consistently more conversant with the practical
•
work of education than the theoretical work of education. In fact, verbally
104
•
articulating the knowledge and beliefs that shaped their own instructional practices in the teaching of reading was sometimes found to be challenging. However, while participants did not always describe their theories about reading in strictly 'theoretical' terms, inductive analysis of interview data produced significant insights into the complex nature of the teachers' thinking about reading, and the guiding principles that shaped their instructional decisions. As teachers responded to interview questions (particularly in Interviews 1 and li; refer to the Focused Interview Guide, Appendix D) about their theoretical orientations to reading, it was sometimes difficult for them to articulate understandings in terms of the theoretical language of education. Teachers consistently discussed reading theory in terms of practice ('how to do it') rather
•
than in terms of theoretical orientation (Grisham, 2000). For example, Helen seemed to summarize the reflections of many participants when she commented: Helen: 1 guess what's really interesting is that when you start to think about what you do as a teacher, you realize that so much of it you 'just do". It's probably right but you've never sat down and picked apart the reasons, so that you could actually articulate it. And, recently, 1 have been thinking about the 'whys' of everything - you know, why 1 do this and why 1 do that. And l'm beginning to realize 1 have a whole lot of systems for everything that we do in the class. A couple of days ago 1 was thinking, "This is so interesting because 1 know why l'm doing this; but can 1 actually say why l'm doing it?" (ITIH-22)
The implicit nature of the theoretical becomes explicit through practice. However, the participants in this study often found it quite difficult to distance themselves from the immediacy of their practice. Furthermore, a common response was to prioritize knowledge of practice as more important to their work
•
than 'theory', the implication being one learns how to teach 'by teaching'. When
105
•
Lynda talked about how her own theoretical background had developed in terms of her practical experience, she further supported the view that teaching is about action, and theory is thinking about action: Lynda: The theoretical just came through once 1 started teaching. Talking to other teachers, going out to workshops, taking courses and getting the theory that way. My own orientation has developed by watching teachers 1 admired, working with those teachers, seeing different points of view, different ways of working at it. .. then coming in and working with students myself and adjusting things according to what 1 saw happening within my own c1assroom. (lIITIL-lO-ll)
Given the opportunity to step back and reflect on the role of theoretical orientations to reading during participation in this study, almost all of the teachers reported increased understanding about ways in which their instructional practice
•
was influenced by theoretical thinking. Joanne described how her own efforts to c1early articulate an understanding of her theoretical orientation to reading during participation in the study had, in fact, resulted in her continuing to think about the topic a great deal between interviews:
Joanne: !'ve been thinking a lot about what we've been talking about in these interviews and !'ve been thinking how terribly 1 articulate what 1 think. But, especially, 1 was thinking that l' d probably have people move away from me in the staff-room if 1 was to say, "WeIl, now, !'ve been thinking about my 'theoretical orientation to reading' ... "
(lIIT/J-27)
Joanne's comment also serves to illustrate a perception that recurred during interviews with other teacher participants. The perception being that
•
teachers, in general, do not talk with one another in terms of theory in informal situations at school (e.g. the staff room). Rather, many participants referred to
106
•
discourse of a theoretical nature being part of their experience in more formalized educational settings (e.g. during professional development workshops, conference presentations, graduate coursework, participation in research studies). As a rule, it was not uncommon for 'teacher-to-teacher talk' to focus more naturally on the practical work of education than the theoretical.
Articulating understandings of a skills orientation to reading Teachers interviewed also articulated their understandings of a skills orientation to reading in terms of practice as opposed to the theoretical. While all participants fell within the lower half of the range of a skills orientation on the TORP, participants described themselves as cognizant of the need for teaching
•
skills in the context of meaning. Conceptualizations of their theoretical orientations to reading were frequently described as operating along the continuum between skills and more holistic perspectives. For example, Joanne stated:
Joanne: It's very hard for me to articulate it. 1 may not frnd the right kind of jargon to say it. 1 think that 1 teach from the whole as opposed to from the part, but then 1 always review the parts again after the fact (lIIT/J-3) ... 1 think 1 can help (my students) to understand they make meaning for themselves by their being actively involved in accessing and acquiring information. (We are) always reading, reflecting, building, expanding, analyzing, taking it in (together), and they're making their own meaning. 1 think 1 do that effectively the way 1 teach, as opposed to how it might be done. l'm thinking about a 4/5 split 1 had to do while out on my practice teaching and it was one of the most joyless periods of my life. And if it was like that for me, 1 wonder, what was it like for the student who is there for the year? (lIIT/J-15) ... Reading itself is vital. It's information, it's being informed - it offers us the opportunity to understand how other people think and leam ..• (IIT/J-l)
•
107
•
RoutInan (2000) argues for the necessity of analyzing and questioning everything we teach.
8he describes teaching for understanding as a process
involving analysis and interpretation of information, application of learning to new contexts, evaluation of practice, and the setting of goals and directions for instruction. "Teaching for understanding goes way beyond imparting the 'basic skills '" (p.l8). Teachers' responses to the invitation to analyze and articulate their theoretical orientations to reading for this study illustrated how their conceptualizations of a skills orientation to reading went far beyond the traditional definition of 'basic skiIls'. Lynda's description of her theoretical orientation was initially expressed in terms of practice. For example, as she explained a theoretical concept (i.e. her
•
understanding of the purposes of the three cueing systems as they work together in fluent, effective reading), she tended to utilize the language of practice over theory: Lynda: For me, it's the importance of doing phonics, knowing the sight vocabulary, knowing how to understand what a word means in context. With just one ofthese you can't learn (to read) fluently. You can't really get to do anything. But ifyou've got aIl three, you can do everything! 80 that to me is very important - that students have all those in place. Phonics, sight vocabulary, and the contextual framework, and knowing that there's a purpose, there's reasoning, behind what's being read - whether it's fiction or non-fiction. (lTIL-21)
Lynda's score of75 on the TORP placed her close to the potential overlap with a phonies orientation. The potential of an overlap between her skills orientation with a phonics orientation was very clearly indicated in both the
•
response above, and when she commented further on decoding and the role of
108
•
miscue analysis (Goodman, 1965; Goodman & Burke, 1972; Goodman, Watson, & Burke, 1987) in her approach to reading instruction: Lynda: The development of reading skills, even in Grade Five, sometimes involves the direct teaching of phonics because 1 do believe that phonics, for sorne students, is a key. 1 look at the kinds ofthings they are doing, the spelling errors they make or where they break down in the decoding process and try to figure out, "O.K. So what kinds ofmistakes are they making? What sorts ofthings do 1 need to be doing to ensure that this student has the skills in place they need in order to proceed further? (IT1L-17) It cornes right back to what l've said a1ready about teaching primary. It has helped me look at and figure out what part of the process is missing here? What do 1 have to do to help this child get over (the problem) and get on to what we really need to be doing in Grade Five? That's what the whole curriculum document is about: analyzing what they're reading. 1 say they've got to understand what they're reading in order to analyze it. (IIITIL-ll)
In clarifying her understanding of her theoretical orientation to reading, Lynda
articulated how she recognized her practice as accommodating explicit teaching,
•
when appropriate, and the importance of providing authentic opportunities to acquire and practice new skills in the broader context of learning. She also stated she believed her theoretical orientation to be quite consistent with DeFord's (1979) definition of a skills orientation to reading:
Lynda: One thing that keeps coming back to me in this whole research process is this: The significant thing that got me hooked on to reading, and what 1 feel is still the significant thing to get students hooked on to reading, is that reading must be purposeful. But you need to put it in to context. If they are able to see the purpose behind the reading, they're going to be more apt to buy in to it. (IIITIL-4) ... But, the thing that jumped off the page for me right here in (the definition of a skills orientation) was (points and reads): "Vocabulary items usually introduced in context; multiple opportunities for practice .... ". And 1 thought about our discussions, what l've been talking about, and that, in terms ofmy program, that's it! That's what 1 do. (IIITIL-18)
Nancy's implicit theories seemed to reflect more holistic principles about
•
reading and the teaching ofreading. However, her reported instructional practices
109
•
(and score of 87 on the TORP), tended to be more indicative of a structured skiIls approach. The contradiction was partially accounted for by Nancy herself who explained: Nancy: 1 contradict myself quite a lot because my theOl)' and my practice do not always match. 1 am, in theory, a very holistic, child-centered teacher. In practice, l'm not always that way because 1 don't want chaos to prevail. 1 have a huge fear of chaos. That's where my practice sometimes starts to contradict my theory. 1 do get frustrated sometimes if 1 don't know how. 1 mean, how do 1 make them see this (inference)? What is it they can't do? Why can't they just take the leap? And how do 1 bridge the gaps (between what they demonstrate they are capable of doing and what l'm trying to teach them)? (lIITIN-ll)
Again, Nancy also found it challenging to articulate her theoretical orientation to reading detached from the immediacy of her classroom practice:
•
Nancy: It's hard for me to separate out teaching reading from any of the other teaching 1 do, especially since 1 really try to integrate my reading/writing programs with Social Studies and Science. (IITIN-l) ... l've never really thought about (this) before ... TmthfuIly, l've been completely stumped by a lot of things we've been talking about and l've been thinking, "Why do 1 do that?" and 1 don't know. 1 really have to spend more time thinking about this. (lIITIN-14) .. , 1 guess 1 find it really hard to (say). WeIl, if 1 have a philosophy, and 1 must have (laughter), it's hard to describe it (IIITIN-5) ... (Because) it's hard for me to think of an overall philosophy without separating it from what it is they're supposed to be able to do. And that would be everything from the curriculum expectations. But 1 believe 1 want them to like reading, 1 want them to be able to expand their vocabulary. 1 feel that most of my students this year have the 'tools' they need to be able to read and, for the most part, 1 think they understand what they are reading. So, for the few that don't, 1'11 give them the tools by doing phonics and getting them in a small group where they can practice reading, and where they can have a limited vocabulary book. (lIITIN-6 &7)
As did Lynda, Nancy described meeting the needs of sorne Grade Five students, when necessary, through the explicit teaching of phonics. She explained her recognition of the place of phonics within reading skills instruction:
•
Nancy: The other big thing is that 1 do listen to my students read individually and, if l'm at aIl worried about them 1 give them graded passages, Grade Two, Grade
110
•
Three, Grade Four. 1 see what they ean manage and 1'11 go by the idea that ifthey get 98% or something, theyare reading at Grade level. Ifthey don't (do so weIl), what l've done in the past - 1 did this last year and l'm going to do it again this year - if they were reading at a Grade Three or Four level 1 ordered them a phonies book. 1'11 sit with them and we'11 do phonies once or twice a week in a group. This year l'm going to take that a step further and have those kids 1 think are reading (below Grade level) work with novels at their level and 1'11 create sorne activities 1 can do with them based on those novels. 1 just don't think you can use the same approach to reading for every kid. (They) do learn differently and sorne ofthem, l'm convinced, need that 'old-fashioned' phonics stuff. So l'm going to include that in their program when 1 can, to the extent that 1 cano (IT/N-30)
Kim' s understanding of her theoretical orientation was characterized by a highly pragmatic emphasis on skills. She said, "11' s really the skiIls that unlock it (reading) for them and show where they have to head to next" (lIITIK-18). She stressed the beHef that her students needed explicit reading skiIls instruction to
•
•
succeed in many different aspects of the Grade Five program, as weIl as to enable them to develop their enjoyment of independent reading for pleasure. Kim also described her personal understanding ofreading as a multi-dimensional process: Kim: 1 really think reading takes place on a whole lot of different levels. I1's not just visual decoding. 1 mean, there's decoding and then there's comprehension. Beyond literal comprehension, there's inference, and relating to text and experiences. l'm trying to get kids to understand (at a personallevel) that there's more to reading than just what is on the page. (IIITIK-5) ... 1 think teaching reading is individualizing program according to what they can do and (teaching) those skills. You know, what's the point of me giving you a novel you cannot decode? And if you can't decode? Woah! You can't do half of my program! So it's about what do 1 do to help them learn those skills and how am 1 (going to do that)? What are those strategies? They're Primary, and that's exactly what it is. In the Primary Grades they teaeh all of those decoding strategies. But for sorne reason, many reasons, sorne of my students haven't learned them yet. 1 have to focus in on that for them and find the books they need. At the same time, l'm working on those skiIl sets for my students who can decode or who are reading above level and are ready to get into ideas of "what else is there to reading beyond decoding?" that go with developing comprehension and sorne of those higher level (thinking) skiIls. (lITIK-25)
111
•
Mark described his approach to the teaching of reading as· one that accommodated the explicit skills instruction within a fairly structured program. Notwithstanding, he saw his approach combining an eclectic appreciation for literature, opportunities for the construction of personal meaning, and the teaching of reading integrated with the teaching of writing. Mark's understanding of his theoretical orientation to reading did not appear to be inconsistent with his placement on the TORP (i.e. in the lower range for skills):
•
Mark: 1 do a lot of work with the 'bones' of reading, the 'bones' of writing. For example, 1 start the year talking a lot about the reading/writing process. 1 start by having the kids doing a lot of note taking - boring for them, 1 know - but they take notes on how to write: how to recognize and how to write a paragraph. Then we do a lot of examples of paragraph writing. 11' s boring, deathly boring, and 1 know that. But 1 want them to have that as a starting point that we can reflect back on later in the year. Later on 1 start to have them extrapolate and interpret things in their own way in tenns of reading and writing. So 1 would really reject the notion that l' d want to teach literature, reading, or writing in sorne kind of an airyfairy way. 1 always want to have them, if nothing else, go on to the next grade with a backbone, a framework, a foundation that can be built on, if not by me, by the next teacher. (IIIT/M-4&5)
Perhaps more than any other teacher participant in the study, Helen made reference time and again during interviews to deep, guiding principles she held that related to both her individual sense of self as a reader, as weIl as influencing her theoretical orientation and her work as a teacher of reading:
Helen: (Reading) is such a big part of who 1 am. And because i1' s given me so much in such positive ways, i1's what 1 want to give to others. As a teacher, that's what 1 do. (IIIT/H-2) ... It has taken me a long time to come to a philosophy of reading and 1 know that i1's still evolving. But 1 do know that what 1 truly believe in my heart is that 1 want readers who are reading for life. (lIT/H-14)
•
112
•
Helen' s understanding of her theoretical orientation was also of particular interest in that she considered her placement on the TORP, in the lower end of the skills range, an indicator that her theoretical orientation had shifted over time. She articulated how, in retrospect, she perceived her much earlier work as a Grade Five teacher had been characterized by a more holistic approach. Helen explained how she discemed at this stage in her career she was seeking ways to promote a balanced program by incorporating explicit reading skills instruction, as she saw necessary, within a holistic classroom context:
•
•
Helen: This is so interesting to me because 1 know that when 1 was teaching Grade Five ten or eleven years ago, 1 didn't teach reading skills. 1 did not do that. And we didn't do any reading aloud. 1 can remember thinking at one point, "My goodness, this isn't O.K. It can't be all activity based. What are they learning? There's nothing concrete here ... " And after a couple ofyears of sort ofpanicking and thinking, ''l've got to add more structure. l've got to give more skill-based instruction because otherwise l'm not providing these children with any framework. They don't have any way of knowing what to do when l'm not around. l'm not teaching them independent reading skills. l'm missing out a huge part of it." So, maybe what has happened with my orientation to reading is that l've done the activity based approach with lots of open-ended questions and learning activities and, l'm just thinking this through right now, maybe l've done aIl kinds of that aIready? WeIl, 1 know that 1 have. But l'm just realizing that, at the beginning of my career, 1 think 1 was way off over here on the continuum, and much more holistic. 1 must have been even more influenced by Special Ed. than 1 even realized because, believe me, up until that time 1 was teaching Grades Five and Six and doing aIl kinds of holistic, activity based kinds of things with centers and cards and so on .... But then that didn't work as weIl for my Special Education students and 1 know 1 imposed a lot more structure. And here 1 am. And what 1 guess l'm really trying to do is l'm trying to fmd a balance? That's exactly what it is. l'm trying to achieve a balanced approach - and l'm trying to be more inclusive (for example, of my ESL students), at the same time. That's what l'm struggling with. And that's probably why l've been so excited about this book (Fountas & Pinnell, 2001) and the whole idea of combining a reading workshop approach with individualized programs. Because 1 think it is possible to strike a balance ... (lIIT/H-15)
113
•
Joanne's description of her theoretical orientation to reading was characterized very clearly by 'holistic' tendencies:
Joanne: 1 think that 1 teach from the whole as opposed to from the part, but then 1 always review the parts again after the fact (IIIT/J-3) ... 1 think 1 can help (my students) to understand they make meaning for themselves by their being actively involved in accessing and acquiring information. (We are) always reading, reflecting, building, expanding, analyzing, taking it in (together), and they're making their own meaning. (lIT/J-15)
Joanne's understanding of her theoretical orientation tended to emphasize her beliefs that students required instruction in effective reading skills across many different aspects of the curriculum. In fact, when describing how she enabled her students to develop habits of reading widely for pleasure as weIl as to manage their studies in content areas, Joanne talked a great deal about her approach to
•
integrated teaching in practice. She related how, as a newly appointed junior division teacher coming to terms with the introduction of complex new curricula, her motto had become, "Integrate, or die!"
Joanne: 1 think there are sorne things 1 need to teach separately. But there are other things such as reading and writing that are not just subjects within their own right. They're woven into everything else we do. They make up our fabric of learning. (IIT/J-ll)... When 1 was tirst starting in the junior grades, 1 remember this very clearly, someone turned to me and said, "We don't integrate in junior." My response was "How can you not?" That was my response. 1 believe (reading) cuts across aIl areas of my program. It's something 1 refer to constantly and l'm always talking about reading (and understanding). (lIIT/J-21)
Donna also saw reading instruction as integrated across all aspects of the curriculum. For her, learning activities should be purposeful and authentic,
•
pushing the boundaries beyond discrete skills and on into the application of those
114
•
skills in meaningful contexts. Donna described how she believed explicit skills instruction was not only an integral part of the curriculum, but a very necessary element in her reading program too. She also emphasized her own educational background and personal interests in ethnicity, diversity, and inclusion as significant influences on her promotion of critical reading and related thinking skills (and she saw these efforts constrained at times by requirements and expectations related to the mandated curriculum):
•
Donna: It's about taking what we've read and saying, "What does this say about our society?" or "What does this say about me?" "What does this say about this group of people?" or "What does this say about what this person thinks?" That's always the challenge for me, anyway, as a teacher of reading - and particularly because right now there' s such a push in the curriculum to prepare for a test or prepare for a certain thing. 1 think those aspects of criticalliteracy and reading are being left out because the push is always "Can they read?" meaning the whole 'decoding' issue. It's a struggle l'm sensing. And it's always in the back of my head when 1 prepare an activity because sometimes 1'11 think (what we're being asked to do) isjust busy work. It's not meaningful. But because we're supposed to be meeting curriculum expectations and having grade team consistency among classes, those things sometimes limit what 1 can do too. (IUTID- 5&6)
The scores on the TORP for Peter and Sean represented both the lowest and the highest scores recorded in the skills range of a11 eleven participants (Peter 74; Sean 90). However, during interviews, both reported far more holistic theoretical perspectives. For example, they both talked in terms of their understandings of implicit messages teachers can convey about reading as a 'worthwhile' activity, and therefore their beliefs in the importance of teachers modeling effective reading processes in practice. Both teachers also placed an
•
emphasis on the importance of structuring class time to make opportunities available for their students to read regularly, and for extended periods oftime:
115
•
•
Peter: When you come down to it, the basic thing is that you leam to read by reading. l would say l've always been doing just that: getting them to read more and more. Since reading is such a love of mine, for me it' s an absolute necessity to do everything l can to open that door for kids. There shouldn't be any kid leaving school with the handicap ofnot being an accomplished reader. (IITIP-ll) '" It's about creating readers. Simply making reading something they don't think of as discrete. It' s conveying that reading connects with a lot of what they have to do and what they will benefit from being connected to their who le lives. l don't see it as a discrete thing so, l guess, l'm "holistic"? (IIITIP-19) ... l believe children learn to read by doing. They leam by having a reason to do it, being put into situations and encouraged in situations where something interests them and they want to find out more about it. Or in sorne cases, admitted1y, because they have been asked to do something whether they want to or not. But they feel their own need to fmd out, to do something new, or to do something better. But it's not always because they have to get a mark, or they have a test coming up. Hopefully, they have their own reasons (for learning), for their own enjoyment, as a result of their own curiosity. Because l do believe kids are naturally curious. Kids are naturallearners. Reading, like writing, should be a gift that you're offering them to help them get where they want to go. (IIITIP-3)
Sean: l helieve the kids pick up a lot on what the teacher does, and on how s/he values reading. If (l'm) not willing to give the kids time to read l think they'd say, "Well, he's not giving us time in c1ass to read. It can't he that important." If the teacher assigns reading but doesn't allow c1ass time to complete it, they'll perceive it as not important. Whereas l think (it's different) if the teacher is willing to give students time to do the reading and the teacher discusses a lot of reading with them, wanting to know what they enjoyed about a book or wanting to know how the book relates to their own experiences in life etc. The more the teacher demonstrates that kind of thing, the more the kids will see the benefits of reading; and they'll become hooked on reading and will enjoy it more. (IIIT/S3&4) ... l think, as l've mentioned, that if we show we value reading enough to give them time in school to do it - that makes a big difference. (IIIT/S-5)
Edward and Cindy scored on the TORP well within the lower half of the skills orientation range (Edward 81; Cindy 82). While Edward and Cindy consistently described instructional decisions that incorporated explicit teaching
•
of reading skills and strategies, both also articulated an understanding of their
116
•
theoretical orientations to reading as being characterized by clearly 'holistic' guiding principles. For example, Edward described his teaching of reading as focused on reading for meaning, interest, purpose, and pleasure, and verbalized what he regarded as the ongoing development of his own understanding related to theoretical orientation. However, he also described his 'theoretical orientation' as something he seldom stopped to "think about". Rather like several other teachers in the group who demonstrated the tendency to discuss the practical work of education with more ease than theoretical work, he said, "It's just what 1 do":
•
•
Edward: 1 think my overall theory of reading is defmitely reading in context, or whole language. (IIITIE-4) ... 1 still think it's important to teach the skills but, at the same time, the goal is to have students not only be able to read the words, but to be able to express their opinions, feelings, and understand what they are reading, to get the meaning. (IIITIE-5) ... If students can 'read' all the words (i.e. decode), but they don't get the meanings, then there's no point being able to read the words. 1 guess that's what 1 talked about before; phonics is important but there's more. (There's) bringing the whole language into it and building comprehension. The teaching of vocabulary fits with what 1 believe about reading. l'm making sure they have the vocabulary so they can understand what they're reading betier and are able to put it all together as a whole. That's a central therne of my language classes. 1 suggest they read the whole piece fIfSt and try to get the meaning in the context of what they are reading. l'Il tell them, "Don't read word by word. Try to read a whole phrase or paragraph and get the meaning out of that. Don't stop at a word you don't understand and then forget about the rest of what you're reading. Keep going". l'm constantly trying to make sure they understand the importance ofunderstanding as a who/e. (IITIE-12) ... 1 wrote a paper in teacher' s college comparing phonics with whole language. 1 read different papers and, by gaining an understanding of what both philosophies were about, it helped me begin to form my own. My ideas about reading in context have developed from there. It's something that 1 don't really stop to think about. It'sjust what 1 do. (IITIE-13)
117
•
Cindy voiced her assumptions she held that students at the Grade Five level "should" already be able 'to read' (i.e. to have the basic reading skills and strategies to decode and comprehend text). However, she went on to indicate that her two years of teaching experience had already demonstrated to her that this was not always necessarily the case. She described her efforts to assist students with explicit instruction in reading skills and included it in her program as needed. Cindy described her approach to reading instruction in Grade Five as very much oriented towards skills instruction in a holistic context:
•
Cindy: For me, (teaching reading) at this level is about encouraging them to look for more than just the words that are in the text and to get more out of books whether that's themes or ideas or just making connections with that book and other books. To get books in their life! Encouraging them to read, to see the value ofreading, and getting them to include it as part oftheir daily practice. (IIIT/C-2) . .. l'm defmitely skills-holistic, in there. 1 constantly have to be able to make accommodations and try different ways of meeting my students' needs. In Grade Five, they should already have the basic reading skills, the decoding skills. They can pretty much figure out how to pronounce words, or the meaning of a word in a sentence or a paragraph they don't understand, by reading what's around it. And they don't lose the meaning of what they're reading while they do that. My teaching is more about trying to get students to see reading in the 'bigger picture', to integrate reading into everything else we do, moving them towards independent reading skills and abilities. l'm trying to get them actually interested in being readers. (lIIT/C-15)
When interviewed, teacher participants consistently described their beliefs that reading instruction must transcend the teacher' s sole responsibility for student progress. As a group, teachers stated beliefs in shared responsibility (i.e. shared by both the school and the community) for the acquisition and development of children's reading. As an example, ongoing parental support for promoting
•
positive attitudes towards reading in the junior grades was considered particularly
118
•
important. The teachers interviewed all expressed beliefs in: a) the benefits of continued demonstrations ofinterest in children's reading as they matured beyond the primary grades, and b) in the ongoing mode1ing of effective reading practices at home. Beneficial aspects of purposeful reading outside school and across the wider school community were mentioned by most of the participants who cited, for example, regular use of library resources, purchase of books, newspapers and magazines for home use, uses of technology, and other organized activities that served to demonstrate different purposes for reading in authentic settings:
•
Joanne: 1 (realize) sorne parents may not have had a successful background in reading. But sometimes 1 frnd many parents have never thought about reading being an important skill to show their children as well. So 1 try very hard to have them see there's a direct link between what they are doing and what their children are doing, and that they can he1p their children with their reading in real settings. (lIT/J-18) ... l've had parents who have come in and said, "1 thought (teaching reading) was your job?" l've responded that 1 believe i1's the job ofall ofus as a community. That i1's so important we all do it all of the time because ifyou, as a parent, don't value it, then whatever 1 have to say about it is not going to be that important is it? 1 encourage parents to think about these things and take their kids to the library, read to them at home ... and 1 include tips in our monthly newsletter about what they can be doing, and little snippets to remind them reading is not just something we do here. (lIIT/J-7) Lynda: It's a priority that they are reading at home too, independently and with others if possible. 11' s all part of knowing that reading can be for many different purposes. Sorne of them are (in) Guides and Cubs and 1 usually try and frnd out if there are any badges connected with what we're doing (in class) and see how those can connect. 1 try wherever possible to get the community involved. Reading is definitely a community responsibility as far as l'm concemed. (lTIL-20&21)
Gordon Wells (1998) argues that, "Our emphasis on knowledge puts the cart before the horse: what we should be concemed about is knowing and coming
•
to know." The teacher participants interviewed all referred to a greater sense of
119
•
understanding and 'coming to know' in their everyday work experience as classroom teachers in ways both Wells, and Atwell (1990), described. For example, six of the eleven teachers who participated in this study specifically expressed satisfaction in the realization they were becoming more conversant with their own thinking about reading in theory, and with sorne of the implicit reasons for instructional decisions they made in practice. This was, they said, at least partly associated with the opportunities for systematic reflection during the research interview process: Nancy: But it is a constant learning process and l've discovered, in the course of these interviews... 1 mean 1 kind of knew it before, but it' s reinforced for me that 1 need to put in place sorne better ideas about how to ascertain and evaluate whether they're making progress in terms oftheir reading. (lITIN-16)
•
Sean: 1 think all this has really helped me to look more closely at what 1 do and to realize more clearly what 1 am doing in reading. (lIIT/S-18) ... Taking different courses, 1 do realize the connection of one thing to another more clearly, the gist of the 'big picture'. And in this case, from participating in a study, a little more about where my reading program fits in to the 'big picture'. (lIIT/S-24) Peter: 1 guess 1 do more teaching ofreading than 1 thought! (lITIP-18)
Kim: This ... looking at my theory and practice, it's been amazing. 1 think any good teaching involves self-reflection. Stepping back and looking at what worked and what didn't work so well, and sometimes my beliefs or how 1 approach something. And realizing how 1 think is not necessarily going to be the best way for my students. 1 often have to stop myself, re-think, and realize 1 need to fmd a better way to explain something. And sometimes 1 don't know how. So 1'11 ta1k to other teachers. Sometimes it' s better just to ask a kid - how would you explain this? 1 learn from them that way too. It's critical to step back sometimes and figure out what 1 am going to do differentIy to reach them. (lIITIK-23)
•
Donna: As a result of these interviews, l've really, once again, started reflecting on what l'm doing. And it's good. 1 always like rethinking and re-hashing what l'm doing and what l'm not doing. Then there's what 1 need to do and what 1 plan to do ... all ofthose things. It's been good for me. (lIITID-2I)
120
•
Lynda: Looking at our beHefs and how they relate to our practice is something we don't often do. We don't have time to. And unless it becomes something we have to do it just gets shoved down the pile. Because 1 would never have thought about or tried to make any ofthese connections ifit wasn't for this .... It has really helped solidify why 1 do what 1 do and where all this came from and even why it is important to me. (IIITIL-25)
The teachers' comments seem to underscore examples of how the opportunity to engage in systematic reflection during focused interviews revealed insights and, what Grossman (1995) termed, 'self-knowledge'. Grossman suggests self-knowledge differs from other domains of teachers' knowledge by virtue of its highly personal and idiosyncratic nature. Participants' responses illustrate different ways in which their 'knowledge of self was seen to affect their processes of learning to teach, the negotiation of context-specific constraints, and
•
reflection upon their instructional practices. Grossman's presentation of selfknowledge as a filter through which abstract or theoretical knowledge is sifted is particularly relevant to this study. This perspective would appear to have much to contribute to narrative inquiry and biography as effective approaches to exploring teacher knowledge.
Teacher Participants' Understandings of Contextual Enablers and Constraints
The negotiation of contextual enablers and constraints in the processes of teaching reading became a critical part of the interview dialogue, in that the ways in which teacher participants perceived their approaches to reading instruction
•
were highlighted as being a) theoretically informed and b) enabled or constrained,
121
•
in practice. Contextual enablers and constraints were both seen as imposing
between teacher participants' theoretical orientations and instructional practices.
Contextual Enablers
Frequently recurring, and sorne not entirely unexpected, 'enablers' were identified. Important 'enablers' included collegiality on staff (e.g. team planning among grade or divisional groups of teachers), administrative support (funding available for professional development, active participation by administrators in school-based initiatives for change), professional reading and relevant in-service professional development (both formaI and informaI; pre-service and in-service). Among teacher participants the most consistent fmding in terms of
•
'enablers' was the perceived benefit of actual teaching experience at the primary level (i.e., in Grades 1-3). Teaching experience in the primary grades was cited again and again as a distinct enhancement to the effective understanding of reading instruction in the junior grades. Having both knowledge and experience related to teaching reading in the primary grades and the ability to implement this knowledge and experience to teach reading skills and strategies at the Grade Five level was considered an important 'enabler'. On the other hand, not having this knowledge and experience was frequently identified as a constraint. Primary level teaching experience was described as highly beneficial by both teacher participants who had taught previously in primary grades, as well as those teachers who had not. The following responses present the essential nature of
•
participants' comments on the topic of contextual enablers:
122
•
•
•
Lynda: l believe a very important part of developing my philosophies towards teaching was teaching Grade One. Watching grade ones and seeing how they actua11y start to learn how to read. l think going through that whole process has made me a far better teacher of reading in the junior division. One of the reasons l think that is because it has a110wed me to pinpoint when a child is having difficulty, and where that difficulty may be. Whether it's decoding problems, contextual problems, whether it' s taking their ideas to a higher level of reasoning ... l've been able to take that (experience) and continue to develop as a teacher of reading in the junior division. l have teachers who will come to me and say, "1 have a child and they're doing this. Why? What's going on?" And 1'11 say, for example, "l'd suggest, from the errors you're talking to me about, they don't have a c1ear understanding of the vowel sounds." Much as l detested running records, l learned from taking that information and analyzing it and saying O.K. She has a lot of omissions or he's adding in a lot of extra words. Now, whyare they doing that? How is that changing the meaning of what they're reading for them? It's that whole analytical perspective that l think you learn teaching primary. l honestly believe a lot of junior teachers are struggling because they don't have that analytical component behind them for background. (lITIL-21 & 22) ••. Then of course, back in primary, l was part of the Language and Learning committee. That was a major thing then. We were a part of Curriculum Council and had to actually go through and look at the new language arts document the Board was producing at the time. Therefore l had the opportunity to look at what was being done in primary and think about "Where is this leading to in junior (grades)? And how do we make that transition? (lITIL-23). N aney: My understanding of whole language is that you present the child with the 'whole' because language is a whole, and if you break it down into parts and look at them separately from the whole, it loses meaning... (But) when l was teaching Grade One, l came to feel that not giving them phonies was like asking them to dig a hole without giving them a shovel. l rea11y did. And l still think l have to do all of those whole language things, but l also have to do the drills and practice exercises that are going to reinforce the skills they've learned. (lTIN-l7)
Donna: (In my second year of teaching) l moved from Grade Six to Grade Two and it wasn't my choice, you know, it was just thrown at me. l was shocked and scared and all the rest of it as it was only my second year of teaching. But l realize that when l decided to come back to junior, it was "Now l get it. Now l understand why when l had that [Ifst year in Grade 6, why sorne kids were rea11y low, why sorne kids were high, and what l wasn 't doing to help them. l was just getting frustrated, "Why can't you read this? Why can't you do this?" But after doing primary for three years, that rea11y made me understand how reading is acquired, how reading ski11s and reading strategies are acquired. The hard part then was figuring out how do l do this without it being primary? Because you
123
•
don't want them to think they're doing primary stuff, right? So it was how do 1 adapt, how do 1 find and use the resources (I need)? That was the hardest partjust finding the right resources at their level and without them knowing, "O.K. l'm reading a Grade Three book or a Grade 4 book", that type ofthing. That's still sometimes' the hardest part, just finding the resources (but at least now 1 know what to do with them when 1 fmd them!) (IITID-6) ... 1 always say you've got to teach primary, and junior teachers will say there's no way l'm teaching Grade One or Two! But 1 think you've got to do it because then you see how it works. You learn different strategies and are able to use them every day. At the very least, you'll see where they came from and how their school reading was acquired. (IIIT1D-14) The perception of having teaching experience in the early grades as being an advantage when teaching reading in the later grades cornes to the fore in the comments as shared by Lynda, Nancy, and Donna. Each of these Grade Five teachers expressed strong support for language-rich classroom programs with
•
opportunities for a wide range of learning experiences in reading. Nonetheless, they also advocated the explicit teaching of reading skills and strategies, and appear to credit their experiences of teaching in the 'primary' grades for much of their current understanding of the teaching of reading. Following her initial teaching experiences as a high school English teacher and prior to becoming a homeroom elementary school teacher, Helen worked as a Special Education teacher in a self-contained classroom setting. She considered her teaching experience in Special Education was partially responsible for the shaping of her current theoretical orientation and for her personal sense of increased effectiveness as a teacher of reading in the junior grades: Helen: 1 think it was through my experiences as a Special Education teacher 1
•
learned to find ways to individualize (reading) programs. 1 do it even now when l'm teaching to the 'whole-class' at once. Those skills have been incredibly important to me - those things 1 learned as a Special Education teacher - and
124
•
especially this year as l'm trying to 'tailor' my reading program to individual needs more than 1 ever have (before). 1 have been able to use a lot of things 1 learned as a Special Education teacher in having to sit down with junior students who could not read and working with them on reading skiIls. l've used a lot of Reading Recovery techniques because one of my students attended the program we have here in school. 1 talked a lot with the Reading Recovery teacher and heard about things that were working for my student. And 1 thought, weIl, 1 can try these things in my classroom and 1 did. (lITIH-24-25) ... But it's not the skiIls 1 have a love for. It's what using those skiIls can help a child to do, and think, and say. That's what 1 love. It's the personal growth and the power that they acquire when they are able to read for (and by) themselves. That's it. (lIITIH-18) ... 1 do some, but 1 don't do a lot of the 'traditional methods' because 1 think it becomes a bore. For ex ample, 1 mean, reading a chapter and answering some questions, write a journal reflection, make a new coyer for the novel, those kinds of things. What we do are literature circles, and our community meetings. And 1 teach skills through mini-lessons followed up with sorne sort of application. My main aim is to be talking up the books, you know, being the salesperson, and motivating kids to read. 1 think that has to happen every day and in every lesson on reading. (lIITIH-6) Helen's comments serve to illuminate her beliefs in the role of explicit skills
•
instruction within a balanced approach at the Grade Five level. She also saw her current approach to classroom practice in reading as combining opportunities for students' application of skiIls and strategies in their responses to a diverse range of literature and language-ri ch learning activities.
Contextual Constraints ... the issue is how teachers can apply theoretical knowledge in real classrooms where the relationship between theory and practice is complex and where numerous constraints and pressures influence teacher thinking. (Duffy and Anderson, 1984, p.l 03)
Teachers in this study reported feeling that many of their instructional decisions in reading (and, likewise, in other areas of their Grade Five programs)
•
were inextricably linked to the expectations of the provincially mandated curriculum. Meeting curriculum expectations at the local (school) level, as weIl as
125
•
on provincial tests (e.g. annual EQAO testing in Grade Six, junior division) were consistently reported as indisputable influences in both plans for instruction, and the assessment and evaluation of student progress. Many of the teacher participants described frustration with the emphasis on assessment and evaluation at both the provincial and schoollevels. Annual provincial tests and rigorous expectations for standardized
assessment and evaluation of students were seen as particularly serious constraints interposing between teachers' theoretical orientation and instructional practices. Peter became visibly and emotionally upset as he explained:
•
•
Peter: (But) those expectations are there aH the time, in every area. My philosophy? That it' s all window dressing and an extensive waste of everybody' s time to be focused so much on individuallittle things. 1 can see that we need to be more aware of assessing where the kids are and moving them along. Granted. But when you get thirty odd kids who are at twelve different levels on every given skill with a whole assortment of their own reasons for that...? Then to make a statement like "every student must be at Level 3 in reading" which is according to one person's definition who wrote that at the Ministry of Education on a certain date five years' ago. And it's my job to make sure that they're all doing that, in that way. 1 find it ludicrous. So, 1 have to deal with all that as best 1 can and that's, 1 think, just what teachers are doing. They're trying to integrate the content base, teach to the test, somehow produce better political looking results out of our schools which seems to be aIl that's being cared about... and trying to put that together with everything we know about kids and what they need, and helping them learn and helping them operate in a school system, or any other system that they're going to meet, rather than just this particular system that has these objectives they have to show (they've mastered) on a test. (IIIT/P-2) ... 1 just think that if 1 can manage somehow to cope with all the format stuff that has to be done, all the hoops 1 feel 1 have to jump through to try to meet the format stuff and to take it lightly, 1 guess? 1 do a whole lot now that 1 would not have done at the beginning and 1 wouldn't have done as a young teacher where 1 just say alright, they're wanting this, this, this and this. What l've always done is this. Well now l'm going to do this, this, and this and try to make it look like ifs in the pretty little form that they want, forget it as much as 1 can, and get back to what 1 really want to do which is working with the kids, seeing where they really are, and ifI can (help) move them ahead. But, truthfully, a lot ofit doesn't make sense to me. Itjust doesn't. Sorne days I can't make a lot of sense ofwhat l'm doing . (IIIT/P-17)
126
•
Cindy, who was in her second year of teaching, described her experience this way: Cindy: In teaching reading to kids we have to rush through so much trying to cover aIl the expectations or (doing) the assessment. 1 know we have to do that, but it just takes so much away from the experience of reading. Even for the kids, when they're all whipped up and interested, but then l'm listening to them read and they know they're being evaluated. 1 think it just takes away from the whole experience of what reading should be for them. l've been thinking seriously about just slowing it aIl down, not worrying about trying to stay caught up all the time and assessing every single thing that l'm doing. (IT/C- 24) Lynda was an exception who, while she shared the anxieties around time constraints and pressures to "cover everything in the curriculum", she also articulated very clearly how she utilized assessment (including the provincial tests) to inform her teaching. She firmly rejected the notion that teachers who
•
•
were educating students to be successful on the tests were merely 'teaching to the test': Lynda: When 1 had (a Grade Six class) 1 worked really, really hard with them and 1 thought that 1 had done a good job. But when the EQAO results came back (they) said to me, "You're missing something." And then 1 went back and looked at (the test) and thought, O.K. What part in my teaching am 1 not hitting? So that' show 1 started analyzing my own teaching and seeing how 1 could improve to make it better for my students. (IT1L-18) ... You have to teach in order for the children to be successful, and they have to write (the test) so why would 1 set up children to fail? l'm not going to. l'm going to set them up to be successful, right? So the first thing 1 wanted to do was find O.K. what exactly is it that they're asking these students to do? Then l'd go back to the Ontario Curriculum and say, "Now, how does what they're saying here and this (test) fit together? Newspaper Unit!" You know, one of the things that they've done on the EQAO is a) read a news article and b) they have to write one. WeIl, if the children haven't had that experience... it' s just one of the many forms of writing. They've got to be able to write a letter, they've got to be able to write poetry. We do all those things, so why wouldn't we do a news article? So l'm looking at, what EQAO has said they expect, what they are perceiving to be a Level 4, what they're saying is a reasoning kind of question, what they're saying is a communication kinds of question and it helps me program for my Grade Fives so that they have that exposure and experience. So l'm not "teaching the test" but 1 am allowing my students to be familiar with the wording of the questions. They have to be familiar
127
•
with the wording of the questions, and understand what it is exactly they are being asked to do. Are they asking me for proof? Are they asking me for my opinion? Because those are two different things. Are they asking me, "What are the characteristics of_ _?" That kind of writing. They have to know those things in order to be successful. (IIT/L-25) Related experiences reported by the majority of the participants with regard to the provincial curriculum requirements were consistently described as both demoralizing and exhausting. Teachers all described themselves adapting their classroom instruction to 'coyer' the curriculum as required, and yet, still also working hard to develop practices consistent with their own theoretical orientation to reading, to the best of their ability:
•
•
Joanne: (When l'm planning what to teach) 1 go back to the Curriculum first to make sure l'm covering the things 1 need to be covering. For example, whether they are... weH, whether or not 1 think they are appropriate for the learner, because there is the Curriculum. 1 am driven by a curriculum. 1 must pay attention to the curriculum. 1 also have to recognize it's possible that 1 might have certain children in the room who need modifications for what they're expected to learn. So (my instructional decisions are based on) knowing what the learners need and what the curriculum requires. 1 put that together and then 1 go looking for (resources). Integration is important to me here too. What subject area can this be tied into? Is it Art? Or is it Social Studies? Or would it be Science? Taking all that together, 1'11 think about what 1 can come up with that is appropriate for my students, and how will 1 deliver it in terms of meeting curriculum expectations. (lIIT/J-12) ... 1 must say 1 do think 1 would feel much more of a constraint if 1 wasn't the type ofperson who saw things holistically, as integrated. Ifl saw them (are as of the curriculum) onlyas their parts and 1 could not see the whole, 1 think l' d be in a very different situation. 1 don't see myself as constrained right now really, other than making sure 1 get everything covered and there are only so many hours in the day (for that). (lIIT/J-16)
Janet: 1 think that my struggle has largely occurred, and this is political, 1 think it has largely occurred since the new curriculum came in. Because the new curriculum has such a heavy emphasis on skills and the things you report on. It's a lot to report on. And it doesn't leave room for the interesting things those skills can take a student on to. It stops at the skills. But it's notjust about ski11s! 1 think you can only measure synthesis and analysis to sorne degree, you know, and you can't really put a letter grade on that. That's so disappointing for me with this new curriculum. 1 really think that what has happened is, because of (the curriculum), 1
128
•
have changed much of the proportion of time that 1 would (previously) spend on those interesting kinds of things because 1 can hardly believe what 1 can 't get through. (IIIT/H-19)
Cindy: 1 would say, in the reading program, trying to do everything that they want is ... well, with all the expectations they have set, l'm trying to (cover) those while still making it fun and engaging and not overly stressful for the students. Which, quite honestly, is next to impossible. Last year 1 tried to coyer every single expectation and this year l've realized that's not the way to go and 1 will never he able to fully do that, properly. 801 might as weIl not stress myself out, and the students too, trying to do aIl that with a thousand different activities. l've cut corners a little bit (this year). 1 try and hit as many expectations as closely as possible. If l'm doing a piece of reading 1'11 try and hit more than one (expectation), and sometimes perhaps only part of an expectation gets hit; things like that. 1 fmd that it's expected we're going to do so much and coyer so many things. But it's impossible in the amount oftime 1 have or the resources 1 have, or (with) the different dynamics of the kids, to do all of those things and still do a goodjob. (IIT/C-22)
•
While the teacher participants all said they gained a great deal of satisfaction in their work from helping students learn and grow, they also expressed concems that more and more is expected of them, as teachers, each year. It is evident these comments and concems focused on the perceived effects of being required to 'coyer' the provincially mandated curriculum in Ontario. Teachers felt their ability to make instructional decisions and exercise their professional judgment had been usurped by curriculum reform and increased political forces in education. The excessive amounts of time teachers found it necessary to devote to both formaI reporting of student progress and the 'preparation' of students for standardized tests were also regarded by many of the teachers interviewed as serious inhibiting factors on time they could actually
•
spend on planning and teaching .
129
•
Time as a Contextual Constraint
Overwhelmingly, all teachers who participated in this study saw a lack of time as the major constraint that imposed on their making connections between theory and practice. For example, a lack of adequate time was described as a severe limitation on their perceived abilities to plan, organize, and deliver reading programs successfully in junior division classrooms. The topic of time constraints featured prominently in the teachers' shared perspectives on personal time available to them for reading, both for professional purposes and for pleasure. Patterns, themes, and interpretations are discussed in detail under two headings in the next section: Time Constraints: instructional time for reading; and Time Constraints: teachers' personal and professional reading.
•
Time constraints: instructional lime for reading
Kim: Research shows us that better readers tend to be the ones that read a lot, and the real writers tend to read a lot too. It an goes together. So 1 believe that where 1 am using that knowledge and how 1 use it in the junior classroom is key. You know, organizing my time. That's a big one. What am 1 doing? (IIITIK-22)
A broad range of responses was elicited from different participants as they described their approaches to reading instruction and the allocation of time for reading. Most teachers organized their instructional time into one or two fiftyminute periods daily. However, many of the teachers observed that daily plans were often subject to various interruptions, scheduling issues, and curriculum
•
requirements and expectations. Throughout the interviewing process, the teacher
130
•
•
participants frequently described each one of these as responsible for imposing common constraints on their instructional time for reading: Peter: 1 have a double language period in the morning, every morning. 1 don't
have the time like in this book (by Fountas & Pinnell) where the blocked out reading and writing time is the whole morning (laughing). That would be a wonderful idea, as long as the kids were here until six 0' dock at night. 1 don 't know how you' d ever do such a thing. We have a double language period but it indudes the opening exercises and the announcements. The kids come in at 8.25, they sign in that their homework is done etc. and they go and get their books or their Joumals out. There's just no sense starting a lesson then because in five minutes the opening exercises go. By then they've brought me all the (usual) forms, collected monies, and signed things in. 1 try to have them get twenty minutes in for reading (until) nine 0' c1ock. And then we move into whatever other activity we're doing. Whether that's an introduction of the next part of the (integrated) Media assignment or, for example, we're working on Newspapers now but that's solely writing based. But then we're going to be dividing that time up pretty soon for the Novel Study. So that time is fairly flexible. 1 have language time until 10.15 every morning. 1 don't have a set "There's a reading portion of that and a writing portion of that." Maybe 1 should, maybe l'm going to have to after l've been through all this 'Literacy' focus, but 1 think that will make it fairly difficult ifwe do. (IITIP-15 & 16) Donna: When 1 ran centres 1 had language at the same time every day. Every day.
But l'm not doing centres this year and that's because of the schedule. The way our schedules are now it makes it very difficult to have a set time because that really lends itselfwell to routine - which we don't have. Because we have to coordinate the schedule with the French teacher and the Music teacher, and then 1 also have to co-ordinate with an ESL teacher so she can pull certain students at certain times. So 1 have Language here and then 1 have it down here and then 1 have it over here and it's been really choppy. What 1 try to do as much as possible is have double periods, 1 really like having two fifty-minute periods but it's a tough one. So 1 have at least one fifty-minute period of Language every day. It's been a really unusual year for me as far as scheduling. And 1 can't say (that) every day we spend half the period as reading. 1 can't say that. It's just so melded in with everything. (IIT/D-14) Mark offered another interesting perspective on his experience with the effects of integrating language 'across the curriculum'. Mark acknowledged the inherent validity in this approach and the necessity of covering everything in the
•
curriculum he felt required to coyer. However, he also expressed concern that
131
•
•
•
time for reading (and writing) directly related to developing the language arts was rapidly being usurped by an over-emphasis on instruction in content areas of the curriculum:
Mark: 1 have to aIlocate a whole lot more time now to Science and Social Studies because what has been mandated requires a lot more time to get done. So you alIocate a lot more time to it. That means that Science tends to flow into your reading, into your Language Arts time and even into Math, and you end up doing a lot of, in sorne cases, very interesting cross-curricula (units), moving across various subject areas and having a lot of interactive and integrated activities. And 1 think that's reaIly great. But what has happened is it has absolutely butchered the language time that 1 used to put aside, a double period every day where we looked at novels in a very leisurely, thoughtful way. Now it's become compressed and shoved in there and it just doesn't work. It's not working at all. There's a lack of time because we can't give it the time that we used to. It just doesn't work anymore. (IITIM-23) ... The lack of time for reading, based on aIl the other aspects of the curriculum is something l'm thinking about a lot. 1 guess l'm trying to find ways of getting sorne of the time back, you know? 1 almost wish we had two more hours in the school day - 1 don't think 1 could do it, 1 think it would kiIl me (laughter) - but 1 almost wish we had two more hours to do everything. We've watered down and removed our library programs, our music programs. Same thing goes for reading. We used to have reading every day (in) here. Sure, yeah, we're teaching Science every day and that's great for Science, but isn't reading more important? Isn't writing more important? 1 think, truth to be known, that writing is vital and the kids should be writing a million times more than they are. And obviously reading is a flipside of that. They have to have ideas and integrate ideas from other sources to get their own ideas to write. We just don't write enough and we just don't read enough. Sure there's something to be said for what we're replacing it with, but 1 also think there's got to be a better way. Writing is not something you can 'compartmentalize' and now we are going to do our writing as part of our Science. A certain amount of reading and writing has to be for pleasure. It has to be reading what we want, and how we want. One of the things l've recently done is l've ordered this set of SRA modules and 1 just want to get the kids reading again in c1ass, fun little stories to get them thinking about it. They're short, so we should have time. And maybe, occasionaIly, l'Il get them to do a play and get them back toward aIl that. And l'm going to cut up my Science program and my Social Studies program to do it but 1 believe l've got to get reading back in there. Maybe l've just got to find that right method, that spear to drive it back into the program. l'm hoping that 1 can start. Maybe l'Il revamp a few novel studies so 1 could get them back into my program.... (IIITIM-18)
132
•
Helen: 1 also think it didn't used to happen when now it has to happen (in theory!) For example, 1 couldn't be guaranteed that by Christmas time my students would be able to do x. One of the bullets on our report card this term is 'being able to read aloud with fluency'. How many times have 1 talked about fluency? And how do you evaluate that? You get them to read aloud. And even though 1 think that's really important, that's not what 1 wanted to (spend time) on evaluating. That' s not what 1 wanted to spend aIl my time doing. 1 wanted to give them plenty of practice, but 1 didn't want that to be a huge focus and it ends up having to be a huge focus. We had two things about reading on the report card and they were both very time-consuming. One was being able to re-tell a series of events. How do you evaluate that? You get them to do it, to 're-tell'. It' s hard if that's what you have to teach to. If you're trying to teach order and sequencing, it's hard to bring the real excitement of (authentic) reading to your teaching. So, l've got to frnd a balance. (lIITIH-20)
Peter described his perception of the current situation as similar to a 'pendulum' that had swung too far. He described his frustration with an overemphasis both on content areas of the curriculum, the much increased allocation
•
of time to assessment and evaluation, and the impacts of these on his instructional practice: Peter: The total focus is on evaluation right now whereas, 1 accept, it probably wasn't on evaluation as much as it needed to be (before). 1 honestly wish rd been better trained in evaluation and assessment earlier because 1 did too little. 1 was very much just working on my program and 1 wasn'tdoing enough assessment to be really bringing the kids along. Now we're totally the other way where aIl 1 really do is teach the kids how to do weIl on the evaluations and 1 can't really do much else. There's not time in the day. So again, even in reading, where 1 have to go through so many performance criteria under reading, and we have to make sure that they coyer that, that, that, and that. So the days of being able to just go with something that the kids are into and l'm into and have some fun with it? No more. There's no time for that. (lTIP-15 & 16) ... Assessment is a huge issue. There are places where 1 think it's a really good thing and there's a wealth of places 1 think it's a real crime. The single-minded focus on assessment right now, it's just hurting sa much. (IITIP-19)
Teachers' perspectives on the need for allocating time to independent
•
reading (also identified as 'Quiet reading time', 'Silent Reading', 'Drop
133
•
Everything and Read') varied across the group. Sorne of the eleven participants talked about using reading as a class management tool in order to sertie students and, at the same rime, making use of the limited time regarded as available to read:
Edward: Sometimes, just to have them sertie down, 1'11 have them do sorne silent reading for fifteen minutes, usually after recess because they're really 'off the wall'. (lIT/E-24) Reports of allocation of time for silent (or 'independent') reading in class on a daily basis varied from fifteen minutes for sorne teachers to thirty to forty minutes for others. In Sean's case, he articulated how important it was to him to allow students time to develop their ability to read independently, without
•
interruption: Sean: 1 am so pleased to see that the kids are reading and 1 honestly feel that they're all reading more than they were when we only had the fifteen minute DEAR reading time. 1 know when 1 mentioned to the Principal, that we were taking a thirty to forty minute reading period, she said, well... she certairuy doesn't want me to give the kids that amount of time, you know, time when the teacher's not 'teaching', because it's something that they could be doing at home. But 1 know there are a lot of kids that don't read at home. And 1 think that by giving them time here that they do read and make use of the time. So 1 think that's the benefit. (lITIS-4) Peter stressed the importance for him to include time for silent reading in class. However, his response indicated the influences of scheduling constraints, as weIl as his utilizarion oftime for reading as a 'class management' strategy:
•
Peter: l've always had a reading time in the day. It's absolutely essential. Now, 1 say that, but last year 1 wasn't able to do that at all because my language time was reduced to about one period a day. Just the way the timetable went. 1 had less language time and 1 just couldn't do it. But now (l've re-introduced it) and they
134
•
probably spend that twenty-minutes in the morning, every morning, where their only option is to read silently (while everything gets organized). (IIT/P-2) 1bree teachers, Lynda, Donna and Kim, spoke specifically of their reluctance to aIlocate regular time in class for students to read silently, each stating that this was something they routinely preferred to assign for homework. The reason given was due to their perceived lack of class time for this during the day: Lynda: There's just no time. My timetable this year' and for the last few years actually, it just doesn't aIlow for it. There's so much to be done, and so much to be covered in the curriculum. (IITIL-20)
•
•
Donna: 1 promote (silent reading) as home-based. 1 just find the schedule is so tight that 1 don't know where the space would be. l'd love to do that. And if 1 were to do it, 1 would do it first thing in the morning where there's that ten-minute lag period before announcements and stufflike that. But 1 don't have them a lot of times in the morning, or it's Gym first thing in the morning and they're not going to sit and read when they know they're going to Gym in five minutes. 80 that has been a real struggle of mine. And 1 see other teachers doing it and l'm thinking, "Where are they finding the time?" And 1 think maybe 1 should just make the time! And then my other issue is that 1 have a student teacher working with me as weIl and 1 have to give her as much time as possible (with them) and still fit in everything that 1 need to do. 80 that has affected it sorne as weIl. But honestly, 1 have not done it and it's been home-based. 1 haven't had much problem. But that's because the Book Report assignment is a home-based assignment so it guarantees, almost guarantees me, they're going to read ten books because it's a different Book Report every month. 80 that means they' d have to be reading a novel a month. There's one due the third Thursday of every month and then they get their new assignment the next day. The new book they should start to read. (IITID-15 & 16) Kim: It all depends on what we're doing, and whether or not there's time. Ifl'm doing the novel study, 1 don't tend to give them independent reading time in class: Too much reading! And when l'm not doing the novel study, 1'11 either altemate between reading aloud to them one day, and then we'll read silently one day. They always have independent reading to do because they've got a Book Report due every single month, the last school day of the month. That's for home, that's independent reading outside of class time. 80 every night they should be reading. Because the novel study work should get done in class, that' s my expectation.
135
•
There's time in class, they should be able to get their reading done (for that) in class. That doesn't need to go home. (IITIK-23)
Teachers who did allocate time to independent reading in class said they also regularly assigned homework related to reading, e.g. the completion of book reports, reading logs, response journals, novel studies and so on. As in Mark's case cited previously, most of the teacher participants stated that, while they usually conducted 'Language' lessons in the morning, 'Language' time was becoming increasingly integrated into many content area activities during aftemoon periods; in particular, Social Studies and Science. This appeared to be due not only to the implementation of 'language across the curriculum' factors, but mainly as a way to manage the mandated completion of curriculum:
•
Peter: (Both) reading and writing are integrated in everything we do ... there's
reading and there's writing in every area of the curriculum, including the whole Science, the whole Social Studies program. (IITIP-16) Donna: Sometimes l'll use my Social Studies time to continue with the novel that is related to the same topic (' Children of the Longhouse', for example). 1 try to have one double period of language but then 1 also use the Social Studies time (for language) because 1 have a double period ofthat as well. (IITID-14)
Instructional periods that were identified specifically for reading included a number of different learning activities, in addition to time dedicated to actual 'reading'. Reading lessons were sometimes organized as a class lesson (e.g. all students working on a story from a basal series; a mini-Iesson, also called a 'strategy' session; or a class novel study). At other times, the teachers reported organizing students into small groups for 'Guided Reading', or students might be
•
assigned to read independently from a novel of their own choice, or complete
136
•
reading responses and journal entries as weIl as regular book reports. AlI teachers said they spent time reading aloud to their students on a regular basis as part of their instructional time. A wide variety of interesting, appropriately leveled reading materials were made available to students in class by all the teachers interviewed. The periods of time on the teachers' schedules were also identified differently, depending on individuals and the different kinds of activities they planned for at those times. For example, there were periods identified as 'Language Arts', 'Language', 'English', 'Reading Workshop', 'Guided Reading', 'Independent Reading,' 'Novel Studies', 'Integrated Studies', and 'Reading Responses'. Terms like these were aIl used by different teachers when they
•
described instructional time allocated primarily for reading and language arts .
Time constraints: personal and professional reading Time constraints were the most frequently cited reasons by teacher participants as affecting the amounts of reading they felt able to accomplish in their own time. This was the case even for the self-professed 'avid' readers in the group. Discussions included considerations of time available for both professional and personal reading choices. A variety of perspectives and patterns of behaviour emerged related to the teachers 'as readers'. AU participants directly addressed their perceptions of a lack of time as being a constraining factor on what they believed they should (or would like) to be doing in accomplishing
•
personal/professional reading .
137
•
Four of the teachers, Lynda, Sean, Mark, and Edward, did not describe themselves as particularly avid readers who actively made time for reading for pleasure as adults. Lynda was the one exception of the four, in that she stated,that "summer is when 1 get to read for myself'. Otherwise, she described the majority of the reading she did as professionally related:
•
Lynda: Through the year, from September to June, basically the oruy kind of reading 1 do is professional reading. 1 do a fair amount ofthat 1 would say. A lot of it is short articles, or books l'm working through like the (Rick Stiggins) when 1 was a member of the assessment learning team project. That was heavy reading! It was also a lot of deep, deep thinking and reassessing of your own practices: why are you doing what you are doing? And how are you going about doing it? (IT1L-24) ... Summer is when 1 get to read for myself. The interesting thing is it wasn't until my daughter, who is a very avid reader, an amazing reader, started getting interested in selecting books, that l've actually spanned my interests in different authors. Her interests are very similar to mine and she buys all kinds of books. She loves to go to Chapters and she will buy books ad nauseam. 1 wanted to know what she was reading so 1 started reading her books and discovered that her interests were very similar to mine. And now she has no problem going in and saying "Hmm. This looks like an interesting book. 1 don't know this author but 1 want to try the book." She'll read it and say "Here Mom. You read this one. You'll like this one." or "How about you try this one?" So we have a lot of sharing going on in our house now and we're talking back and forth about what we're reading. 1'11 get to read about twelve or thirteen books in the summer time. (ITIL-5)
Sean: l'm one of seven, the second eldest of seven. 1 remember seeing my Mum & Dad read a fair bit. They were both readers. But 1 never picked up the bug that l' d go home and read before 1 went to bed or anything. There has been the odd time where l've found a book that's really hooked me. Or every now and then 1'11 get a gift from a student and 1 always think that, since it's a gift, 1'11 read it (laughing) and 1 will. 1 usually end up enjoying the story. But l' d have a terrible time going into somewhere like Chapters and thinking of buying a book that l' d enjoy! (IT/S-6) ... Most ofmy reading has been reading to fmd out as opposed to reading for pleasure, reading about Astronomy, for example, which fascinates me. (IT/S-7)
•
Mark: l'm a horrible, horrible academic reader. But if something is exciting, 1 remember reading John Kenneth Galbraith, The Making of an Economic Society? He's an excellent writer and he's a bare writer, a minimalist. So he's giving you stories and facts in a very concise way and 1 love that. 1 read through his books
138
•
•
(so easily). But if people don't seem to have a clear idea of exactly what they're trying to say, or they're getting too flowery or taking too long to get to the point? They lose me. 80, in an academic sense, you know, someone will usually have to put a gun to my head to get me to read something for education. (ITIM-8) ... Ijust shut down when someone asks me to read something big. If you gave me the first page of this (book) on its own and 1 read it and was captivated by it, l'd ask for page two and so on. Chances are, l' d end up reading the whole thing. But if you plunked something huge down in front ofme? There'sjust no way! (ITIM-12)
Edward: 1 do enjoy reading. It's just a lot of the time 1 just don't have time. 1 guess that's the main thing. But 1 do enjoy relaxing and (reading) sometimes. 1 have been reading a book off and on for probably a couple of years (laughter). l've been reading a book by David 8uzuki that 1 just picked up because 1 went out to hear him (speak) and 1 bought (his) book then. It's on environmental aspects of things and l'm really interested in that so 1 was reading that. It's non-fiction but sometimes it depresses me, so 1 put it down (laughter). 1 have sorne humor books that 1 read, just novels that have sorne humor in them, things like that. Probably sorne science fiction as well is another thing that l'm interested in. But if 1 had more time l' d probably read more fiction type books, science fiction, drama, sorne mysteries maybe, suspense, those kinds of books. (ITIE-18) ... The professional reading, 1 do that whenever there's a moment to be had. 1 usually focus on articles that interest me. For example, if l'm having difficulty getting the class interested in certain things or if 1 see an article that focuses on reading or something el se that 1 feel 1 need to brush up on, 1'11 take a look at the article. 1'11 read through it and 1'11 see if there's anything that can help me. Most of the time, if 1 have any time, then l'm reading the newspaper, catching up on what's happening in sports and current events. 1 don 't like to read too much of the actual news section because 1 find that sometimes it gets a little bit depressing. 1 just kind of skim and see what' s happening, but 1 might not actua11y read the who le article. It' s just more to get more information on what's happening. 1'11 read magazines as weIl. 1 get Time magazine at home; there's always a lot ofinteresting things in there. (ITIE-15) Donna described her time for personal reading limited and found it necessary to allocate any time she did have to professional reading. Furthermore, the focus in her professional reading was on locating practical strategies she could put to use in her classroom. Nancy, Kim, and Joanne aIl described themselves as avid readers but found their time available to read extremely limited, also. Like
•
Lynda, they aIl took advantage of extended blocks of time in the summer or other holidays from school to read for pleasure:
139
•
•
•
Donna: 1 would say, 1 think that just being an avid reader myself definitely shapes my philosophy of reading as a teacher. 1 still read a lot although most of my reading is related to my job right now. 1 don't get a lot of pleasure reading time. But 1 love reading myself even though it may be for different purposes and not always for pleasure. Reading is important and 1 want my students to know that. (lTID-21) .. .1 read a lot of articles and particularly now that our Board is getting into the Instructional Intelligence philosophy. A lot of the reading we've been asked to do, or that l've done on my own as a result, has to do with that. Sorne of it's (interesting), sorne of it isn't. To be honest, sorne of it 1 find really useless and l'm trying to figure out, "Is it me? Because l'm not getting anything from this!" O.K., it's nice information, but how is this helping me actuallyapply some of these strategies in the classroom? l'm not getting that kind of information. With my professional reading it's got to be (something) that's either going to continue to shape my philosophy or 'fine-tune' my philosophy, or ifs got to be something 1 can use in the classroom right away. If it doesn't do (either), then 1 don't read it. (lTID-23) Nancy: Yes, 1 do like to read in my own time and 1 still appreciate time for reading a great deal. But 1 don't read as much as 1 used to. 1 am so tired at night when 1 go to bed as 1 work constantly (for school). 1 have three books started right now on my bedside table - and 1'11 read a sentence and fall asleep. But holidays, for sure, 1'11 read then. (ITIN-32) Kim: 1 don't have any structured time that 1 set aside for reading. 1 read a little bit before 1 go to bed but 1 tend to be very tired at that point. It ends up being five, ten minutes and l'm out. 1 prefer to have a good forty-five minutes to an hour, at least, where 1 can read a whole couple of chapters and really get into what l'm reading. (lT1K-6) Joanne: Absolutely. Reading is a very big part of my life. Whether it's because it's always been a part of me? 1 don't know. 1 don't separate it from my 'self? That's possible. (IT/J-25) ... 1 do find much ofwhat 1 read now is geared towards my professional growth and 1 find myself spending a great deal of time reading professionally. That's not a bad thing, it just takes away from my reading in other areas. Right now a lot ofmy time is invested in reading professionally. (lT/J-16) ... (But) l'm reading (for pleasure) more than 1 did with two small children that's difficult! 1 find myself prioritizing and leaving things in little stacks. You know, O.K. today 1 can read this. My husband will take the children to the malI and 1 will get to read the newspaper (laughs). Reading for enjoyment and entertainment just doesn't happen as frequently as it used to. (lT/J-ll) ... If 1 have a choice 1 prefer a good mystery, a really good, well-written mystery. But 1 find it very difficult to get to do that and 1 (usually) have to settle for reading for information - daily events in the newspaper and, as 1 said, professionally. 1 fmd there's a lot ofmarking and a lot ofrubrics and l'm still getting used to that. It's a type of reading 1 found difficult at first. So, no, 1 haven't been able to enjoy persona!, private reading for a long time. (lT/J-14)
140
•
Differences in outlook can be discemed from the se teachers' comments that appear to be generally consistent with their personal perceptions of 'self as a reader. However, the lack of time available to them to engage in professional or personal reading is cited over and again as a major 'constraint'. The demands of teaching and maintaining a personal life often appeared to leave little time (or energy) for pursuing their own reading. Daniel Pennac (1999) suggests we must aIl actively reserve time for reading, free from other professional and personal obligations: "the issue is not whether or not 1 have the time to read ( after all, noone will give me that time), but whether 1 will allow myself the joy of being a reader." (p. 147) Cindy described her personal and professional reading time as limited too,
•
citing her full-time teaching job and pre-school daughter as reasons. But personal reading was still something she felt very strongly about making a priority,even during the school year. She also talked about consciously making time to read novels her students were reading in class:
•
Cindy: 1 still read a lot. 1 still read novels (for pleasure). Even though 1 have schoolwork and everything else, 1 try and have a novel going to take me away from everything else! And 1 read my students' novels too, the books they're reading. Any books 1 buy from S_ _ for the class. Before 1 put them on the shelf, 1 try and read all of those books so 1 know what they're reading ahead (of time). Last summer 1 took the Guided Reading novels home from (the classroom) and read every single one. 1'11 never get through even half of the books here on the bookshelf (with my students) - but at least 1 know what we have and what 1 want to use. (ITIC-8) ... When 1 took the (Reading, Part 1) course last summer 1 had the time to go through the units that we have here. And 1 took home all the novels and read what we have in the book cupboard at the school for Grades Five and Six. It was time consuming for me to read all those but, at the same time, 1 now know what book is what. So when we did, for example, Diaries, 1 knew immediately (what we had) and 1 could go and pick a book out and use it in class to supplement what 1 was doing. (IUTIC-12)
141
•
Helen described making time for reading in her own personal life as something she made a concerted effort to do. She described it as a personallprofessional time management issue and that, for her, the effort involved was worthwhile:
•
Helen: My older brother and sister read a lot when they were little too. My sister doesn't read now but my oIder brother does. 1 think l'm probably the one in the family that reads the most. That can do the greatest damage in the least amount of time with a credit card at Chapters (laughter). But 1 think books are still important to all of us and, in fact, my father is trying to c1ear out sorne things in our family home and the orny thing that anybody has really had any disagreement about was conceming books - who would get the book? "This book or that book? Oh no my name was on that book!" You know, it's not the furniture or anything like that people are interested in, it' s the books, which 1 think is kind of funny and (also) says a whole lot 1 think. (lTIH-3) ... Back to my sister. She doesn't read for pleasure and she's one of these typical working mothers who hasn't got a lot of time. But, you know? 1 think everyone's in that situation. There's never (enough) time. Ifyou really love it, you find a way. Ifit's on the subway or you're waiting . in a dentist's office? During the school year 1 tend to take all my marking to the dentist's office and do things like that there. (That way) 1 try as much as possible to squeeze in a little bit of time for (my own) reading. 1 can't do it every day because 1 have so much to read for teaching, but 1 try to make an effort to give myse1f that time. That's the effort part. Once 1 get there, it's pure pleasure! It's just hard carving out that time, but 1 really make a point of doing it. So 1 don't know what the real difference is now (between us) and why she's not an avid reader. 1 think she enjoys books butjust feels a certain amount of guilt when she's reading rather than doing (something) for her job or her family. 1 get lost in the book, so 1 don't feel any guilt (laughter). (lTIH-4) Peter appeared to be the exception in terms of his personal perspectives on professional reading. Professional reading, for Peter, occurred as a response to specific instructional decisions. In terms of personal choice and allocation of time, he c1early maintained a priority on his personal reading:
•
Peter: 1 read a lot at home. Books to me were a huge part of my life when 1 was young. And they still are. They are still where 1 escape to now. 1 have to be very careful. They're like an addiction (laughter) for me. 1 just do so much reading, and have to do so much reading for my job too. But if 1 have a really good book, something that l'm going to be really caught up in, 1 have to leave it up north at the cottage. 1 can't even have it in the house! (laughter), because it's still ... 1
142
•
•
remember this being the case right baek through school where the things 1 was supposed to be doing wouldn't get done if 1 was in a good book. That was that! 1 could just sort of disappear and pretend those things didn't have to be done and l'd pay the price later. And that's still the case. Ifi1's still really good, l'U read all night and then "Oops! l1's 4.30 in the moming!" So 1 have to be in summer or at Christmas. Those are the only times when 1 can read other things that 1 know won't catch me quite as weIl. (lT/P-3) '" 1 don't read nearly as much as 1 should professionally. l1's one of those things that... put it this way: 1 am stiU the kid reader that 1 was and 1'11 read the non-fiction things and professional things that 1 need to, or 1 am told to, and it stops there. As soon as 1 don't have to, 1 will go right back to the things 1 want to read to just get out of the world for a while ... 1 do wish 1 had more drive and interest in the materials around teaching. But if 1 have something specifie l'm doing, then l'U go looking for materials and read the whole thing to figure how much l'm going to use. l've certainly got staeks of (professional) books l've picked up thinking, "Looks good. 1 should read this" (laughter) but 1 just don't do it.. .. 1 know the books are there on my shelf and if something specific cornes up l'H look (through) and find what 1 need. It's something 1 see as, well, it's not something l'm proud of. 1 would like to get myself to do more general reading about my own profession and about what's going on.... (lT/P-22) ... We have a huge literacy priority at the school right now and this year the foeus is on juniors. Our principal is getting a text like this for each of us (indicates thickness using finger and thumb) on junior reading. Everyone l've talked to says i1's great, i1's full ofwonderful ideas, and 1 will read it. But it's not going to be easy. 1 don't have (nearly enough) reading time for myself during the sehool year. So if 1 ever get any, 1 don't want to spend it on reading that (laughter). l'mjust not good at that. (lT/P-23)
In addition to the laek of time for reading instruction and the teachers'
own personal and professional reading, other common contextual constraints were reported as influencing instructional decisions consistent with their theoretical orientation to reading. These were: the availability of appropriate reading resourees, wide-ranging differences in students' abilities to read, students' interests in reading, teachets' knowledge of reading skills and strategies, confidence in their own abilities to teach reading effectively, and the increase in accountability to meet curriculum expectations .
•
143
•
Relationships between Theoretical Orientation to Reading and Instructional Practices
1 conducted qualitative, phenomenologically based interviews in order to elicit details about teachers' knowledge and beliefs related to reading and how these guided personal thought and action in the teaching of reading, specifically at the Grade Five level. Harste and Burke's definition of theoretical orientation to reading provided the conceptual framework for these research conversations. During the in-depth interviews, 1 encouraged teachers to explore their educational beliefs about the nature of knowledge (specifically, the nature of reading and instructional practices in reading). 1 discerned consistent patterns in the way the teacher participants articulated understandings of their theoretical
•
orientation to reading, particularly in terms of discussing their knowledge and beliefs related to reading. In general, terms like 'knowledge' and 'beliefs' were used interchangeably. That is to say, participants did not tend to make clear distinctions between the two. The teachers in this study did not report beliefs and practices that polarized theoretical orientations at extreme ends of the TORP continuum. Rather, they believed reading skills to be fundamental to student success across the curriculum and were best presented within balanced eclectic programs, combining skills with immersion in a wide range of literature and language rich activities. Teacher participants articulated the relationships between their theoretical orientations to reading and instructional practices consistent with a skills-holistic
•
continuum.
144
•
The single most important finding was, in fact, that teachers did not report beliefs and practices that polarized extreme ends of the TORP continuum (i.e. the phonies and whole language orientations). This major finding also generated three sub-categories of findings that 1 examined and have explained in more detail. The sub-categories were as follows: Firstly, teachers believed that motivation to read was particularly essential to students' learning in Grade Five. Secondly, teachers believed constructing programs for 'struggling readers' to be one of the greatest challenges in reading instruction at this level. Thirdly, teachers expressed the beliefs that they needed to acquire more comprehensive knowledge of both the theoretical and practical aspects of reading instruction.
•
Following the identification of these patterns, 1 further analyzed the data for characteristics of educational beliefs about teacher efficacy in terms of teachers' confidence in their abilities to affect student performance as a result of their education as teachers. Two major themes emerged as a result of primary patterns in the data. Firstly, teachers expressed the belief that their pre-service education programs had not prepared them weIl to teach reading. However, the second theme did indicate that teachers believed some in-service programs available to them were beginning to meet their specifie needs as teachers of reading in the junior division (Grades Four-Six).
A locus on balanced, eclectic approaches to reading instruction
•
AlI teachers interviewed in the CUITent study reported support for balanced, eclectic approaches in their practices, combining specifie instruction in
145
•
reading skills, as needed, with literature and language-rich activities. Moreover, teachers' descriptions of their planning for and delivery of reading instruction were generally found to be consistent with a 'skills' orientation; i.e., where students are encouraged to use both information from the text and personal knowledge to develop rneaning (Boschee et al, 1993). Teachers' descriptions of their instructional practices in reading frequently included the 'embedded' teaching of traditional 'word-attack' skills, studies of vocabulary before, during and after reading, as weIl as more sophisticated skills and strategies for reading across the curriculum (e.g. inference): Helen: 1 think that the other thing 1 really believe is that, and while this may seem
•
self-evident, because reading is part of every facet of the curriculum it' s the most important tool we can give to children. It doesn't matter what subject l'm dealing with, we are always focusing on reading skills as a means to get to meaning. 1 do that in my Social Studies and my Science, and when we're talking about ideas in Math. The idea of being able to comprehend what' s on the page and using different techniques to comprehend what's on the page in different areas of the curriculum is really, really important. Because 1 believe that these skills are not always 'natural' to children (but) they are not always taught either. 1 think sometimes there's an assumption of understanding .... that if you don't know a word, for example, you (automatically) know how to go back and look at it in context - look at the words behind it, look at the words in front of it and figure it out that way. But 1 think there are many, many children who don't know those kinds of strategies (at the Grade 5 level), and really need them to be taught and then applied. (IIT/H-3-4)
Lynda: 1 see reading, and this is something l've struggled with over the years, not
•
as something taught solely during a 'reading period'. Reading is taught all day long in every subject area, and especially in Environmental Studies, Science and Social Studies. How can a child gain the knowledge needed if he's not able to understand the material that they have to know and understand? In other words, when l'm teaching reading, l'm making sure they understand the vocabulary, the different ways material is presented. Reading non-fiction is very different to reading fiction and teaching the children how to go through non-fiction material, you know, looking at sub-titles, pictures, ali those kinds of things within the text, is crucial. (lITIL-l)
146
•
Joanne: 1 don't think reading is something you can say is only specific to one area. In the same wayas 1 don't believe you can say that writing is (specific to one area). 1 think literacy covers all subject areas and there are very different types of literacy. Take, for example, the amount of communicating we do now in Math. It's phenomenal! Charts, diagrams, tables and graphs .... all kinds of 'reading'! (IIIT/J-4) ... 1 think, probably because 1 enjoy reading a great deal personally, 1 see it as being one of the most important areas for cbildren. Reading itself is not just a skill to be isolated. It is part of everything else we do. If they're going to be effective in any area, whether as a geologist or an author themselves one day, they (the students) will need to know how to read and they will need to know how to read weil. It's just not something 1 think can he isolated from other curriculum areas. 1 don't think 1 can separate it from everything else we do ... (IIT/J-21) ... 1 think there's room for teacher centered lessons as weIl as more independent work, partnering, and small group work. 1 think you need to have all ofthose in a balanced program. (lT/J-8) A considerable amount of the rationale teachers shared for including the teaching of skills in their Grade Five reading programs seemed to originate from their experiences with 'struggling readers' at this level. Both the curriculum
•
expectations and the pace at which it was necessary for students to complete work was frequently described by participants as increasingly challenging for those students who were unable to read fluently and independently with understanding. (The challenge of 'struggling readers' articulated by teachers in tbis study is also discussed later in this chapter). Patterns in the data repeatedly revealed that teachers' understandings of the skills orientation were not reported as polarized from their more 'holistic' considerations. Rather, participants talked at length about the need to explicitly teach specific skills at the Grade Five level that enabled students to read successfully in a number of different contexts. In order to accomplish this, teachers described their program planning as selecting from an eclectic range of
•
147
•
teaching strategies and language-rich learning experiences to promote reading across the curriculum with their students. For example, most of the teachers interviewed described approaches to classroom reading instruction that involved explicit teaching when necessary (e.g. through mini-lessons, whole-class and/or small group activities): Helen: We talk a lot about when you come to a word that you don't know, what strategies can you use? We'lllist the strategies. So as part oftheir Reading Folder they have a list of strategies for a number of things with respect to reading. 1 do a lot ofmini-lessons. Anything that 1 need to teach them in order for them to go and read independently as weIl as they can becomes part of the mini-lesson. For example, 'projecting' when reading aloud is a skill we looked at recently. And we also had a mini-lesson on how to use a handout. (IIT/H-IO)
All teachers reported including specific skills instruction, but located skills in the
•
broader context oftheir classroom programs. For example, in response to the need to develop skills for non-fiction or 'content area' reading, Kim stated: Kim: (When) they don't know those aspects of print and we get to learning from non-fiction, 1 have to look at (these kinds ofthings): Can they look for headings? Can they use an index? How is the text organized? Otherwise, how can they even begin to try and find infonnation when reading is (already) hard for them? Ifthey don't have those strategies, 1 must teach them. (IIIT/K-3)
Descriptions of reading instruction as teaching thinking skills .... The "basics" don't make sense to kids without a strong foundation of meaning. Without the latter, the fonner are useless. Kids need to know how the facts and skills fit into the context of their lives. Unfortunately, focus on thinking, understanding, and applying new infonnation has gotten short shrift (Routman, 2000, p.19). Teachers expressed a range of beliefs about how effective reading skills
•
were fundamental to students' success across the curriculum. They also explicitly stressed the necessity to focus on thinking, understanding, and the application of
148
•
learning. Many of the participants described reading as being taught in the context of thinking, understanding, and the effective application of new infonnation. In fact, five of the teachers in particular talked about their understanding of reading processes, and how they teach, in tenns ofreading as thinking. For example, Sean said: Sean: As an example, we work on those reading skiUs and higher order thinking skiUs, as related to Bloom's taxonomy, but in the context of reading a novel and completing novel study activities. l'm still thinking of heading that way this year. In second tenn l'U probably still do the paired partner reading as weU because 1 think that also supports the Guided Reading we were talking about; because then if s even more relevant when the kids are thinking and talking with other kids about what they're reading. Ultimately, 1 think thafs the goal l'm after. (IIITIS-I7) The tirst part of Sean's comment reminded me of Regie Routman's
•
(Routman, 1996) caU for teachers to learn more about teaching reading rather than relying on published materials. She was referring to exercising selectivity in the use of basal readers, "Even when a basal series is mandated, we can be selective about what parts of the published series we use" (p. 126). Sean's reliance on prepublished novel studies and lists of 'activities' based on Bloom's taxonomy, while weU-intentioned, speaks to the same issue: Programs don't teach; teachers do, but we have to be knowledgeable. The reasons published (materials) are so popular is not just that they're convenient or cost-effective. They attempt to do what too many of us don't know how to do - teach children to read and appreciate literature. (p. 126)
Nevertheless, Sean's expressed interests in the second part of his comment indicate a willingness to explore other instructional practices (e.g. guided
•
reading), while maintaining paired partner reading with which he is familiar and
149
•
comfortable. It takes time (and the right amount of both 'pressure' and 'support' from colleagues and administration) for sorne teachers to gain new knowledge and the confidence to implement a change in practice. A willingness to participate in the change process is often a first step in the right direction. Helen described how she was trying something quite new for her this year. She had recently started a Reader' s Workshop with a view to promoting fluency and comprehension. During the Reader' s Workshop, students were organized in different areas of the classroom for personaI reading and were encouraged to "whisper out loud" if they found it was helpful to their comprehension of what they were reading. Helen taIked about how she had observed elevated levels of thinking involved in students' journal responses and attributed this to recent
•
•
changes in her program: Helen: 1 believe fluency, whether orallY or in one's head, reaIly has a tremendous impact on comprehension. So 1 think that being able to read and take apart a passage in a relaxed fashion fluently and with understanding is really important. And it doesn't matter what you're reading. Ifyou can bring that kind offluency to your reading, 1 think you have a much better chance of understanding what you are reading. So, although 1 know that by Grade Five that's not something that is generaIly a big focus, 1 frnd that it really has to be. 1 have to feel that my students have sorne degree of fluency before 1 can have any confidence that they reaIly comprehend what they're reading; the whole idea of them being able to understand through feeling reaIly comfortable with the words that they're reading. That has a huge impact on how 1 teach reading .... What l'm frnding is, when they read aloud and they're reaIly trying to read with as much fluency and expression as they can, what 1 get from them in their journaIs is way better. It's much better. They seem to be able to think on a higher level about what they're reading because they are not so caught up in figuring out what they've just read. They know, they understand, and they're reaIly able to respond in more depth instead of (spending the time) deciding what that page was about. (IITIH-2-3) ... 1 reaIly believe, and l've said this so many times, 1 think fluency is huge. Fluency has a much broader definition for me now than before because 1 reaIize it's not just the 'flow' of your reading and being able to pronounce the words correctly. It's aIso about intonation, accent, expression, confidence... so many things we bring to fluent reading and comprehension. (IIITIH-4)
150
•
While 'fluency' and 'elevated levels ofthinking' are not the same, Helen's continued emphasis in her program was described as promoting fluency and expression in order to assist in increasing students' confidence and their selfconcepts as effective readers. She believed the ongoing development of students' reading abilities, without them paying overly conscious attention to 'decoding', was an important contributor over time to their ability to focus on thinking more about what was being read. Thus the construction of knowledge and the promotion of understanding were supported by Helen's efforts to encourage habituai (and effective) reading skills and strategies in her c1assroom program. Other comments about reading instruction and the teaching of thinking shared by Edward, Lynda, and Mark, follow:
•
•
Edward: Developing higher level thinking skills is a part of my approach to reading. It's so important for comprehension and for "getting something out of what they've read". Thinking about what they've read, digesting it, and then being able to expIain that in their own words is very important. When they get to the higher grade levels, they'll have to do that even more. So that is something l'm always looking for. 1 tell them: if you can show that higher level of thinking and comprehension from what you've read, then that's someone who's not just at the Grade Five level. That's showing someone who can go beyond that. (lITIE-22) LYDda: One of the things l'm struggling with right now is 1 run a very active c1assroom. It's constant. Students are always busy, focused. But the reading is about higher level thinking. Reading is thinking. Not 'busy-work'. And sometimes 1 think 1 would really like to give them a story and say, "Here are the ten questions. You just have to answer them." You know? Because that would save me aIl the marking where every single one is different. (Instead) every one has different opinions and ideas, and when l'm marking l'm constantly looking at things like Does their opinion fit with the story? Can they back it up? Do they have the proof? That makes the marking labour intensive because l'm not just marking for 'yes' or 'no'. l'm analyzing what they have analyzed! And, with the new curriculum, that's not just in Language Arts anymore; l'm doing that in Math, Science, in every subject area. It is really hard at times and you ask
151
•
yourself, "Why am 1 doing this?" But then you start reading their inventories and you know why you're doing it. These kids have really good ideas and they know howto look at something from a whole different point ofview. (IIIT/L-19)
Mark: 1 encourage students in my Grade Five class to develop their critical reading skills and critical expression. When we do our Media Study, probably the most demanding unit 1 do aIl year, 1 really push the kids (to ask): Should 1 believe you just because you say 1 should? 1'11 ask them to watch commercials on TV at home and to think: What are they saying and what are they trying to sell me? Why is this commercial on with this TV show? We do a lot of critical thinking and critical reading as well. 1 have them read articles and tell me if they think it' s biased in any way. For example, who wrote this article, why do you think they wrote it, and what are they trying to convince the reader of? (IITIM-19)
Teachers' responses reflect their efforts to promote and develop students' abilities to both read fluently with expression and to focus on meaning. The reduction of
•
students labouring over incomprehensible text, thereby shifting the emphasis to reading as thinking, appeared to be a priority for all the teachers who were interviewed.
Characteristics of relationships between theoretical orientation and instructional practice The majority of teachers interviewed emphasized beliefs and practices that promoted an understanding that, above all, "reading must make sense" for the individual doing the reading in terms of content of, and purpose for, reading. Lynda explained that effective reading involved the critical abilities to make connections and discem meaning within (and beyond) a given text. Lynda articulated strong views about the importance of phonics within a skills
•
152
•
orientation, but she also described how she sought to achieve a 'balance' in her approach to reading programs:
Lynda: 1 would say 1 take what 1 consider to be the best variety .... the holistic approach? 1 think there's good about that and 1 need to be using sorne of those things, sorne of the time... like reading orally for getting an overview of everything that' s going on. At the same time 1 strongly believe that 1 also need to be teaching students the how to's, because that's the best way to put it. The how to's: How do 1 do inference types of questions? How do 1 analyze what the character is? How do 1 know this is a main character in the story, or not a main character in the story? How do 1 know that this is a report and not a narrative story? And what does each type of writing bring to me? So it's (about teaching) the how to's as weIl as all the good literature. (IIITIL-5)
Other participants talked about how they saw a wide range of 'skills' necessary for effective reading and described efforts to integrate these across their
•
reading programs, for example, in the integration of ideas about reading and writing. 'Skill development' was also reflected in approaches to teaching reading in other areas of the curriculum too: Cindy: 1 find that the way l've set things up, the reading and the writing complement each other. They're seeing connections between the two - whether they're doing the writing or reading someone else's (writing) ... And 1'11 also use novels and picture books to illustrate concepts and themes we're doing in, say, Social Studies. When we were doing how the Explorers came to North America, 1 was able to fmd books that were written from the viewpoint of the natives and helped to teach 'point of view'. 1 found using those books as a resource helped to get that across. They were able to (understand) from reading those and making the kinds of connections that will strengthen their understanding in Social Studies or Science. (IIT/C-6) ... It's important to teach the skills even though it may not be as much fun as just reading a novel. But if 1 can bring the novel in to learning about whatever the skill is, then it becomes more enjoyable and, 1 think, more meaningful for them. And if it's more enjoyable and meaningful, then 1 think they'll retain what they've learned a lot more. (IIIT/C-8)
•
Kim: 1 just think that once the mechanics are in place, when the skill set to decode is there, then 1 start looking at comprehension and what else can 1 do to help them better understand? Because there's a whole bunch of levels of
153
•
•
•
comprehension, 1 know that. How do 1 begin to get them to move beyond the literal? How do 1 begin to get them to understand what they're reading a who le lot better than (decoding) the print? So much of what they read has to do with more than that (literal comprehension) and particularly fiction. How do 1 get them to begin bringing their own life experiences to an understanding of the text? Because 1 believe that is what 1 bring personally to the reading, my experience, my background, my emotions, and aIl of these things. That's how l'm going to interpret, to a certain extent, what the characters are doing. You know, why do 1 think they made certain choices within the context of the book? So how do 1 get them to do that too? 1 demonstrate that. It's so important and 1 think that's why l'm trying to bring more and more of that 'whole' person to reading. AIl of those experiences together cross over reading in various subject areas too. Then it's not just fiction: it's tied in with Ancient Greeks in our Social Studies, Myths in Language. Then we're doing Drama and we're making masks in Art... and all the time asking How do all of these ideas connect together to create understanding from what you've read about? There's that whole experience ofmaking meaning from text and experience, and 1 try very hard to build in those layers of experience for my students. (lTIK-14-15)
LYDda: l'm constantly searching for new ways to approach the task (of teaching reading). Looking for new materials that will interest my students, looking for opportunities to tie the reading into the Social Studies, even the Math. 1 do a lot of thinking outside the c1assroom about just how to do aIl thls. (lIT1L-9)
Edward: There are all kinds of reading, for example, even when l'm teaching Science. The student textbooks now are organized with sidebars, figures, tables, and (many) other examples for explaining concepts and so it all has to do with being able to read and understand (the text). There are all kinds of different reading: reading diagrams, instructions on how to do somethlng, and being able to follow (written instructions) step-by-step. Even Math is so language based now it' s incredible. Students have to be able to read, understand, and apply all kinds of terms in their Math (text). For example, mean, median, mode; that's aIl about language, reading and Math! (lIT/E-9)
Peter: Developing reading habits and skills in the junior grades, assuming that they're not beginning readers, involves the range of what we do through whole the year, in all subjects, in Science, in Social Studies, making sure they they're exposed to as wide a variety of print sources as you cano They work with different purposes for those (sources), and that they read for as many different reasons as possible. You know, 1 do lots of poetry stuff so that they can see different aspects of just sheer enjoyment in reading. Poems, jokes, stories. And they get to see the various purposes for research, to be able to find information, to fmd thlngs they want to know about. Yes, l' d say 1 teach reading in research, Again, not as a
154
•
discrete focus, as part of, for instance, note-taking and in developing point form notes. Research skills for point form notes. 1 mean that's a reading skill. It's reading a section of text and eliminating what isn't needed and figuring out what the main information is that's there, (what) that's giving you, and noting that. 801 guess that's a writing form, but it's also a reading skill. That can also be taught in a Science lesson where there's a text explanation of something, or a summary of an experiment where they have to read, and put it into their own words, and then summarize it in shorter form. 80, yeah, we're developing reading skills and habits in everything we do. (IIT/P-12)
However, Peter also contributed a somewhat different perspective as he described his CUITent perceptions of reading instruction in the junior grades being increasingly regarded, and expected to be taught, as a discrete aspect of language arts than previously. He explained his awareness of how perceptions and changing attitudes towards what actually constituted a 'reading program' at this level were
•
•
beginning to influence his own classroom instruction:
Peter: Until very recently it' s never been thought of or talked about as a discrete thing. 1 mean, as being a 'teacher of reading'. It's always been known as a component of language arts but not the focus (of instruction) at junior level. .. (IIT/P-l) ... But l'm working at the moment on making (instruction) more deliberate. For instance, l'm doing more stopping as l'm reading and talking about the reading, things l'm noticing rather than just continuing to read (aloud). And that's something 1 would never have thought of doing - we'd just read the story. We'd talk about the story, but 1 would never stop and talk about what this is making me think of? Or what does this remind me of? That might have come into (an informal) conversation, but it would never have been something l' d do in the context of a lesson. So that's a deliberate thing. l'm sure there was a lot happening and, at that time, l' d have said 1 was teaching reading. 1 was doing a lot in reading: kids were reading during reading time and responding in their journals and 1 was writing back to them and reading to them every day. But that was my reading pro gram and these days that would not be considered a reading program. (IT/P-20)
As understandings of the relationships between their theoretical orientations to reading and instructional practices were shared and articulated, the
155
•
teacher participants reported many examples of the different ways they saw it necessary to include skills instruction within their classroom reading programs. For example, the systematic development of vocabulary skills featured in the instructional decisions and program planning of several teachers. This was most often described as occurring through the use of basal-type readers (or 'anthologies') and/or a spelling series, as weIl as in fiction and non-fiction selections:
•
Edward: l'm continuing to learn about how students learn to read, and how they learn to comprehend what they're reading. But l' d say reading in context is something l'm trying hard to develop in getting students to actually understand (what they are reading). The spelling pro gram 1 use has a lot ofthat in it. We do a lot of vocabulary work, making sense with words, talking about definitions and 1 really think that' s an important part of reading at this level. As they continue to read, and as they get older, they're going to get more and more difficult vocabulary. 1 try to impart to them how important it is to understand 'the whole' the 'whole language' approach would be what l'm doing. (IT/E-14) ... The reading series we're using right now (contains) les sons and many different strategies for pre-discussion and challenging vocabulary that students will encounter. It enables me, if! think it's necessary, to discuss vocabulary with them beforehand. U sing different strategies, we discuss the meaning of the whole selection, and its context. 1 find it's a very good series in that sense because it's laid out very weIl. It' s a great resource and helps me in my ongoing development (as a teacher). (I1TIE-20) Similarly, Cindy commented on the use of a basal series she employed as one part ofher total instructional program:
•
Cindy: 1 like using this (reading) program because it incorporates reading and writing and it' s a balanced program. It has a variety of different activities that address different learning needs for different kids. 1 think it does a very good job of doing that. And the way they guide you, even (suggesting) discussion questions and things, and with the assessment book and all kinds of different organizers and activities to use. They give you a wide variety for you (the teacher) to use so you can pick and choose what works with your kids. 1 try and do a lot of co-operative work with my kids. They have a lot of group activities and provide time for group discussions - and they're big onjigsaws. We've been struggling through trying to
156
•
get that to work smoothly for us, but it's coming. l wouldn't want to follow the program from front to back for the entire year and teach with just that, but it gives me a framework. That' show l use it. It definitely makes it easier because of the way they have set it up. l' d looked through it in the summer to see if it was something that l would want to use before l used it. l would say it definitely complements (what l'm doing). (IIT/C-23) Kim: We'll also look at sorne of those mechanics of language, the choice of certain words in the piece. When sorne of the vocabulary is definitely beyond them, we'lllook at building vocabulary (knowledge) based on understanding of what does this mean? How do you know? Can you break this word down? What part of the word do you already understand? What strategies do we know we can use here? (IIIT-K-IO) Lynda: It has to be (in there). A lot of the materials they're reading, especially the Science and Social Studies materials, are very vocabulary specific. Even Math is very vocabulary specific and they have to know what they're doing. They have to know what a prism is in order to analyze it and work with it. (IIIT1L-9)
•
Helen: But it's not Oust) the skills l have a love for. It's what using those skills can help a child to do, and think, and say. That's what l love. It's the personal growth and the power that they acquire when they are able to read for (and by) themselves. That's it. (IIITIH-18) Other explicit skills instruction described as integral aspects of a balanced program at the Grade Five level, included instruction in appropriate reading strategies; reading with expression and intonation; listening skiIls; knowledge of story structure; conventions of print; and recognizing characteristic features of books. For example:
•
Cindy: Another strategy l use for introducing a new novel, l just set aside one period to set it up for the kids. l walk them through, looking through the book and picking things out as we talk. What do you think this book is about? What might happen? Why do you think that? Who might the characters be? l didn't do it as much last year, but l do that now with the books we've read, and l fmd it's so much more effective in sparking their interest in whatever the book is about. l think if l don't take them through the book at the beginning and teach them, looking carefully at the cover, going through, when was this book written? Look at the copyright. How many pages? Are there any pictures? Things like that. .. weIl, half of them, they wouldn't do those things on their own because they just don't think of doing that. But then, when they go to read the book, they're not as interested. So they're not reading it the same way as they would if l've been able
157
•
•
to pique their interest. (IT/C-23) ... 1 do teach them sorne strategies. We've talked about skimming and scanning and when we did research books 1 told them when they have five research books (to go through), you're not going to read every single word. So we learned about taking jot notes. 1 do teach reading strategies like that. We work on the intonation of our voices when we're reading out loud and how we can make it more interesting to the person listening; (that includes) different listening skills and how, when it cornes to listening to someone reading, how you can concentrate and really focus on what is being said. (IIIT/C-4)
Peter: We start off right at the beginning reviewing skiIls, weIl, concepts, like plot and character and setting, things like that... They should have them, but 1 always go through those again. 1 give them an assignment on a novel study and it' s very much laid out. They have to do a plot line and we start the plot line together. We'lI read a section, the first couple of chapters over the first couple of days, as we set up our charts. 1 filI out (answers) on the board with them, we read the chapters and we'lI work on the first few things altogether. So, Chapter One: what are the main plot developments in Chapter One? We'lI do all that together and then, as they continue reading each chapter, they are responsible to add to the plot line; same thing for the setting. We'Il talk at the beginning about the overall setting of the book and what that means and why it' s important and significant and fill in that part of the chart (together). And then they have to find four additional specifie settings in the story to do the same thing with where they'lI describe it and say what happened there, and why they thought the setting had to be there etc. And characters. Again, the assignment will require sorne working with characters, One of the things l'm looking at in the novel we're doing now is starting to talk about point of view, getting an understanding of point of view. (IITIP-5-6) Donna: What 1 really enjoy about when we're reading is when something cornes
alive once we've read it. We've gone through it and explained it and dissected it. AlI of that. We spend a lot of time sometÏmes with one story, particularly when we do the Fairy Tale unit. We may spend two weeks on one story, like, one little picture book. And 1 am amazed at how they'Il feel, "1 never thought of it from this perspective. l've never looked at CinderelIa or Snow White this deeply before!" And aIl the different issues that come up. You know, if you were the wicked witch (in Snow White) ... Or, why do you think the wicked witch was so evil? Maybe shehad issues! (laughter) And they're looking at the characters from different perspectives, and when the kids start really getting into that, that's what makes me enjoy reading. When text, words, become reality for them, and they can start bringing their own experiences and their own knowledge to what we've read. (IITID-18)
•
158
•
Guided Reading: an approach to skills instruction in context More than half of the teachers interviewed shared their experiences with implementing Guided Reading theory and practice at this level. Guided Reading involves small-group instruction for students who read the same text. Groups are organized homogenously with students reading at approximately the same levels, demonstrating similar reading behaviours, and sharing similar instructional needs. Students usually read silently and independently. Explicit instruction of effective strategies for processing a variety of fiction and non-fiction texts is introduced, as appropriate, by the teacher. These small groups are not static but temporary, and change as teachers assess students' growth and needs (Fountas & Pinnell, 2001). The teacher participants generally felt what they knew about approaches to
•
Guided Reading complemented a theoretical orientation towards skills instruction. Guided Reading was also described as utilizing a wide variety of literature and other materials that challenged students at their own personal level (of reading abilities). Efforts of individual participants to implement Guided Reading as a component of junior division reading programs were at very different stages. Four of the teacher participants had attended a professional development session provided by the Webster Board; five were to attend one shortly; and two had just begun to learn about Guided Reading themselves as an approach for teaching reading in the junior division. Teacher participants discussed challenges with implementing guided reading programs they had experienced to date in three main areas: organizational and classroom management issues (e.g. small groups
•
working together, the need for effective monitoring of a variety of activities going
159
•
•
•
on in the classroom at the same time); the acquisition of sufficient and suitable resources; and increased recognition of their own need for more knowledge and expertise in reading skills and strategies: Cindy: 1 have a really wide range of reading abilities in here and l'm sometimes surprised how weIl they co-operate with the Guided Reading and do so weIl in their groups. They enjoy reading out loud to each other, even the kids that don't read as weIl. 1 was worried that they might feel singled out a bit, but they don't seem to feellike that and most ofthem seem to enjoy having the small groups too. 1 think they like that l'm not always in their group and they can rely on other students around them to support their reading. It's working weIl. l've tried to encourage them: somebody is stuck on a word and you know what the word is or you know how to say it or what it means. So you can help them, but you need to give them a few minutes to try and say the word. Now 1'11 see even kids will ask other kids, you know, "1 don't know this word. Does someone else know what the word is?" And 1 was surprised that they would say that and that they wouldn't feel intimidated, or not (feel) as smart as the others but in this class the Guided Reading works. (lIT/C-9&10) ... When 1 did Guided Reading last year, 1 did Guided Reading last year too. 1 didn't use the same program as we have in the school here now. 1 just set it up myself then and 1 had five groups. So even though it was more work for me to get around to everybody all the tirne there were smaller groups of kids. 1 was more worried about behaviour and things getting out of control (last year), but it was that small a group for the kids, it could work. Like 1 said, l'm surprised how weIl it's working (this year) with having ten kids in almost every group because 1 have 28 students. The program we have in the school only accommodates three groups. It is working but 1 still wish there might be a little more variety (in the resource materials). (IIT/C-26) Nancy: Each student has their own novel to read so that's what they're doing in English right now, except for the three who go out of the room with another teacher and do a separate novel. So it's not a group situation. l'm not having them discuss a novel (in small groups) and this is something l've never done. 1 know that's not right as a junior teacher. 1 know that you're supposed to have conferencing with the kids and they're supposed to be working in groups and discussing things. That' s my understanding. 1 went to a conference on reading actually a couple of years ago and one of the things they suggested doing was, while everybody's working on their own, that you (the teacher) have one group you meet with. So you meet with the one group and ask them some questions to determine the depth of their understanding of the reading, and discuss it. Which actually sounded like a good idea but 1 haven't tried it up until this year. This year 1 could do it. 1 have a good enough class that 1 could do it. In the past 1 haven't been able to do it because there was no way 1 could sit with one group and leave the rest of the class on their own. 1 just couldn't do it. They were too insane. But now Iprobably could try it. At least, l'm thinking about it... (IIITIN-13)
160
•
Lynda: What we did as a staff, in the first couple of months of this year, was focus on (the text) 'Strategies that Work'. The first chapter was all on the Retell, Relate and Reflect and they gave numerous ideas on how you can get that process (mobilized in your classroom); numerous ways to get that across to the students. 1 worked on that with my students and amazingly enough they picked it up and by the end of October they knew how to do a retell, a relate and a reflect. Just what we had worked on... this is good! (laughter) So then 1 tried the next part, all on questioning and did an activity. Again, 1 did it just with a small group because 1 wanted to get the feel of it all before trying the whole thing. 1 don't want a total disaster in the classroom. So 1 tried it with a small group and it was all on questioning. 1 took one of the activities and did it and 1 was amazed at what these students could come up with as far as questions go and the insights that they had. So O.K. here we go ... let's try this with a few more (of the class). We worked on that until it became, as it is now, part ofwhat we're doing constantly. (IIIT/L-14) One teacher, Kim, was moving well along in the process of implementing Guided Reading into her classroom when interviewed. Her shared insights and struggles with both the challenges and opportunities of developing Guided
•
Reading as part of her classroom program captured sorne fascinating, in-depth perspectives into teacher thinking. The complex processes involved in Kim's exploration of her own theoretical orientation to reading and the everyday implementation of appealing, but unfamiliar, new routines and practices (in this case, developing Guided Reading in a junior division classroom) are illustrated in the following 'vignette' constructed from research data during Interview II, 'The Details of Experience', with Kim (IIT/K-5 to 15):
•
Kim: In my class now, in reading, l'm doing small group Guided Reading and the class is broken into three groups: a struggling group, a mid-Ievel group, and a higher-Ievel group. 1 have two language arts periods, two fifty-minute periods a day, and there's a constant flow between. 1 don't tend to separate very often, this is reading, this is writing. 1 have an independent project going on so if they're not working with me there are a variety of things the students are doing. Right now 1 have poetry going on, that's their independent project. So 1 have about thirty-five poetry books in the classroom and they have a list of ten activities they are (to do). My higher group has to do eight, my mid group does six, and my lower group does four ofthose activities. They can do more, but that's the minimum they need to do. l've gone through sorne of those expectations, what do (finished products)
161
•
look like? what do you need to do here? They can spend their time reading anyof these poetry books, discussing with their friends "Rey, this was a really neat poem, what do you think about this?" and then they do the follow-up activities. So there' s quite a bit of writing that goes along with the poetry and the reading. That' s my independent work. So there' s very minimal direct teaching on my part....
Kim's comments about the details of her classroom work in reading emphasize the integration of reading and writing activities and the inclusion of genre studies (at the time of interviewing, Poetry). The organization of, and rationale for, the organization of small, homogenous groups in her classroom becomes evident as she describes her practices and explores her own related thinking and learning. Kim sees a role for regular, direct teaching and teacher interaction within small groups as well as the provision of a wide range of
•
•
opportunities for independent learning in reading beyond the group activities . ... And while all that's happening l'm with my small groups. So, for exampIe, 1 will caU over my lower group. 1 see them every day, probably twenty minutes to half an hour every single day, and we will talk about what l'd given them to read the night before. We'll do a read aloud where 1 start, 1 will generally start the read aloud, and then 1'11 pick one or two of them and they'll continue. And we stop, we talk about (what we've read), even the structure of print in a novel, you know, what do the little asterisks mean at the end of one of the paragraphs? Because they don 't always know. Or, another example: that the last paragraph of one chapter should lead into, or give you a clue, about what's happening next. Which they also don't always know. 1 found that out today. Nobody in my group had any idea that where (the story) ended in one chapter should be where it begins in the next chapter. Which is one reason why they're having difficulty because they don't even understand these, what 1 calI, 'mechanics' ofwhat they're reading. So forget about the words, if they don't know how it's set up, then 1 think it's going to be even harder to give them other strategies to comprehend what they're reading. The conventions, that's the word for it, the conventions ofprint and how it should be set up. For example, how do 1 know when a speaker has changed? Ifthey can't figure out that those new indents and quotation marks (mean), even though it hasn't said 'Margaret', the speaker is changing and they read it as if it's still the same person talking, then there's no wonder they don't know what's going on because it's supposed to he a dialogue between two people. Right? So we'll stop and 1'11 say you're this person and you're that person and then we'll read it aloud.
162
•
I1's not just an ESL issue. What 1 mean is, with the struggling readers, they're just struggling. In all honesty, 1 don't have a lot of first-Ianguage (English) students, so my experience with English-speaking students is pretty minimal. 1 have two students that have English as their first language in my class and they're in my lowest reading group right now... Conventions of print, story structure, and teaching students to expect reading to make sense are all elements woven into Kim' s 'reading lessons'. She considers it very necessary to have the opportunity to sit with students in their small groups and to hear them reading and asking questions in order to gain insights into what they already know, and what they need to leam next. She continually stresses the value of using read aloud techniques in the construction of meaning from text, and how she has observed the effects on students' understanding when they do not 'read' subtle cues accurately (e.g. uses of
•
punctuation). ... During that small group time, l'm still with my lowest group now, 1 will tend to decide O.K. today, based on whatever we're reading, 1'11 get them to look at, for example, setting. So what cues or clues are we finding in this chapter when we read aloud that tell us about where the story's taking place? Or when 1 send them off to work by themselves, this is what 1 want you to discuss, and can you prove to me where you find this in the text? We're not doing a whole lot of the type of questioning that's taking them much beyond what's in print, because they're still focusing on (understanding) that. A lot of what l'm doing in those Guided Reading groups is trying to figure out where their comprehension is breaking down for them and 1 gear my lessons towards that as much as 1 cano 1'11 go to the library or go to another teacher and any resources 1 can go through and think, "O.K, if 1 need to teach this what am 1 going to do? How am 1 going to do it?" Because if they can't (decipher) the words, then of course i1's harder to understand what it means. 1'11 be reading with one group and then 1 give them sorne comprehension questions or sorne vocabulary questions and usually sorne extra reading. They go and 1 calI another group over, who've been working on their poetry, and they'll come over... Kim firmly believed reading skills were essential to comprehension and
•
the application of leaming to fiction and non-fiction purposes for reading. Her
163
•
reported instructional practices also reflect teaching that strives to assist students to make sense of what they read, and to view reading as both a source of information and enjoyment. She describes her own ongoing attempts to develop her own knowledge in the teaching of reading and exploration of sources of that knowledge in order to meet students' needs .
•
•
... 1 meet my mid-group three to four times a week in general, so not every single day and only for about twenty minutes. We read more and they can coyer more material in a given time. We're beginning to look at reasons for why is the character doing this? Or if the character says this, how do you know what they're feeling if it doesn't actuaIly say? Or why didn't the character say when they were upset when their parents misinterpreted what they'd said, why didn't they correct their parents? What is the reason for that? How does this relate to your life - can they bring it back to themselves? l'm spending a lot oftime focusing on that, that relationship to what they're reading and getting them to share sorne of their personal stories - what does this remind you of? Is this realistic? Why? Why not? And can you prove it? Because most of them can decode pretty weIl, so it' s more about what else can we now get from the print to a certain level? And they're aIl reading at about Grade level. My higher group reads a more challenging book and we move a lot faster and look a lot more at genre, themes, the play between protagonist, antagonist, and can they compare them to other novels (we've read) as we move through the year. It's that whole idea oftaking it all one-step further. Because they do know what they are doing as readers at a Grade Five level, most of them read beyond a Grade Five level. So now, what are we doing to really get them to think? Why did the author choose to name a character this? What is it about the character that makes this a good name, even? Or what is it about the way that character' s been described that lets you know before you get too far in the book that's going to be the bad, you know, the evil character? How do 1 know? And what are those cues that are coming into play for me? And can they start to make sorne of those predictions or to recognize those things in print when they're reading? 1 see them three times a week and that tends to be for about half an hour at a time to really get sorne good discussion going, then they have work to do on their OWD. Again, they're doing most of their reading at that point independently, they're much more able to read independently and then bring their ideas and experiences to the reading group. 1 do very little read aloud with them but l'U go through and highlight what 1 thought was very important. Sometimes, if 1 think they've missed (the point) in sorne of the questions that l've asked them ... "WeIl, what do you think it was .. .if we read this again, what does it mean? Go back to Page 84 or whatever, let's read this section again ... " We have much more of a dialogue happening and they share more ideas. To really start to encourage them to challenge each other is my ultimate goal as the year progresses. T0 continue to give them work, or reading material, that is at their
164
•
level which is Grade Six or higher for sorne of them. And what can they do to be able to say, "WeIl, no, 1 don't really agree with you, and here's why .... ". Because that's very hard (for them) at this age, to disagree. They're much more apt to say "Yeah, 1 agree ... and 1 think this as weIl ... ", or just to add on to what someone else has said. 1 (want them to know) a lot of reading is interpretation and so it's O.K. to say "No, you know what, 1 honestly don't think that's what the author meant ... " And we're not there yet. But that's sort of my ultimate goal, to push them towards that and for them to really start to get more and more out of what they're reading, critically...
Kim makes very clear the distinction, for her, of a student who is able to
'decode' and one who she considers to 'read weIl'. Her lessons sought to meet students at their various levels and to move them along the continuum towards those more sophisticated concepts involved in reading as thinking and the construction of individual interpretations .
•
... It's working a whole lot better for me this year. l'm more structured with my time. 1 have a better tracking system when they are with me. 1 do the anecdotal records, almost like the Primary teachers do with the yellow post-its. 1 make lots ofnotes. For example, ifwe're doing a read aloud 1'11 pick two or three students a day who will continue to read aloud and 1 make notes on their fluency, or did they self-correct? It's almost like a pseudo-running record. 1 don't have the page out but l'm monitoring for what kind of miscues did they make? That sort of thing. 1'11 also make notes if l've asked them a certain question, were they able to relate it back? Did they come up with any relation to it at aIl? Or did they look at me like 1 was speaking a different language? Those things that jump out at you where 1 think, "Oh, this was really good!" or "This is something that l'm going to need to go back to and think sorne more about". Kim' s reference to miscue analysis and the use of running records in her junior classroom is interesting. This appears to reflect a formal recognition of the theoretical background of her analytical approach to teaching reading. But, perhaps, is also an indication of strategies she has adopted for teaching and assessment of reading from both colleagues in the primary division, and from
•
taking an additional qualifications course in reading. The system-wide approach
165
•
to Guided Reading in the Webster Board was also beginning to recommend the use of Running Records at the Junior Division level. ... My tracking is much better this year as weIl because l'm not trying to track all five kids, every single day, aIl the time. That's what 1 tried to do before. (lt was) just a ton of paper and you don't really retain everything. My groups are smaller because my class is smaller, 1 have three reading groups instead of four, also a lovely thing, (laughter) and it's just a lot more focused: This is what we're going to get done with this novel and this is what 1 want to get into place. So my goal with my struggling readers is to begin to figure out what are the things they can and cannot do with their decoding and what can 1put into place to help them with that and to give them those conventions of print. So, if we can get a good story, l'Il read aloud more ofit than 1 will (with them) later in the year. There's more of me doing the reading than them but that's O.K. They enjoy it and 1 can help explain it to them so that there is comprehension. Then we can act out certain things and get to discuss it, that's my goal. If we can get that far, this is good. Next novel 1 will focus on character or setting, plus some more of the decoding skills and get into greater depth. (Try to) push everyone in the group one step further ...
•
An awareness of the refining of practice over time, and with increased confidence and expertise is indicated in Kim's comments comparing her implementation of guided reading last year with this year. For example, her improved sense of satisfaction with her 'tracking systems' is evident.
•
... There's flux between the groups too because, for example, right now 1 do have a student who is struggling in the higher group. 1 had pegged her as a higher reader and, 1 would say, for the next novel 1 will probably drop her down and see ifthat's a better place for her. You know, it comes and goes as to where they are. Where is their comfort level? And the more 1 get to work with them, the more 1 understand, one by one, what are they good at and what are their areas of need? Then 1 try and gear what 1 do within each small group to service that, to help them be better readers. To me, 1 don't think (their group) should be set in stone right away because that really doesn't allow for that student who suddenly makes great gains to move. Or for that student who is struggling. 1 think the whole purpose, in my mind, of those Guided Reading groups is to challenge students at their level. So if their level is changing then 1 need to change with it, to keep them involved. That sai d, we also do other reading activities in class in Social Studies or other things like that, and then it's all multi-Ievel grouping. What those really high students have to offer can be so great to somebody (in the c1ass) who' s struggling if (they) can sit down and taIk about a common assignment and (work through) that. A lot of our Social Studies work is done that way where it's multi-grouped.
166
•
And 1 find doing their poetry, doing that independently, once they've left me, they can work with whoever they want. They can work with their friends, they can taIk about different poems, and you really can see sorne of that interaction (happening). It' s not always just the high group altogether and they only move as a unit, because 1 really want them to work together (with others) and do sorne of that modeling and sharing of ideas... Kim's implementation of guided reading as described here is consistent with 'temporary, flexible groupings' that change as the teacher assesses student growth (and needs). Throughout her responses Kim talks about the importance of teacher modeling, explicit teaching of skills and strategies, moving students forward in their learning, and providing a stimulating classroom and resource base. There is a constant sense of her care and concem for individual differences in planning for student success. Her own passionate (and yet very analytical)
•
instructional practice in reading appears to find a great deal in common with Guided Reading as an approach to skills instruction in context. Modeling effective reading and thinking processes, central to Kim' s teaching style, are also evident in her interview data. Furthermore, beyond her own c1assroom, she held a position of added responsibility as the Junior divisional Lead Teacher. She described actively sharing her excitement about Guided Reading as an approach to instruction in the Junior Division. As an energetic catalyst for change Kim shares her thinking about continuing her efforts, in the context of her leadership role, to support and encourage others on staff to also explore their own teaching of reading:
•
Kim: Yes, and to get other teachers to share in my vision. That's what it is. There's still a place to teach reading, to teach reading, and to teach reading skills well to junior division students. No matter how great your novel study is l, persona1ly, do not believe that one novel study addresses the needs of your class as well as having multi-Ievel study groups and small group reading. 1 truly do not
167
•
believe it. And 1 know ifs hard to let go. 1 mean 1 know because l've had to . When you've spent all that time putting together great activities with a novel and think i1' s so wonderful - and i1' s easy: You do your lesson and everyone does the same thing. Small group work is a lot ofwork. I1's a lot of organization, and it's keeping track of three or four novels. But l've seen the results and 1 can really individualize what l'm doing. 1 think it's pretty rare in teaching that you can really individualize what you're teaching with aU students to best meet their needs. And 1 think reading is a great (area) to do it with because i1's also a ticket to better writing, it' s a ticket to better research, and a better understanding of so many other things they're going to come across in the course of Grade Five - and every year after that. If 1 can help them develop those skills, then that' s something 1 really want other junior teachers to be doing too. 1 want (other teachers) to see that it's very positive and to see the results for themselves. But change takes time for students, for teachers, and for me. Defmitely. And there are so many more things 1 know 1 need to leam. (IIITIK-ll)
The importance ofstudent motivation and teacher modeling
•
'Leamers at every age are motivated when they can see the usefulness of what they are learning.' Bransford, Brown & Cocking (2000) Teacher participants generally believed that motivation to read habituaUy was an essential part of student development in reading; teacher modeling of effective reading processes was also believed to be an important part of instructional practices in reading. AU the teachers interviewed talked about the importance of placing an emphasis on student enjoyment in reading. This was generally regarded as a powerful motivating factor in the ongoing development of reading skiUs and students' positive attitudes towards reading, particularly in the junior grades. Teachers also recounted how difficult it was sometimes to attract and sustain students' interest in reading at this level. Kim and Sean raised particularly salient points, which were mirrored in the discussions with several
•
other teacher participants. For example, Sean pointed out the importance for him
168
•
•
ofvaluing time for reading for reading's sake, and that reading should not always be associated by students with the subsequent completion of an 'assignment': Sean: 1 think my students enjoy the extended time l'm giving them to read in class this year. They know they have thirty minutes to read and they also know that, at the end of each day's reading, they're not going to he asked for a reading response! So they don't see it as another 'job' to be done. 1 think they're getting more into reading for sheer enjoyment - and they just have to give me a reading response once a week. (IIIT/S-3) ... 1 don't want it all to get so analytical for the kids that it turns them off reading. Where, you know, they're thinking 'Gee, everything we read the guy wants to know this, he wants to know that, we've got to look at this, we've got to break down the meaning in a sentence, we've got to ... !" 1 don't think that's the joy ofreading. And 1 (compare it to) when 1 read, nobody ever says to me, "Who were the main characters? What was the climax of the story?" You know? People will ask you, "What was the book like? Did you enjoy it? Tell me a little bit about it". And it's O.K. to say, "Ijust read it because 1 enjoyed reading it". Seriously, 1 think if we, as adults, had to write a report on everything we read, 1 think we'd soon get tired of that. Maybe, there are sorne people who would enjoy it, but 1 know 1 wouldn't (laughter). (IIT/S-27)
Kim highlighted the recent benefits of acquiring leveled books for use in her classroom, for both motivation to read and the enjoyment sorne students experience when they are able to actually complete reading a book: Kim: It's really the skills that unlock (reading) for them. That's part of why getting leveled books has been so great for me this year - it's the fust year we've had leveled readers for Grade Five and we've ail fini shed our fust novel study. l've just seen such a very big difference to have books that were at a level that my struggling readers could understand. They could keep up with the (small group) discussions and do the read-aloud. We could spend more time looking at different reading strategies and they feel good about what they're doing because it's not frustrating and overwhelming and depressing. (They don't feel) "1 can't do this." and that they have to be reading a really childish book. It was great because they were more excited about coming to discuss the book every day and 1 just hamess that and - O.K. Let's go! You're excited, let's go. Because that may be the frrst time they've been excited about reading in years for all 1 know - just even being able to finish a book was such an amazing experience for a couple of my students.
(IIITIK-18)
•
169
•
Lynda discussed her view of motivating student readers to 'broaden their horizons'· and choices of material as part of a teacher's responsibility for instruction: Lynda: 1 want to develop an enjoyment for reading in my students, and have them become aware of various forms of material that are available. To start looking at the types of reading they like and can explore, as well as shifting them (along). Grade Five students especially, they can really get in a little rut and they will read, let's say, if it's the 'Babysitter's Club', they will read every one of the Babysitter Club books. They will read 'Captain Underpants', or 'Goosebumps' books, right? And that' s fine, but we really need to shift them along as well. Let' s start broadening that interest and scope, making them more aware of what else is available. Making the whole curriculum come alive for them. fiction and nonfiction. (IUT1L-5)
Mark and Donna talked about motivation in terms of gender issues and specifically referred to the recognized reluctance of boys, at this level, to read:
•
•
Mark: How do 1 motivate them to read? Motivation is such an important factor in reading development because, let's be honest, ifyou truly have no desire to read, you won't. (ITIM-23) ... 1 think that, the primary thing is that no matter what the purpose is for reading that you have to want to read. 1 also think that's why there are so many boys who aren't really interested in reading at this age level because that's not where their interests lie. They're not very interested in anything that they are being asked to read because they're more interested in sports or wrestling or something very physical. Truthfully, a lot of what we read (in class) does not really fall into those areas. 1 think that the way 1 teach now gives the boys a fighting chance. 1 try to find something they'll read, something they'll find interesting. If anything, my program is probably skewed towards novels about boys ... that's probably unfair to the girls but they still have opportunities to choose their own novels in my program. But in class 1 guess l'm really fighting to try and get those boys to buy in. And it's funny but, through these interviews, l've come to realize that maybe that has a lot to do with where 1 came from. 1 think 1 knew that in a sense, but it' s been brought out into the daylight, you know, out of the closet, that my own past is a pretty big reason why l'm doing that. (III TIM-2)
Donna: Then the other issue we have is the boys. What is causing the decline in the males in our school not doing well in reading? It' s not just here, at this school, 1 know that. There's a general recognition that the boys' reading levels were really low during the last test for Grades 3 and 6. But the question is, what is causing that? So what is causing that and what are we doing, or not doing, to
170
•
promote the boys wanting to read? Maybe that relates back to behavioural issues we have with a lot of our boys. 1 don't know. But l'm very interested. (IITID-28) Other patterns in the data reflected teacher participants' thinking on the modeling at home with parents and other caregivers that can influence students' intrinsic motivation to read:
Cindy: 1 think home-base reading is important because, weH, 1 can only do so
•
much for them in reading at school and 1 only have most of the kids for one year... 1 just would hope that parents, if their parents model reading (and 1 write this in Newsletters too), if they modeled reading and good reading practices, then it can only help the kids. The kids that 1 know parents have been working with, even if it's not every day ifit's like every other day for twenty minutes they just listen (to them read), l've seen the improvements. So 1 know that it can make a difference. So 1 always try and encourage that, sorne added support from home to help them. And even the kids who are a Level 4+ readers, (I have) sorne kids in here that read beyond Grade 9 material 1 would say, 1 think that when the parents are also showing an interest in what they are reading it only encourages them to read more because they're making that connection. And a lot of kids now, and parents too 1 think, are looking for sometimes a connection they can have. Just a one-on-one. l've said, "That time can be twenty minutes where you're just talking to your Mom about your book. It's only you and your Mom." 1 think that, even for the higher level kids it brings something more to the experience of reading for them when their parents are interested in what they're reading. Showing an interest and encouraging them by listening, even just to what they have to say about it.
(IIT/C-16) Participants also talked about a number of other potentially significant individuals, in addition to teachers, that students regularly encountered at school that can provide influential role models in reading:
Cindy: l'm modeling reading for them aH the time in class, but 1 also get the librarian to read to them as much as 1 can because she does an even better job than 1 do with expressive reading. She gets right into the role when she reads a story! (IIT/C-19) Sean: And, actually extending that, as David Bouchard pointed out in the presentation 1 went to, not one ofthose principals had read Harry Potter. Another example ofhere's the principal, and here's the studenL .. 1 agree with him: we al! need to be 'walking the talk'. (IIIT/S-24)
•
171
•
Joanne: 1 try very hard to encourage those students who are stronger readers to consider new titles and authors they haven't tried before, and to extend their choices. But l'm constantly working with all students on how to select books as they don't always know how to go about it. They just go unarmed into the library and select the first title they cano Early in the year we work on how to select a good book, how to spend time reading, we explore attitudes about reading... and so 1 try to keep helping them build a better understanding of what reading is all about. (IIT/J-13-14) ... Providing opportunities to experience good literature, a wide variety of genres, and exposing them to different authors is so important. Combined with a teacher who models the process. 1 believe if they're exposed to someone who enjoys reading and is a reader themselves, it makes a great big difference to how students perceive reading: Is this something 1 have to do because it's a means to an end? Or is it something that's valuable in it's own right? (IIT/J-17)
Kim' s comments about her active demonstrations of skills and strategies in practice, underscored the importance for her of modeling effective reading skills and strategies in her program:
•
Kim: If that's what 1 want them to do, then 1 should be showing them that l'm willing to go ask, find out for myself too, and check things out when 1 don't know. For example, 1'11 say, "Let me look this word up." And 1'11 stop lessons while 1 look something up in the dictionary. So they get to see the kinds of skills and strategies that can help them too. l'm demonstrating the steps to problem solve (in reading). (IIITIK-21)
Along with several other teachers interviewed, Kim saw reading aloud as a particularly effective way to convey her beliefs in practice: Kim: 1 really believe in the read-aloudlthink-aloud theory for making skills explicit. When 1 read-aloud and think-aloud while l'm reading l'm showing them that they should ask questions and think more about what the text makes them think of. Can we go back and identify the word (or words) that helped you figure this out? 1 also act things out a lot and we do Reader' s Theatre for re-reading things they're having trouble with. (l've found) re-reading works especially well for those struggling readers. (IIITIK-5)
•
172
•
The comments made, by both Joanne and Kim, are echoed in Frank Smith's discussion of not only learning to read, but also learning about written language. Smith (2004) states: The primary role of reading teachers is to ensure that children have adequate demonstrations of written language being used for meaningful purposes and to help children to fulfill such purposes themselves. Where children see little relevance in reading, then teachers must show that reading is worthwhile. Where children find little interest in reading, then teachers must create interesting situations. No one ever taught reading to a child who wasn't interested in reading, and interest can't be demanded. Teachers themselves must be conspicuous users ofwritten language. What applies to children also applies to oIder students and adults (p. 212).
The challenge of 'struggling readers' in Grade Five Findings of the CUITent study showed all teacher participants strongly
•
believed that assisting 'struggling' readers in their Grade Five classrooms was one of the most challenging aspects ofreading instruction at this level. For example, a considerable amount of planning for one-to-one teaching was described. AIl teacher participants described this as necessary in order to support the wide ranges of individual needs and abilities within their class groups. In this regard, the teachers emphasized the role of incorporating specific skills instruction within more holistic approaches as a key factor in promoting students' success in reading:
•
Kim: And my lesson plans do change. 1 had one student in my small (Guided Reading) group today and 1 noticed he has difficulty knowing when there's a long or short vowel in a word. So l'm going to have to think about where can 1 start to address sorne ofthat phonetic skill (with him). Can you hear it? How do 1 include sorne of that decoding and comprehension for him in the group of five? 1 mean they can probably aIl benefit from it in sorne way 1 would imagine. But 1 haven't quite figured that out yet, but it was something 1 just noticed today. (IITIK-8) ... 1 would say l'm probably moving more, in practice, towards being more holistic in the ways 1 teach. But 1 don't think you can get to that without the skills. 1 really
173
•
do believe that if a student doesn't have the skills, the rest isn't going to matter . So teaching those skills is key, to me. Once they have those skills in place, it's down to where else can we take this to move them to the next level of their thinking and their interactions with print and reading? That' s where 1 think l've become much more holistic in recognizing that reading 'crosses over' so many areas and you can do so many different things besides "Read quietly at yOuf desk". But 1 would also say 1 still truly believe the skill levels are crucial, particularly when they are in Grade 5 and still struggling. 1 mean they need those skills because it will only get more frustrating for them and more difficult to keep up. We're working on developing readers in Grade Five, but sorne students still have a lot to learn about mechanics too. (IIIT/K-13)
Mark: 1 give them the tools. But 1 have modified expectations in terms of different students, especially where reading responses are concemed. From where a child starts off at the beginning of the year with me, 1 look at what they are capable of giving me in terms of retell, relate, and reflect. If 1 see they have no idea of how to respond to a novel in anything other than a literaI sense, then the criteria l' d use in terms of that individual would be, "Can they start to work towards developing anything beyond a literal understanding of the book - and what do 1 need to do to get them there?" (IIT/M-20)
•
During interviews, aIl teacher participants identified a number of other factors they believed to have a direct impact on their instructional decisionmaking and student progress. Wide ranges of student abilities in reading were consistently reported, usually in terms of whether students were reading 'at' or 'below' grade level. Additional comments provided sorne further insights into teachers' thinking about what students were expected to be capable of accomplishing in Grade Five (for example, sophisticated levels of responses to reading). On the whole, teachers generally focused on the variations in students' reading abilities (i.e., intellectual development), but they also talked about differing maturational levels (specifically, social and emotional development). Sorne teachers 'wondered aloud' if the struggles they observed sorne of their
•
174
•
•
•
students expenencmg originated in a mismatch between students' actual development and educational expectations:
Kim: 1 find that getting a good response to their reading, a really personal response and something they've really reflected upon, is very difficult. But they're ten. And there's that too. They don't always understand and 1 find most of my students have never really had to do much more than a re-tell. So it's a long, slow process to get them to understand that, when 1 ask them a question about the main character, 1 don't just want to know what that character did. 1 want to know why you think they did certain things. And that's very difficult for them to reflect on and to work with beyond the literaI. 1'11 ask them "Did something like this ever happen to you?" and they take it literally. So 1 have to really work them for responses in more depth. It' s very rare that 1 have a student in my c1ass especially at this early stage of the year who can think beyond the literaI. (That can) generalize and examine why certain things happen, examine the meaning in more depth. Or (discuss) why did the author decide to have the father get his job back around Christmastime. Why? Why Christmas? What does this mean? Why at this point in the book does this happen? Can you start thinking what's going to happen in the middle of the book? 1 find it very challenging to get them to start to really reflect and to be willing to share that. 1 know there's an element of trust to it, definitely. But 1 also think there's an element of maturity to it and (it depends) a lot on their ability to interpret what they read. 1 do have sorne very strong readers in my c1ass this year, and 1 have also in the past, had to actually encourage them to read something a little simpler because (if) they're not really understanding what they're reading, perhaps they can decode and they can answer basic questions, but they're not really getting beyond that and into the story. 1 just have to keep coming back at them, what do you think this means? And to keep showing them: "This makes me think of , a time when this happened", and keep on asking them those open-ended questions back. 1 really do think teaching is all about modeling and what you want them to do. That's a key thing. (IIIT/K-6&7) Peter: The battle in teaching at this level is to take them beyond re-telling in their journal responses. Because the main thing l've always tried to do in getting them to read is to do more thinking about their book, (not) just 'what is going on in the book?' Not just (about) the story itself, not just to tell me the book. Tell me something about your own thoughts about it, what' s going to happen later in the book? Is there something that happened that makes them think of (something that happened to them)? Do they relate it to themselves in sorne way? That's always a battle. (1 think) they find it very difficult because they're used to regurgitating "The book is about this and this. This happened and this happened - they'll go on and tell me for a whole page all the things that happened. And that's just not what 1 want. This year l've made it more of a focus (even) earlier, because l've found that every year it's just such a battle to get them there. (IITIP-3 & 4)
175
•
•
Donna: 1 have a very unique class this year. They're generally very low (in reading) abilities and 1 also have a high ESL component. 1 find that their decoding is really good, so ifyou listen to them read they aU seem to be O.K. But ifyou ask them to tell you anything about what they just read? No clue. So 1 think that's where the weakness is - the comprehension. And then there's being able to write about what they have read, or relate to it and that type of thing. Author meaning? Very weak in that, they have no knowledge of that at all. 1 find that's (another) weak area... And 1 find l'm one of those people that fmd it very hard to do things that are against my philosophy, 1 do fmd that very hard... but the government wants it to be standardized and (there are) all of these expectations .... There's nothing in these expectations to help (struggling readers). These expectations all assume that the students are coming in (to Grade Five) with the skills from Grade Four. So we must do what they want us to do. And if they struggle? They struggle. Because this is where they are supposed to be. But 1 think a lot more has to do with the fact that there's no resource (in place) for students who aren '( at grade level when they come into Grades Four or Five. What is the recourse? Vou know, in primary, if they're not (reading at grade level) they go to Reading Recovery. If they get to a certain grade and they haven't reached a certain level, they go to Reading Recovery. Where's the Reading Recovery in the junior grades? (lIT1D-24&25) Lynda: Looking at sorne of the struggling readers 1 have in my class right now, l'm always thinking how can 1 best meet their needs without making them feel centered out at their age, because that's the last thing 1 want to do. But 1 also want them to feel successful with what they can do. l'm always on the look out for materials that will interest my students and meet their needs. It's probably the main reason 1 go to a lot of different workshops, to find different ways of approaching the task. (IIT/L-9) ... l'm very much aware of students who are shy, or who feel uncomfortable about reading orally, or even about showing what they're reading to (peers). That, to me, is an important component to watch for and (I know) it cornes from being put on the spot too many times in my own personallife when 1 was back in elementary, and knowing how it felt. (IIT/L-l7) Cindy: 1 have twenty-six students this year and a very wide range of abilities, and that's the same for the different resources that 1 have to work with. There are so many different needs. Even the different maturity levels of students come in to play in terms of what 1 can do. So, for sure, my instructional decisions have to he guided by those considerations too. (IIIT/C-8) ... And by the time they are in Grade Five 1 think they're starting to make sorne pretty solid (personal) decisions about reading. 1 think if, by the time they're fini shed in elementary school and they're still not reading or even trying to get through any books, then by the time they get to high school? They're beyond 'struggling'. Their effort is just going to dwindle and dwindle and they won't be reading. (IIIT/C-ll)
•
176
•
Edward: When students have difficulties with reading in my class 1 think part of it is still difficulty with decoding, just putting ail the words together and making sense. And comprehension (of) what is being looked for. Exactly what is being looked for? (in the text, questions, or other follow-up activities) 1 think for sorne of them it' s a confidence issue. 1 mean, they read it, they think they know what to do, but they don't feel confident to begin. They just won't try it fust. They have to ask me, or someone else, first. After that they'll get there, you know, gain sorne more confidence and start doing sorne work. For others it might be an issue of ESL or just a lack of experience, language experience or other life experiences that they need to bring to (comprehension of) the text. (lIT1E-2)
Insights shared through the teacher participants' comments present a complex picture ofteaching reading at the Grade Five level. Teachers ail describe the challenges of working with an extremely wide range of abilities, interests, and maturity levels while, at the same time, 'covering' the curriculum and enabling students to meet the extensive number of different expectations. Donna's
•
comments refer directly to experiences with the lack of resource-based assistance for students who struggle with reading in her classes. Donna highlights the dilemmas inherent in instructional decisions facing teachers at this level when there is "no recourse" for students who are unable to read competently.
Educational Beliefs Related to Teacher Efficacy A significant aspect of teacher efficacy emerged in common beliefs expressed by aIl teacher participants. As a group, there appeared to be a certain lack of confidence among teacher-participants that they possessed the knowledge and expertise necessary to provide the increasingly speciaIized forms of reading instruction required at the junior division level. In other words, teachers generaIly
•
177
•
expressed the point that they needed to further develop their current knowledge of reading instruction at the junior division level, specifically Grade Five.
Exploring understandings of the 'knowledge of' reading instruction During interviews, the teacher participants described the development of their knowledge and beliefs about reading and reading instruction, as occurring both informally (e.g. the result ofpersonal efforts to develop professionally), and formally (e.g. the result of pre-service teacher education, organized workshops, in-service sessions, educational conferences). Participants often referred directly to their own efforts to "figure it out" and thus to continue building their personal/professional knowledge base related to reading. Even among more
•
experienced teachers, there was a general sense of perpetual learning about reading theory; for most participants, it seemed, the more relevant aspect was leaming about the applications of theory in practice. That is to say, teachers described a large proportion of their time as being spent in "looking for answers" about the teaching ofreading at the Grade Five level (i.e., 'how to do it'):
•
Kim: 1 struggle with trying to figure out what works and what doesn't work, and the gaps in my own knowledge. (Especially) how best to meet the needs of my struggling readers? l'm asking myself questions all the time - but 1 think that informs my practice in itself. It does. (ITIK-l) ... 1 think that 1 really need to learn more about the mechanics of reading. 1 really don't feel confident in my knowledge of how best to break down language for students and to teach word attack skills, or where the phonics fit in to the picture. And how much is too much? Where is the balance before they turn off because they feel like they're being treated like they're in Grade One? Or they get discouraged because their younger sister reads better than they do? 1 don't feel very fluent in that kind of theoretical knowledge and in putting it into practice in my class. 1 just kind of wing it a lot of the time with the few strategies that 1 have and 1 go with whatever cornes up in our small group reading, responding to issues or questions as they
178
•
•
•
arise. (IUTIK-19) ... 1 believe that by having a passion for reading myself, 1 (can) pass that along to my students. 801 let them see when 1 think a book is great, l'll talk about books (l'm reading) and let them know when 1 get very excited about something. That goes a long way. 1 have a lot of energy for what 1 do and a lot of love for reading. l've always loved reading and 1 want to share that with my students so 1 try to find ways to do that. But there' s so much more 1 need to know.... (IUTIK-25) ... l've mentioned before that 1 find junior division tends to have this whole big gray area as far as reading's concemed. How do we teach reading? Is it "Here's the class novel, everyone's reading the same novel, here we go ... here are your questions." 1 don't think (that's it). And l'm looking at the curriculum expectations for (Grade Five) reading and 1 ask, "What are Grade Five research skills? How do 1 teach those? And how do 1 assess them fairly?" Those are questions 1 don't have answers for. 1 mean is it that they can produce a final product showing me they've obtained the information? Or am 1 really evaluating their ability to write up what they've leamed? On the one hand we're separating out the reading and saying it's essential to know how to teach this, and at the same time it' s still got to connect with writing. 1 think in the primary grades a lot of that 'separating' makes sense because they're learning the mechanics of (reading). But in the junior grades 1 don't believe you can really separate the two very effectively. You shouldn't. 1 don't believe (research) is one thing or the other, it's a combination of the two (reading and writing). 801 have to figure out ways to intertwine them and build one upon the other. But if they don't have the mechanics, reading becomes very difficult and very frustrating for them ... (IIITIK-4)
Joanne: 1 think that 1 will continue to do what 1 am doing right now because 1 haven't got it aU figured out completely yet. There are still a lot of challenges. Every year you get a different group of children and 1 find myself having to adapt and do things a little differently. There's a lot 1 like about teaching Grade Five... 801 think for the time being l'H be here leaming as much as 1 can about what l'm doing, and just trying to do it better. (IUT/J-27)
Donna: 1 want to (know) what our next step is as a school in terms of junior reading and what' s going to (happen) now that the focus in reading is being put on the juniors. Where are we going to start? How we are going to work through this with teachers who are at so many different places on a continuum of teaching reading? And don't just show me the buzz-words like shared reading, paired reading, and guided reading. 1 know aH the buzz-words; l've taught primary. How is thjs going to work in a junior class where 1 don't have two periods (for reading) every day? How do 1 do this? l'm anxious to know. (IITID-28) ... l'm still searching for more and 1 want to know what the Board focus is going to be. How is the extension of what they've been doing in primary for eons going to be implemented in junior? 1 don't know enough about what's out there. l've been at three different schools now and l've never seen an (exemplary) program, or
179
•
•
•
teacher (in junior). 1 could find examples of primary teachers and 1 could go into their classrooms and see how their reading program is run. 1 haven't seen that in junior and rd like to. rd like to see a classroom program that's running really well, where they're seeing results, and where kids are (being successful). 1 haven't seen that (yet), and 1 feellike l'm just fudging it myself. l'm throwing together whatever 1 have, doing what l'm doing, and it's not what it should be... How do you teach reading in a Grade Five classroom? 1 know how to teach reading in primary, They show you how to do it in primary, but what is it in junior? What does it 'look like' in a junior (classroom)? 1 think everybody's looking for those answers and we... well, 1 haven't found Them yet! A lot of the diagnostics, yes, 1 think l've got those down pat, and l'm O.K. with all that. But 1 need to know (more about) how the rest ofit works. (lITID-22-23)
LYDda: Yes, l've always had that component of purposeful reading tied into the program. l've tried a lot of different ways over the years. Sorne have worked weIl and others didn't work very well at all (laughing). There are a lot of things that didn't work very well, but Ijust keep on going and trying different ways to do it. (lT/L-20) ... The Guided Reading program our Board is introducing is helping teachers in the junior division but, in my opinion, ifteachers don't know what it is the (student) doesn't know, how do They guide Them through anything? Teachers really need to have (more knowledge) about that, about the analyzing: "What kinds of errors are happening here?" But that's also tied in to an understanding of (diagnostic) assessment. Ruth Sutton talks about assessment for learning and that's what we need to be doing. Conducting the assessment, seeing where They are, analyzing, and then saying "O.K. What do 1 need to do to get Them to that next level in reading? In understanding?" (lIT/L-22)
Edward: A lot of the time l'm skimming and scanning through materials to see what matches what 1 need to cover (in the curriculum). l'm always looking for different strategies for reading. The Teacher's Guide l'm using with the base reader is great because it has supplemental readings for low readers and that means 1 can really individualize, get the lower readers up to speed, and have Them working on something independently. 1 really encourage my students to try reading different kinds of stories, books, news articles, all kinds. 1 want to get Them interested in reading for all kinds of different purposes. That' s important. (lT/E-l7) To me the teaching of reading seems to be a very multi-faceted process. Learning (to read) is an ongoing process, and it's integrated into everything they do across the curriculum. In Math, in Science, Social Studies, wherever They encounter something to be read whether it' s numbers, diagrams, tables, or charts. And if there's a lack of understanding then they start to experience a lot of difficulty (lIIT/E-l) ... l'm continuing to learn about how students learn to read and how They learn to comprehend what they're reading. (lT/E-14) ... l'm looking at Guided Reading now and getting Them working in groups. 1 have to apply more of that to my teaching reading. 1 want to get Them thinking more about their
180
•
reading, relating it to personal experiences. (Then there's) leveled reading, having specific reading groups and teaching strategies for understanding ... 1 want to do more of that but it' s hard to get it aIl up and running. (lT1E-17) Sean: 1 guess you can't teach what you don't know about (laughter), and so 1 try and do what 1 can to be knowledgeable in different areas. l' d hate to think there are things these kids are being deprived of because their teacher doesn't know anything about (reading). 1 certainly do feel 1 need to have a working knowledge ofreading, but l'm learning more about it all the time. (lIIT/S-18)
Mark: 1 sometimes wish there was someone who 1 felt 1 could really relate to as a teacher of reading, and not necessarily a muckity-muck who se has all kinds of letters after their name. But someone like (Grade Six colleague) that 1 really respect. Have her show me how she does all of these things. Then, yes, 1 think l' d like to see how they could be done. But it's hard to ask people. Teaching is a very inseeure profession. We tend to be thrust against one another, you know? You're fearful, comparisons are made (between different teachers), and you have to do things weIl. For me, 1 wish 1 felt more comfortable going to my grade partners and other teachers and saying, "Here's how l'm doing reading. How can you help me get better at it?" But, you know what? 1 wouldn't want them to see that beeause 1 wouldn't want them to judge me. (lIITIM-15-16)
•
Nancy: It's really important to me to be a good teacher. l'm eonstantly thinking, "How can 1 do this better?" But 1 tend to foeus more on getting ideas across (in class) and igniting student interests (in reading) than on determining their progress. So that will be the next step, 1 guess, to focus on 'how 1 know' they're making progress. Coming up with ideas for teaching and making them fun is the creative part. It's less fun to sit down and think about how l'm going to assess (progress). (lITIN-17) Participants responses seem to reflect what Munby et al (2001) identify as a tension
in
the
teaching
profession
between teachers'
development,
understanding, and use of practieal knowledge, and the generally acceptable understanding that knowledge is propositional, "Teachers know there is mueh more to their knowledge than 'knowing' the subject matter to be taught." (p. 878) Examples of this were revealed in data gathered throughout the interviews for this
•
study. Nonetheless, ongoing efforts to "figure out" their teaehing of reading ean also be discemed in the teachers' reflective commentaries.
181
•
Perspectives on pre-service programs in reading instruction A number of significant themes emerged as a result of analyses of teacher participants' responses during discussions of their pre-service programs. Most teachers believed they had not been weIl prepared to 'teach reading' and considered their initial teacher education in reading instruction inadequate. This was especially true for teacher participants who had completed pre-service education programs preparing them to teach in the junior or intermediate grades. However, this was also a concem expressed by teachers in the sample who were initially trained to teach in the primary grades. Some of the teachers articulated assumptions that this was probably due to the fact that programs for teachers in the upper elementary grades do not, as a
•
rule, directly address 'how to teach' reading skills and strategies: Nancy: We were shown various ways of teaching reading but 1 was in a Junior/Intermediate program, so we didn't have that Primary training ... (lT/N-18) Sean: 1 was in Intermediate/Senior so, unfortunately, a lot of the actual teaching ofreading wasn't really a concem especially since my focus areas were Phys. Ed. and Geography. There was nothing actually on the teaching of reading, which is interesting, (as 1 see it now). 1 was qualified for teaching Grade 7 and up. So ifI'd ended up (there), weIl, (we) get a lot of kids in Grade 7 who wouldn't have exceptionally strong reading skiIls? (l'm thinking now) that should have been something we focused on more. (lT/S-13) Peter: There wasn't much and, in fact, it was something that surprised me, later, 1 guess. 1 didn't think about it very much at the time, but there wasn't much that focused in on the teaching of reading. 1 think that might have been because 1 wasn't taking primary, 1 wasn't in a primary stream. But even after (teacher's college) in the schools, even materials wise, it's only now, very recently, that there is starting to be some focus on the need and methodology for teaching reading at a junior level and at an intermediate level. 1 sort of developed early on how 1 would approach it and that came from other people, from Consultants and other teachers ... 1 don't remember much coming from the course itself. (lT/P-12)
•
182
•
Helen: In the Faculty of Education teaching reading, just the kind of nuts and bolts of reading isn't a focus. 1 mean, it least it wasn't when 1 was there a hundred and fifty years ago (/aughing). But it wasn't a focus because there was (the assumption), you know, that junior level children were readers. So the teaching of reading, the real nuts and bolts, was done at the Primary level. So that's not something 1 ever studied and yet 1 would have a lot of non-readers year after year. So what would 1 do? WeIl, rd go to the Primary teachers and ask for sorne suggestions, please, 1 need sorne strategies. And really it was that kind of professional interaction that helped me build a repertoire of things that 1 could use to teach children who were non-readers at the junior level. 1 just had to learn to do it with a little sensitivity to the fact that they don't want to read a book that (looks like) a typical Grade 1 book. 1 may be teaching a junior level student, but if that junior level student is a non-reader, then they're going to go through many of the developmental stages that every reader goes through, maybe at a different pace, but the same stages aIl the same. (IIT/H-26)
Teachers voiced their opinions about the need for a reassessment of what is taught in pre-service programs on reading. Their views were based on the
•
increased focus on reading in both the school curriculum (at all levels), and as part of the completion of standardized tests, as weIl as their own experiences. Teachers cited goals of education as preparing students who not only can, but do, read. But they also indicated they felt strongly that their professional education had not prepared them weIl for contemporary demands of teaching reading, and specifically at the Junior division level. For example, a lack of c1arity was reported in sorne of the teacher training programs completed by teacher participants, programs that generally incorporated approaches to reading within 'language arts'. Three participants in particular, Lynda, Joanne, and Nancy, commented on confusion they experienced related to both theoretical and practical aspects of 'whole language' as presented in their pre-service programs:
•
Lynda: 1 guess the model that they would have been talking about would have been holistic. But even that was not c1ear to me. 1 reaIly came out of there not
183
•
•
knowing, but if l had to put a label on it, l' d say it was the holistic approach - but the very extreme side ofholistic. (IIITIL-24) Joanne: l remember being very curious about the whole language issue. A lot of the teachers knew about whole language but they didn't reaIly understand whole language. l think a lot of the professors were teaching it as if we knew what whole language was. They would refer to it but they didn't reaIly teach it to us or tell us what it was. And l found it very frustrating because reading had always come so easily to me, but how was l going to teach it to children who didn't understand it? (IT/J-8) ... Yes, when l went to teacher's college, whole language suggested or perhaps it was represented incorrectly, that children would just naturaIly leam. That it would just pour through their pores and into their brains... and this didn't seem to be the case somehow with every reader l met. .. (lT/J-18) Nancy: l really got the feeling it was aImost ideologicaI, the whole language thing. It was like, phonics is bad, it is turning kids off reading, people out there will try to tell you it's the way to teach but don't believe them they're brainwashing you (laughing). And aIl the studies show that whole language is the only way to go. We were shown aIl of the words in English that do not conform to phonetic patterns and there are a ton of them, we were presented with a lot of convincing articles that argued in favour of teaching a whole language philosophy, and a lot of really good activities that l would never throw out the window. There were sorne very good activities involving lots of drarna and chanting and things like that, ideas for stimulating interest in novels. l remember they had us come up with ways to introduce a novel to the class. For instance bringing in a bunch of props, setting up an atmosphere in the classroom, that sort ofthing to get the kids to try to predict what's this novel going to be about? So, l guess there was a fair emphasis on readiness for reading before actually being given a text and l think that's fantastic practice and you have to do that. But then what? (lTIN-16)
The most common negative response to the content of pre-service prograrns was a perceived lack of specific instruction in the actuaI reading skills and strategies teachers found themselves required to teach in a classroom setting. Teacher participants described their pre-service programs as having offered sorne information about different approaches to teaching reading (e.g. whole language, phonics) and many suggestions for resources (novels, ideas for themes and units).
•
However, teachers described many "fundamentals" (e.g. skills and strategies that
184
•
many of them now regarded as essential to courses in reading instruction for ail elementary school teachers, and particularly those teaching in the junior grades), as not being part of their pre-service experiences. For example, Mark and Kim were both trained to teach JuniorlIntermediate; Helen's initial training prepared her to teach Intermediate/Senior:
Mark: When 1 look back, and especially with reading, 1 wish 1 knew more about the actuaI nuts and bolts of teaching reading. And 1 wish 1 had a greater understanding of the fundamentals than 1 do. (ITIM-20)
•
Kim: 1 remember it was a very smaIl room and we didn't do an awful lot of structured reading, where it was, you know, about 'how do you teach reading'? It was more about weIl, you'll do novel studies or you can use poetry. 1 don't remember getting an awful lot out of it, 1 reaIly don't. No, 1 don't think it prepared me at ail. 1 reaIly don't. 1 don't remember coming away with very much that was concrete. And that' s what 1 needed. 1 needed resources. 1 needed somebody to say, "Here are the books", or 'Here's a really good way to break down a lesson" or even those black-line masters of character webs, things like that. 1 needed sorne of those strategies. Because 1 think then 1 can apply them. 1 mean, 1 still have some of the textbooks they made me buy. They sit on my bookshelf and they look reaIly nice but they're very theory based. You know, 1 guess they were University textbooks and 1 was looking for something that 1 could use - something more practicaI. (IT1K-20) Helen: What 1 really needed (in teacher's college) were the strategies of how to present (reading instruction) to other people. Because 1 think sometimes when you have a reaI love for reading you tend to think weIl of course, this is wonderful, and who wouldn 't love reading? And 1 think that was probably when 1 first reaIized you reaIly had to work hard to hook children in to reading and that not only was it sometimes not interesting to them, it was frightening to some of them. And because l'd never experienced it personaIly, that fear factor had never reaIly occurred to me ... (ITIH-13)
Joanne and Lynda were initially trained to teach in the primary division but neither reported informative experiences at teacher' s college that actually
•
assisted in preparing them to instruct students in reading:
185
•
•
Joanne: 1 found my life prepared me more for reading and teaching reading, than my pre-service did. (IT/J-ll) ... l'd never had difficulty with reading (myself) and when 1 went to (teacher's college) it was aIl whole language. But the whole was not broken down and there were no identified skiIls. So 1 went out into the big wide world of teaching and there were no skills for me to learn how to teach. 1 talked to teachers who' d been teaching and were getting ready to retire and they' d say, "WeIl didn't you learn how to do this, this and this?" Me: "What's a 'blend'? What's a digraph? What's this, what's that?" Man! So 1 waIked into this thing where the kids would just automaticaIly, osmosis-wise know. And, apparently, 1 was supposed to have picked it aIl up too because there was never a teacher' s book that said, "You will teach these skiIls, and this is what they need to know ... " 1 had to go out and find them myself. 1 had to go back and learn the skills (in order to teach them). But 1 thought, from everything 1 had learned, every workshop 1 had gone to, it certainly made more sense if, example, you were looking at 'The Great Pumpkin', you'd teach sequencing after you had read the story. Ifyou had the children do (sequencing) wjth some kind ofreference to what they' d heard, the whole thing - to the part and then back to the whole - makes sense. "Now, you make your own whole. l've taught you the whole, l've shown you the parts, now you can make your own whole." (IIITI J- 9 &10)
Lynda: There was no structure to our language arts (program) whatsoever. It was whatever you bring in we'll just do something with it. But what the something was, 1 never did really understand ... ? You see, l've got a 10gicaI mind l've got to know where things faII into place and it just didn't make (sense). 1 couldn't see how the connections were being made and how this was going to help me teach children, because 1 couldn't follow him and 1 didn't know what he wanted us to be doing. (ITIL-IO) l'd walk in, do the activity, waIk out, and for me l'd still have no understanding of what 1 was supposed to do to teach Language Arts in a classroom. It showed me that it' s reaIly important that students know what to expect from you. They need to see sorne kind of progression, to know where it is you want to go eventuaIly. (ITIL- 12) What 1 know about teaching language l've learned after teacher's college .... 1 don't feel what we were shown, 1 wouldn't say taught, was that much use to me. (ITIL-26)
Cindy was the one exception within the group who observed that her program in teacher's college had been very satisfactory. She had completed a preservice education program she described as "a reaIly well-structured, skillbased/literature based program" (IT/C-17). Cindy believed the program had
•
prepared her exceptionaIly weIl to teach reading in the junior division and
186
•
credited her Instructor for providing content (in terms of skills and strategies), opportunities to practice (instructor mode1ing of many of those skills and strategies), and a wealth of resource materials. For example, Cindy reported that, as a teacher candidate, she had been required to read and prepare units of study on many different novels suitable for junior students. The program, she said, had therefore provided her with knowledge and experience of a wide range of resources, reading skills and teaching strategies to draw upon when she began to teach:
•
Cindy: We did have a reaIly good language program there 1 think. She had us do novel studies and 1 know others (who) didn't do that at their schools. She gave us a book to do and we got to choose (to work) with any group, and we'd set up a whole sheet of the Expectations, the grade we were using, how we would go through the Unit, and how we would set up our program, ail the different activities that we would use and the different learning styles. We'd try to incorporate extension activities for the gifted kids and accommodations you could make for the kids that weren't at grade level. 1 think she reaIly forced us to read. She reaIly stressed the point that you can't teach reading to kids if you're not reading what they're reading, if you don't know (the books). (ITff-16) ... She aIso had us do fun language activities where we'd leam to teach some sort ofskill or strategy we could use, but making it in a fun way so they (kids) didn't actually know what they were learning. She definitely tried to immerse us in the literature we were going to be teaching and get us used to ail of that (planning). (ITIC-l1)
Cindy articulated one shortcoming in her pre-service program: not having prepared her to assess student progress in reading. This area was one in which, particularly as a new teacher the year before, she had often felt pressured by parents to 'justify' her assessment and evaluation decisions in reading:
•
Cindy: You land here and you're accountable for what you're teaching and what you're doing and, last year, parents wanted to see the exact mark that their son or daughter had and it's, "How did you get that mark? What exactly did you do? How did you determine that exactly?" Not ail the parents but there are some that ask for that. And 1 just wasn't ready for that. In my experience, they don't show
187
•
you in teacher's college how to do assessment in reading properly, and everything is about assessment now. (IIIT/C-20)
While several of the teacher participants stated personal examples of other limitations in their pre-service programs, these were not specifically related to limitations in terms of programs in reading instruction. Rather, they were common criticisms of programs in general (e.g. not being relevant to practice, outdated, or too theoretical and so on). However, one teacher, Joanne, also strongly suggested she felt opportunities to talk about the kinds of things discussed during interviews for this study, i.e., understanding and developing a theoretical orientation to reading, should be a larger part of pre-service programs for elementary teachers:
•
Joanne: 1 think if we could start making people think about their philosophy of reading and writing earlier, expose them to integration earlier, and explain to them earlier about development so that they would in turn be able to understand why they deliver things the way they do. When 1 did my pre-service it was a 'lesson plan'. It was a lesson plan on printing, but it wasn't embedded in anything. (IIIT/J-21) ... 1 think that 1 would have appreciated more time spent articulating (what 1 thought). 1 think it would have meant more to me than sorne of the things 1 was forced to take. 1 think learning theory, learning about the level of the child, being exposed more to reading strategies and the reasons for the particular strategy are all important. And, yes, the strategies do have to have a context. 1 defmitely think a (teacher's) evolving philosophy of education shouldbe made a little more explicit (in pre-service). (IIIT/J-23)
Perspectives on in-service education in reading instruction Teachers interviewed for this study aIl expressed the beliefthat CUITent inservice education programs available to them were beginning to meet sorne of
•
their needs as Grade Pive teachers of reading. Patterns in the data highlighted two main themes: (i) Aspects of in-service education that were not working
188
•
(specifically, too many different initiatives being implemented at any given time, time constraints, and the need for more in-service education for teachers in assessment and evaluation) and (ii) Aspects of in-service education that were working (specifically, a focus on sessions in guided reading, balanced literacy, site-based study groups, and collaborative planning between grade groups). Furthermore, teachers' reflections indicated their recognition of in-service education as one important component of their professional development. For example, as Donna said, "And how does all this (i.e., in-service education initiatives) translate into relevant PD (professional development) in reading for junior teachers?" What was seen as not working?
•
The most frequent comments in this regard were related to the sheer number of in-service education initiatives operating at any one time, quite apart from the CUITent focus in the Webster Board on 'Literacy'. The 'system-wide' perspective on literacy was defined as a developmental approach to reading, writing, listening, speaking, viewing, representing, and responding, and promoted the acquisition of skiHs, knowledge, and attitudes for life in a rapidly changing world community. Within the Board's definition, teachers were regarded as facilitators of literacy in classrooms across the system, and encouraged to foster students' ability to understand, think, apply, and communicate effectivelyacross aH curriculum areas in a variety of ways for a variety of purposes. Teacher participants spoke about their sense of rapid changes and limited
•
time to implement one initiative before being introduced to yet another. Other
189
•
challenges cited included difficulties associated with the management of increasing amounts of information and time constraints on teachers' abilities to 'stay CUITent' while still meeting their classroom obligations. Donna stated concems that summarized responses of many other teachers interviewed:
•
Donna: 1 would like to see a real connection between reading, writing, everything connected. For instance, the Board has spent 1 would assume, many, many, dollars on (name of pro gram) in writing. There's a reading program and there's a spelling program. Why didn't we do the whole thing? Why are we doing 'writing' in isolation? Because then what happens is, everybody does the training, everybody' s got a certificate saying they did the training, and the book sits on the sheIf. Sorne teachers use it. l've used sorne ideas from it. But if it connected to everything eIse, l' d probably use it more .... There have to be connections between those three areas, so why didn't we do the whole thing? Why are we just doing an isolated case? The writing. So, that was the big thing a year ago, maybe two years ago. Now it's not the big thing. It's 'Instructional Intelligence'. So we're going to do that for a few years. That's basically what l'm saying: 1 don't like the choppiness ofhow we do things. Ifwe're going to hang on to one (initiative), then let's hang on to it, and perfect it, and connect it with everything instead ofhaving in-service in isolation: Writing here; Instructional Intelligence over here; Social Studies implementation here; everything's in isolation. Now the Board is talking about Literacy throughout. WeIl, if you want us to think that way then all your different departments need to organize that way as weIl. As part of the Social Studies (curriculum implementation) team, 1 think we need to incorporate literacy as much as possible in everything we do now. l' d like to see those connections made more clearly. From my own experience, l've stopped going to a lot of workshops within the Board because 1 just find they're not practical or related to what l'm doing on a daily basis. Or it's just too isolated. The topic is too isolated, and yet they're talking about integrating. So it doesn't add up. And then they have one (workshop) topic on integrating all of these other workshops (laughter). There's no continuity and 1 really don't think our Board sticks with anything long enough to see true results. (lIITID-18)
What was seen as working? For the most part, the teachers interviewed for this study did not feeI their pre-service teacher education had prepared them weIl in the instruction of reading
•
at the elementary school level, for either the primary or junior divisions . However, they did express more confidence and sorne optimism that CUITent in-
190
•
service opportunities were at least beginning to address their needs as teachers of reading in the junior division. The teachers all regarded in-service education that was explicitly relevant to their practice (and ongoing professional development), as the most valuable. Three main approaches to professional development described as working particularly weIl, enabled teachers to continue constructing their knowledge about reading and the teaching of reading. These were: opportunities to attend professional seminars and workshops (specifically, on reading and writing), sitebased study groups, grade group/divisional team planning, and ongoing opportunities for professional
dialogue with colleagues
('teacher-talk').
Additional Qualifications courses in Reading (i.e. continuing education courses
•
for teachers in Ontario) were also mentioned as instrumental in developing their instructional practice by those teachers who had completed Reading Part One (Joanne and Kim) and Reading Parts One and Two (Cindy). At the time of the study, aIl teachers interviewed had attended, or were planning to attend, a full-day professional development workshop in Guided Reading. A system-wide professional development session focused on writing in the junior grades had been organized by the Webster Board in September; 180 junior division teachers had attended (including four of the eleven teacher participants in the CUITent study). A second session focused on reading took place in November and was attended by 150 junior division teachers (including five of the teacher participants in the CUITent study). Teams of junior division teachers
•
191
•
were being encouraged to attend these sessions
In
order to facilitate the
implementation of related instructional strategies in schools Board-wide. Teachers reported that the emphasis in the November session on reading had been on the actual teaching of reading compared with silent, independent reading. Participants felt the system-Ievel initiatives towards professional development of teachers in reading were very timely. In particular, they welcomed the recent attention junior level programs were receiving. Perceptions of additional support at system-level (e.g. consultants, in-service sessions, professional resources made available) were also regarded as pro-active and representative of increased efforts to assist junior division teachers with ideas and resources for the development of 'balanced literacy' instruction.
•
At the school level, organized book rooms, the increased acquisition of leveled texts and other resources, additional opportunities to attend relevant inservice sessions, and administrative support, were also cited as positive indicators of the elevated profile of reading instruction in the junior grades. Kim described how she actively sought out professional development, specifically in reading, when she became dissatisfied with her ability to assist students in her junior level c1assroom. She referred to her own change in attitudes related to what she herself had once regarded as inappropriate in terms of instructional strategies for her students:
•
Kim: The Guided Reading has totally changed how l teach reading in my c1ass. (I1TIK-27) ... Sure, there's a bias involved in, "That works in Primary" and l had it. When l took Reading Part 1 and l was the only Intermediate teacher in the c1ass, that course opened my eyes to a whole lot of things that l had a definite bias about regarding ''that seems like a good idea (Guided Reading, for example) for Primary, but it wouldn't work in my c1assroom". And l just disregarded it until l
192
•
attended the conference last year and that conference gave me strategies for other things 1 could do with reading in my class and how 1 could apply Guided Reading in my room. And it was suddenly, like, oh this will work here! Now what do 1 do? And it's a constant struggle. But, 1 think with anything, if you believe in what you're doing, then you have the energy for it, you really do. When you see that kid who has struggled and struggled and struggled suddenly make strides, that 's what you're doing it for. Then it's about how do 1 get him to the next level? And now 1 have sorne strategies to work with. (IUTIK-12)
Four of the teachers interviewed described ways their staffs were attempting to promote program planning for literacy in grade groups at their school in order to facilitate greater expertise as weIl as collegiality and supportive networks on staff. One teacher in particular, Lynda, described the efforts being made at her school to introduce and sustain a study-group approach to on-site professional development for junior division staff:
•
•
Lynda: 1 keep coming back to the book 'Strategies that Work'. Let's see, we began the implementation of that within our junior division a year ago and we're continuing with it (the study group). It's strategies that you as a teacher can use in the classroom, but it also gives you the reasons for why you need to do it, the theory behind it. It is making a tremendous difference, 1 know, in my students. It's the junior division's focus and that's another thing that's really helpful - Team. We need the Team to support each other in going through any type of change process. That's why we've decided to do it as a junior division because then we come together and we share. The Grade 3s will talk about the kinds of strategies that they have tried in their classroom and they hear sorne examples. The Grade 4s and the Grade 5s will (do the same). So it really shows us what the Threes can do, what the Fours can do and where they need to go. AIso, where they end upwhat the final result at the end of Grade Five looks like. We meet together to facilitate that sharing in a risk-free environment. That kind of sharing is very, very important. Our vice-principal cornes to our meetings too. Before he was a viceprincipal, he was a Grade Six teacher so he's also (knowledgeable) about where these students are. He is very supportive. He will say, "Gee, 1 really liked that idea. Could you show me that in the classroom?" So he supports teachers in that way too, and he's notjudgmental either. (IUTIL-12)
193
•
Teachers valued the enhanced learning offered in the fonnalized professional deve10pment seSSIOns as described above. Nonetheless, they still described opportunities to dialogue infonnally with other teachers and to share ideas, compare approaches, knowledge and experiences, as sorne of the most beneticial time spent in professional development activities. Limited time available for professional reading and such dialogue with colleagues was seen as both a contextual constraint and also, for sorne, 'just part of being a teacher' . Kim described her work in developing knowledge about the teaching of reading. She explained how the infonnal dialogue she maintained with colleagues enabled her to learn, and thus how it also infonned (and improved) her practice:
•
Kim: 1 would say that a lot of the things that 1 believe about reading and how students acquire that knowledge are things that 1 try to put into practice and there are also things that l'm not too sure about. How do 1 help them? That's where 1 struggle because 1 don't always know what to do. The strategies that 1 already know are not working. What am 1 going to do now? How do 1 best reach that student? My tirst line of resource is 1 usually start asking other teachers, for instance, the Special Ed. teacher who is attached to my room and the teacher 1 do reading buddies with. You know, you try and tind those teachers who you trust and respect, obviously, and you say, "1 don't know what l'm doing. Here's my situation, what do you think 1 should do?" And they'll give me ideas or they'll say they don't know and suggest someone e1se to ask, or suggest a good book to read. That infonnal input is invaluable. 1'11 decide which way to go, will 1 do this or not? Will it work in my classroom? Maybe the discussion brings to mind another idea that might work in my classroom, things like that, or maybe 1'11 need further input. (IIITIK-IO)
Summary ln this chapter 1 reported the key emerging patterns and perspectives in my
study that were revealed as a result of qualitative interviewing and inductive
•
analysis of the data. Several consistent responses emerged: all eleven teacher participants fe11 within the lower half of the range described as a ski Ils orientation,
194
•
as determined by the DeFord (1979) Theoretical Orientation to Reading Profile. Nonetheless, teacher participants reported beliefs and practices that did not polarize theoretical orientations at extreme ends of the TORP continuum. Teacher participants were generally more conversant with the practical work of education than the theoretical work of education. AlI teacher participants interviewed described similar enablers and constraints that imposed between their theoretical orientation to reading and instructional practices; all teacher participants expressed the belief they needed to acquire more knowledge and experience in both theoretical and practical aspects of reading instruction at the junior division level; and that their pre-service teacher education programs had not prepared them adequately to teach reading.
•
ln Chapter Five, 1 will summarize the patterns and themes reported as a result of analysis of the data. 1 will also discuss conclusions, interpretations, reflections on the research, and suggest implications for further research and teaching .
•
•
CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION
In this chapter, 1 will summarize the patterns and themes reported as a
result of analysis of the data. 1 will also discuss conclusions, interpretations, my reflections on the research, and the implications for further research and teaching.
Summarv
This study identifies several characteristics of, and kinds of relationships between, the theoretical and practical work of education described by eleven Grade Five teachers in the Webster Board of Education, as they explored understandings of their theoretical orientations to reading and instructional
•
practices. Theoretical orientation to reading was acknowledged by teacher participants as an implicit personal guide to thought and action. Notwithstanding, the teacher participants in this studyall tended to discuss reading theories in terms of practice ('how to do it'), rather than in terms of theoretical orientation. During interviews they appeared to be generally more conversant with the practical work of education than the theoretical work of education. Descriptions of skills-based theoretical orientations to reading were characterized by very similar contextual enablers and constraints, that imposed between theory and practice. The key factor that emerged as participants described relationships between their theoretical orientation and instructional practices was that reported beliefs and practices did not polarize different approaches to reading instruction at
•
extreme ends of the TORP continuum. Rather, teacher participants all stated that
196
•
while reading skills were fundamental to student success across the curriculum, they were best presented through balanced, eclectic programs that incorporated exp1icit skills instruction within a context of literature and language-rich experiences. While clearly articulating the need for providing explicit skills instruction in reading, the majority of teacher participants also reported that they did not believe their initial teacher education programs had prepared them weIl to 'teach reading' at the junior division level in contemporary classrooms. Other salient factors that appeared to influence the relationships between teacher participants' theoretical orientation to reading and instructional practices included: teachers' epistemological beliefs, the importance ofboth motivation for students to read and teacher modeling of effective reading processes,
•
constructivist approaches to teaching and learning (specifically, concem for individual strengths and needs of aIl students, especially for those students described as 'struggling' readers); and continuing opportunities for relevant teacher education and professional development in reading.
Conclusions
The theoretical orientations of aIl eleven teacher participants fell within the lower half of the range determined by the Deford Theoretical Orientation to Reading Profile (TORP) as skills-based. As a group, all teacher participants in this study seemed to emphasize the practical over the theoretical when articulating understandings of their own skills-
•
based theoretical orientation to reading. For every participant, the context of the
197
•
teaching situation occupied a far greater portion of the interview dialogue than attempts to delve deeply into complexities or issues surrounding theoretical orientation to reading (i.e., those deep philosophical principles that guided instruetional decisions). Teacher participants' descriptions of influences on the instructional decisions they made for their classroom reading programs appeared to be based primarily in pragmatic concems. For example, descriptions of "eovering" the mandated curriculum expectations in reading, ways in which to maximize the use of instructional time available, and issues related to assessment and accountability, recurred over and again. Throughout the in-depth interviewing process, when asked to describe their theoretical orientation to reading, participants' pedagogical knowledge and beHefs in practice were consistently
•
more prevalent than the discussion of theoretical bases for their work. A major conclusion regarding relationships
between theoretical
orientation to reading and instructional practices was that teacher participants in this study did not report beliefs and practices that polarized extreme positions in terms of approaches to reading instruction (e.g. phonies and whole language orientations on the TORP continuum). Rather, they tended to support balanced, eclectic approaches to reading, combining skills instruction in a holistic context at the Grade Five level. Participants described their deliberate inclusion of explicit reading skills instruction as an essential component of such 'balanced' programs, where students were routinely immersed in literature and rich language experiences in order to achieve fluency and understanding .
•
198
•
The level and depth of teacher participants' concern with challenges inherent in meeting the diverse range of student needs and abilities, and the motivation of students' interest in reading, also appeared to he indicated by their frequent discussion of these issues. AlI teacher participants interviewed believed they needed to develop more knowledge about reading instruction at this level (junior division), particularly in the areas of explicit instruction and age-appropriate skills and strategies. However, as a group, participants voiced the opinion that sorne in-service professional development programs had begun to address their needs and interests as Grade Five teachers of reading.
•
Interpretations
Understandings oftheoretical orientations to reading
The patterns and themes in the data lead to speculation that teacher participants'
understandings
of theoretical
orientation to
reading were
characterized by an emphasis on the kind of knowledge Clandinin and Connelley (1986) refer to as 'personal practical' knowledge. A general tendency was to convey their understandings of the teaching of reading through practical examples ('how to do if), rather than to articulate a particular theoretical model. Participants described many of their personal experiences (past and present) with reading as influential in their development of CUITent instructional practices. Grisham (2000) also found that the construction of 'personal practical' knowledge
•
199
•
appeared to be an ongoing process for teachers, the result of complex interactions of their knowledge, beliefs, and the effects on instructional practices. As a result of the analysis of in-depth interview data and presentation of findings, it became evident that teacher participants did hold a number of similar implicit beliefs and epistemological principles about reading, reading instructional practices, and c1assroom interactions (Harste & Burke, 1977; Richardson et al., 1991). Teacher participants' descriptions of their skills-based orientation aU referred, in one way or another, to interpretations of the need to equip students with reading skills, strategies, and positive attitudes towards reading. Students could then apply learning across the curriculum in the completion of a wide variety of assigned tasks. Teacher participants agreed it was essential they
•
explicitly model reading and share their knowledge of the processes and purposes of reading in motivating students to develop personal reading habits (Allington & Johnston, 2001; Duffy, Roehler, & Herrmann, 1988; GambreU, 1996). Research studies have described teachers' actual instructional decisions and practices as often govemed by the nature of instruction and c1assroom life (Duffy, 1977, 1982; Duffy & Anderson, 1984; Fullan & Hargreaves, 1994). Patterns and themes revealed in the data for my study were also very similar to those of Poulson et al (2001) who conc1uded that more attention needs to be given to practical concems around how teachers can apply their theoretical beliefs within the constraints imposed by the complexities of contemporary c1assroom life.
•
200
•
Results of this study also indicate teacher participants believed their instructional decisions were inextricably linked to provincially mandated curriculum expectations, and the availability of both time and appropriate resources to meet these expectations. However, according to teacher participants interviewed, the 'standards' movement (i.e., curriculum expectations, assessment and evaluation, and increased calls for teacher accountability) seems to have become more than a contextual constraint and almost 'the theory' behind many instructional decisions and the nature of classroom programs and school organization. In fact, the whole 'standards' movement (specifically, restructuring of the curriculum, assessment and policy changes since 1998) appears to have become a powerful driving force behind teachers' work and the organization of
•
life in public schools in Ontario (Majhanovich, 2002). An enormous number of curriculum, assessment and policy changes have an been implemented since 1998 and teachers are exhausted with coping with so many rapid changes. The curriculum requirements are extremely rigid and there is very little scope for modification or innovation. As reflected in many of the comments of teachers interviewed for this
study~
and as Majhanovich succinctly points out, issues of
power and control are central to the CUITent political climate of accountability in education in Ontario:
•
... the legislation (Bills 160 and 74) that centralized the power for decision-making over education to the provincial Ministry of Education and Training away from school boards and teachers certainly illustrates how control over teachers and what they teach has been tightened. The rapid restructuring of the curriculum with new course outlines - all tailored to a uniform template; ... the course profiles, rubrics, exemplars for standards, uniform report cards across the province, standardized testing including the Grade 10 literacy test, success in which is a
201
•
requirement for graduation; all illustrate the growth of central control and de-skilling of the profession. As noted above, the new curriculum restructuring reflects a "teacher-proof' notion of education... (p. 174).
Relationships between theoretical orientation and instructional practices
Based on the analysis of the data, the teacher participants supported a focus on balanced, eclectic programs combining skills instruction with rich literature and language experiences. Teacher participants' results on the TORP, their understandings of a skills theoretical orientation to reading, and reported instructional practices were generally consistent with a skills-based approach to reading in a holistic context, where students were routinely encouraged to use both information from the text and personal knowledge to construct meaning
•
(Boschee et al, 1993). These results are consistent with the studies of DeFord (1981) and Barr (1975) who found that teachers with the same theoretical orientation had similar behaviours and expectations in the teaching of reading. Furthermore, the results ofmy study reflect the work ofDechant (1993) who also concluded that teachers with a skills orientation were most likely to create learning environments that reflected a balance of both phonics and whole language orientations. More recently, other researchers have begun to explore the blending of teachers' perspectives in reading instruction (Baumann et al., 1998; Weaver, 1998b; Wharton-McDonald et al., 1997). My findings were quite similar to those of Baumann et al. (1998) who surveyed elementary teachers K-5 across the United States concerning beliefs and
•
practices related to what has been termed the 'Great Debate' about the 'best
202
•
methods' for teaching reading (i.e., between phonics and whole language methodologies). Their extensive survey research found elementary teachers tended to provide children with balanced, eclectic programs involving both reading skills instruction and immersion in rich literacy experiences. They also concluded that teachers were more focused on real-life classroom issues than debates about 'best methods'. Teachers' concerns with 'real-life' classroom issues in Baumann et al' s study were remarkably similar to those described by teacher participants in this study (and perhaps especially so in the light of the current political climate of accountability in Ontario):
•
... how to accommodate the incredible range of students' needs and reading levels, how to deal with the frustration of not enough time to teach or insufficient quality materials to do it weIl, and how to accommodate large classes of diverse learners seated before them. (p. 648) As a result of in-depth interviews, teacher participants were able to provide rich descriptions of a range of beliefs relevant to their individual professional realities as teachers. For example, instruction in effective reading skills and strategies was considered to be fundamental to students' success across the curriculum. Teacher participants reported the necessity to emphasize reading as thinking, understanding, and applying this learning in practice. In fact, the teaching of thinking was synonymous with reading instruction for the majority of the teacher participants. Participants also expressed beliefs and practices consistent with a) perceptions ofreading as a process that must "make sense", and b) approaches to reading instruction that encourage students to become self-
•
motivated, fluent, independent readers. Explicit skills instruction was regarded by
203
•
aIl those interviewed as an essential aspect of reading instruction, although the collective emphasis on purposeful and authentic reading in the context of students' lives also reflects Routman's (2000) claim that without a strong foundation of abilities to construct meaning, 'basic skiIls' are useless. Other important aspects of professional realities and related contextual constraints associated with the teaching of reading at this level were revealed as a result of in-depth interviews. As a group, teacher participants considered motivation to read habitually was an essential aspect of developing readers. But they reported that reading did not appeal to many of their students as an activity. Many of their students, both boys and girls but especially boys at this age level, did not appear to enjoy reading. Reading was therefore seen as 'in competition'
•
for students' attention with other, more appealing pastimes (e.g. television, videogames, and sports). Teacher participants all believed regular practice and frequent opportunities to read a wide range of material were necessary to the development of both fluency and enjoyment in reading. Consequently, a lot of participants' time and effort were reported as invested in seeking out interesting materials at relevant ability levels; finding creative ways to present reading in order to 'hook' students in and encouraging them to read regularly. The lack of time was reported as a very significant contextual constraint in teachers' ability to include independent reading during instructional time in class. Three teachers (Donna, Kim, and Lynda) said they purposely avoided scheduling 'silent reading' time in class due to a lack of time, and they expected students to
•
read regularly at home. Two teachers (Sean and Peter) maintained a priority on
204
•
extended periods of reading in c1ass; others in the group inc1uded silent, independent reading in c1ass when they could. AU teacher participants reported the pressures of time constraints directly related to fultilling requirements of the mandated provincial curriculum and c1early felt these imposed between their theoretical orientation and instructional practices. Allington (2001) states: Everyone has heard the proverb. Practice makes perfecto In learning to read it is true that reading practice - just reading - is a powerful contributor to the development of accurate, fluent, high-comprehension reading. In fact, if l were to select a single aspect of the instructional environment to change, my tirst choice would be creating a schedule that supported dramatically increased quantities ofreading time during the school day. (p.24)
While evident that the teachers interviewed might agree with Allington's premise,
•
they were struggling to incorporate a minimum time for reading within the school day, far from considering extensions to that time. Creative approaches to reading instruction (i.e., as far as contextual constraints related to the provincial curriculum would aUow), holistic contexts, and the integration of curriculum areas, were consistently reported as employed in the teacher participants' c1assroom programs. Explicit modeling of effective reading skiUs and strategies by teachers and others in both the school and home settings was reported by participants as being directly related to the development of positive attitudes towards reading, and student recognition of reading as a 'worthwhile' activity in which to engage and spend time. Teacher participants consistently described their own efforts in practice to combine motivating
•
behaviours (e.g. reading aloud to students) with the modeling of instructional strategies (e.g. read-aloud, think-aloud techniques).
205
•
Teacher participants consistently described the wide ranges of individual needs and ability levels within their Grade Five classrooms as a challenge. The ongoing development of individualized, specific skills instruction, and small group work within a holistic context (specifically, guided reading strategies), were regarded as key factors in promoting the success of all students in reading. For the m~ority
ofteacher participants in this study, confidence in their abilities to meet
the individual needs of students in their classrooms in reading (teacher efficacy) was an issue. This issue was frequently described as, and directly related to, perceptions of their own lack of knowledge about reading instruction: i.e., the development of knowledge and expertise in specific skills and strategies for the teaching of reading. Teachers described doing their best with the initial teacher
•
training they had received, teaching experiences, additional qualifications courses, and in-service sessions. Most reported having participated in some form of professional development in reading since teacher's college, and/or continuing to read and seek out ideas and practical strategies to assist them in their c1assroom practice. Among the more experienced teacher participants as well as those less experienced, there was a general sense of perpetuaI learning about reading theory and the application of theory in practice. A greater emphasis in recent years on reading as a discrete 'subject' within the language arts program at the junior division level in Ontario appears to have come about as a direct result of recent curriculum reform, and increased concem about the numbers of students who demonstrate difficulties in reading. These may
•
also be significant contributing factors to teacher participants' experiences and
206
•
perceived pressures not oruy to acquire more knowledge and expertise about how to teach reading, but also how to asses s, evaluate, and report on student progress in reading. Reflections on the Research Process
There are limitations inherent in any research study whether a qualitative or quantitative methodology is used. Rather than testifying to the weaknesses of any particular method, this oruy attests to the richness and diversity of research studies themselves. There is no single interpretive truth. Value judgments are inevitable in the interpretive work of identifying major themes, in drawing relationships, and extrapolating interpretations and implications. Kagan (1992) states:
•
The unique configuration of background knowledge, values, and cognitive propensities that a particular researcher brings to these activities, acts as a filter. Thus, it is possible for two experts in the same field of research to disagree about the meaning or significance of a particular empirical study. ( p.132)
Nevertheless, researchers do have a responsibility to ensure validity and reliability as much as is possible within a particular study, and to put in place procedures that promote credibility of findings (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). My goal was to understand the subjective understandings that eleven teachers of reading in Grade Five classrooms have about relationships between their theoretical orientations to reading and instructional practices. Glesne (1999) describes the process of understanding as " ... getting participants' perspectives, but it is more than that. It is researching sorne collective understanding that
•
includes self, the researcher, and those researched." (p. 195) My reflections on the
207
•
work for this study explore key aspects of my role as researcher and sorne of the reflexive insights gained throughout the research process. 1 believe my knowledge of, and familiarity with, the culture of schools and teaching generally enhanced rather than hindered processes and relationships during data collection. Rapport and trust with the teacher participants became established fairly early on in the process and continued to develop. 1 would suggest this was partly due to my contextual knowledge, but also my ability to communicate effectively with people. My reading of several different texts on the background of, and techniques for, in-depth interviewing was an integral part of my 'self-study' for the research enterprise. With my supervisor, colleagues, and other professors, 1 also explored
•
numerous questions, concerns, and my need for clarification as 1 learned more about making the appropriate decisions regarding 'tools of inquiry' for my study. At this time, 1 knew what 1 wanted to do, but had to construct new and specific knowledge about how to accomplish what 1 wanted to do successfully. Seidman (1998) emphasizes that interviewing is both a research methodology and a social relationship. He also describes it as a reflection of the personalities of the participant and the interviewer, and the ways they interact. 1 elected early on in the process to follow guidelines for creating an I-Thou 'relationship' with my participants. Schutz (1967) explains that one person's subjective understanding of another depends upon creating the I-Thou relationship. 'Thou' is someone close to the interviewer, still separate, but a
•
208
•
fellow person. According to Schutz, we recognize 'Thou' as another "alive and conscious human being" (p. 164). Seidman (1998) elaborates: Implicit in such an 'I-Thou' relationship is a shift from the interviewer's seeing the participant as an object or a type, which he or she would normally describesyntactically in the third person. Schutz goes on to say that a relationship in which each person is 'Thou' oriented - that is, in which the sense of 'Thou-ness' is mutual- becomes a 'We' relationship. (p. 80) 1 did not strive for a full 'We' relationship but, rather, kept enough distance to allow my teacher participants to respond during interviews as independently as possible. Therefore, during interviews 1 endeavoured to strike a balance by saying enough about myself to be 'alive and responsive', but little enough to preserve the autonomy of the participants' own words. This was a
•
conscious choice on my part, as 1 wanted to maintain the focus of attention on their experiences rather than my own. In terms of validity and reliability, 1 explored the question of Whose
meaning is if? (that an interview reveals). It was my intent to minimize
'interviewer effect' as much as possible, but it is an inescapable fact that 1 was a part of the interviewing process (throughout structure, process, and practice). As the interviewer, 1 also worked closely with the material, selected, interpreted, described and analyzed data from it. As such, 1 was a part of meaning-making processes with my participants. Over the course of data collection and analysis, and as 1 gained more knowiedge of approaches to qualitative research, 1 aiso became increasingly
•
comfortable with my role as a human interviewer and thus the 'research instrument'. 1 was inspired by Lincoln and Guba's (1985) argument that, rather
209
•
than being overly concerned with the fact that the instrument to gather data affects this process, the human interviewer can he regarded as a potentially smart, adaptable, flexible instrument capable of responding to situations with skill, tact, and understanding. In efforts to minimize potential bias as much as reasonably possible and
to maintain the credibility of frndings, 1 employed three methods: member checks, triangulation of data, and peer debriefing. Information was reviewed and discussed periodically with each of the participants, who served as member checkers. The triangulation of data from multiple sources (in-depth interview data, teacher participants' written responses and reflections, and written planning materials for teacbing) further strengthened tbis research, compensating for the
•
limitations from any one source. The interpretations of the peer debriefer were found to be in agreement with my own most of the time. The credibility of both the processes and the products of inductive analyses were discussed on an ongoing basis with the peer debriefer, who also noted whether the conclusions resulting from the study were reasonable and logical representations of the data. The reiteration of consistent patterns and themes throughout the selfselected data shared by the teacher participants was revealed through the use of constant comparative analysis (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Moreover, the interview structure used (a series of three in-depth interviews) incorporates features that support and enhance the (internal) validity of participant's responses:
•
210
•
It places participants' comments in context. It encourages interviewing participants over the course of 1 to 3 weeks to account for idiosyncratic days and to check for internaI consistency of what they say. Furthermore, by interviewing a number of participants, we can connect their experiences and check the comments of one participant against those of others. Finally the goaI of the process is to understand how our participants understand and make meaning of their experience. If the interview structure works to allow them to make sense to themselves as well as the interviewer, then it has gone a long way toward validity. (Seidman, 1998, p. 17)
It is understood the specific fmdings from this study cannot be generalized
to other groups of Grade Five teachers. The results of the study are specific to the teacher participants, their social and contextual contexts, and the period of time during which the research interviews took place. The teacher participants were
•
purposive1y selected using criteria established for the inquiry. It was my intent to explore and co-construct understanding from the emic (insider) perspectives of the participants. It is possible, however, that sorne of the patterns and themes that emerged in the data regarding teachers and the teaching of reading at the Grade Five level may be applicable to sorne other settings, with sorne other Grade Five teachers: for example, relationships between teachers' theoreticaI orientations to reading and instructional practices, teacher education programs, in-service education, and ongoing professional development.
Implications for Further Research and Teaching
Several implications for further research and teaching emerge from this
•
study. The study was undertaken from the emic perspective of Grade Five teachers of reading in one particular school board in Southern Ontario. Similar
211
•
studies of this nature have been seen to have the potential to improve understanding of the complex and interrelated processes of personal experiences, knowledge and beliefs, and instructional practices (Duchein, Frazier, Konopak, & Palmer, 1994; Kynigos & Argyris, 2004; Squires & Bliss, 2004). Moreover, as Beattie (1995) suggests, such studies have: . .. the potential to bring new meaning to teacher education and to the continuous experiences of change, of growth, of professional development in a teacher's life. (p.65) Quantitative approaches to research on teaching appear to have dominated the field prior to the 1980s (Munby et al., 2001). However, more recently, qualitative research seems to be establishing a place for itself in the field of
•
teacher education. If the quality and consistency of teaching are regarded as critical factors in any attempt to improve education, 1 would argue it follows that there should be a continually increasing interest in the teachers themselves. Specifically, more research is needed that takes into account the particular knowledge, beliefs, and understandings of teachers (inc1uding pre-service candidates). Future qualitative inquiries, like this one, that listen carefully to the voices of teachers and re-present their perspectives have the potential to reveal valuable insights with which to inform the fields of both teaching and teacher education. Truly, ifwe are to understand teaching from teachers' perspectives, we must also understand the beHefs with which they defme their work (Nespor, 1987). More studies that investigate knowledge and understandings of reading
•
instruction from the teacher's perspective and which reflect the voices and
212
•
professional realities of contemporary classroom teachers may also lead to further insights into what is needed in terms of teacher support and professional development in reading in the junior division grades. Quantitative traditions appear to underlie concepts such as "a knowledge base for teaching" with the accompanying implicit orientation to propositional knowledge and skills. Kliebard's (1993) thought provoking critique calls for the perspectives of professional teachers to be taken much more seriously: The failme of that kind of research to affect practice is not a matter of obstinacy, of ignorance, or malfeasance on the part of teachers, or for that matter a failme on the part of researchers to employ sophisticated research techniques, or to amass large enough data bases. It is a failme on the part of the research establishment generally to take seriously enough the conditions of teaching as weIl as the perspective of teaching professionals. (p. 301)
•
Through the uruque lens of my own educational background and experiences, 1 have become acutely aware that the 'voices' of teachers must be heard more loudly and more frequently in educational research if we are going to be successful in mobilizing meaningful change, and specifically in the area of teacher education and reading instruction. School leaders, senior system-Ievel administrators, and others responsible for policy and program planning, may find the outcomes of this study helpful in planning for teacher development, and especially in reading instruction at the junior division level. Innovative studies of successful teacher education programs available here in Canada are needed. The sharing of information of this nature, from a variety of
•
perspectives, in journals and other published reports accessible to researchers and/or teacher educators and professional teachers may assist Faculties of
213
•
Education who are interested in studying and re-evaluating their own pre-service programs. Teacher participants in my study c1early felt that their pre-service teacher training programs had not prepared them sufficiently weIl to teach reading. Notably, even those teachers who felt reasonably confident in applying their knowledge of reading skills and strategies to instruction at the Grade Five level (Lynda, Donna, Joanne, for example), credited their primary level teaching experience and the assistance of colleagues at the primary level, not their preservice programs. AIl teachers in this study repeatedly voiced their concem for the lack of actual instruction in specific reading skiIls and strategies for preservice teachers, and professional preparation in the assessment and evaluation of
•
reading progress. Dnly one out of the eleven participants, Cindy, believed her program in teacher' s college had been satisfactory; nonetheless, even she commented that the program had not prepared her for the assessment and evaluation of reading. The implication for providers of teacher education programs is that, at a time when, in Cindy's own words, " ... everything is about assessment now", assessment and evaluation is a critical aspect of teacher education research that must be regarded as a priority (Anders et al., 2000). Future research studies are needed in the design and implementation of different kinds of in-service and professional development opportunities offered for teachers at the junior division level. Discrepancies have been observed between the amount of effort being invested in in-service education by school
•
boards, and the amounts of research being reported. For example, "Where is the
214
•
research ofthose consultants who do this work as a full-time job?" (Anders et al., 2000 p.732). Promoting dialogue of this nature might contribute to the dual aims of fostering teachers' growth and development in skills and strategies for reading instruction and assessment, as weIl as actively involving more teachers in research processes. Teachers need to be invited to be active participants in collaborative inquiries that encourage the development of reflective practices and honour teachers' contributions to the enterprise of bringing about meaningful educational change. Maxine Greene (1986) reminds us: If the "doing" of philosophy moves researchers and teachers to do more thinking about their own thinking, then it is justified. If it intensifies the wonder with regard to teaching, enhances awareness of what remains unsolved, philosophers may have accompli shed what they set out to do. (p. 499)
•
Finally, data in this study support Baumann et al's (1998) conclusion that balanced, eclectic approaches, and common sense are the characteristics of reading and language arts instructional practices employed by the vast majority of elementary teachers. However, the data documented in this study also lead to speculation that the work of teachers of reading at the junior division level could be greatly enhanced by more consistent approaches to presenting teachers with the theoretical knowledge they need to facilitate their own learning and the development of effective instructional practices. Future research studies must generate enriched understandings of what is needed in order to better prepare teachers for the multiple demands and diverse contexts they encounter as teachers
•
of reading in contemporary classrooms .
215
•
REFERENCES Alexander, P., Shallert, D., & Hare, V. (1991). Coming to terrns: How researchers in learning and literacy talk about knowledge. Review ofEducational Research 61(3),265-286. Alexander, R. (1992). Policy and practice in primary education. London: Routledge. Allington, R. L. (2001). What really matters for struggling readers: Designing research based initiatives. New York: Longman. Allington, R. L., & Johnston, P. H. (2001). What do we know about effective fourthgrade teachers and their c1assrooms? In C. M. Roller (Ed.), Learning to Teach Reading: Setting the Research Agenda. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Alvermann, D. E. (1990). Reading teacher education. In R. W. Houston & M. Haberman & J. Siku1a (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 687-704). New York: Macmillan.
•
Anders, P. L., & Evans, K. S. (1994). Relationship between teachers' beliefs and their instructional practices in reading. In J. Gardiner & P. Alexander (Eds.), Reliefs about text and instruction with text (pp. 137-150). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence & Erlbaum. Anders, P. L., Hoffinan, J. V., & Duffy, G. G. (2000). Teaching teachers to teach reading: Paradigm shifts, persistent problems and challenges. In M. Kamil & P. B. Mosenthal & P. D. Pearson & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook ofReading Research (3rd ed., pp. 719-742). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Anderson, R. C., & Mitchener, C. M. (1994). Research on science teacher education. In D. C. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook ofResearch on Science, Teaching and Learning (pp. 3-44). New York: Macmillan. Artley, A. S. (1978). The education and certification of elementary and secondary teachers of reading. Journal ofResearch and Development in Education, Il (3), 34-43. Atwell, N. (1998). In the middle: New understandings about reading, writing and learning (2nd ed.). Toronto: Irwin. Atwell, N. (Ed.). (1990). Coming to know: Writing to learn in the intermediate grades. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
•
216
•
Austin, M. C. (1968). Professional training of reading personnel. In H. M. Robinson (Ed.), Innovation and change in reading instruction: Sixty-seventh yearbook of the National Society for the Study ofEducation, Part II, (pp. 357-396). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Austin, M. C., & Morrison, C. (1961). The torch lighters: Tomorrow's teachers of reading. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bacharach, N. (1993). Facilitating emerging theories ofreading in preservice students. Journal ofReading Education, 19,8-16. Barr, R. (1974-75). The effect of instruction on pupil reading strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 10(4), 555-582. Barr, R. (1984). Beginning reading instruction: From debate to reformation. In P. D. Pearson & R. Barr & M. Kamil & P. B. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook ofReading Research (Vol. l, pp. 545-581). New York: Longman. Barr, R. (2001). Research on the teaching ofreading. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook ofResearch on Teaching (4th ed.). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
•
Baumann, J. F., Hoffinan, J. V., Duffy-Hester, A. M., & Moon, J. (2000). The First R yesterday and today: U.S. elementary reading instruction practices reported by teachers and administrators. Reading Research Quarterly, 35(3),338-377. Baumann, J. F., Hoffinan, J. V., Moon, J., & Duffy-Hester, A. M. (1998). Where are the teachers' voices in the phonics/whole language debate? Results from a survey of U.S. elementary classroom teachers. The Reading Teacher, 51(8),636-650. Bean, T. W., Bishop, A., & Leuer, M. (1982). The effect of a mini-conference on teacher beliefs about the reading process. Reading Horizons, 22(2), 85-90. Bean, T. W., & Zulich, J. (1992). A case study ofthree pre-service teachers' beHefs about content area reading through the window of student-professor dialogue journals. In C. K. Kinzer & D. J. Leu (Eds.), Literacy research, theory and practice: Views from many perspectives (pp. 463-474). Chicago, IL: National Reading Conference. Beattie, M. (1995). New prospects for teacher education: narrative ways ofknowing teaching and teacher learning. Educational Research, 37(1),53-70.
•
Beijaard, D. (1998). Drawing storylines: A methodfor understanding and evaluating teachers' practical knowledge (Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association). San Diego, CA.
217
•
Bertaux, D. (1981). Biography and society: The life history approach in the social sciences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Blanton, W. E., & Moorman, G. B. (1987). The effects ofknowledge on the instructional behavior of classroom reading teachers (Research Report No. 7). Boone, NC: Appalachian State University, Center on Excellence in Teacher Education. Bogdan, R, & Biklen, S. N. (1992). Qualitative researchfor education. An introduction to theory and methods (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Booth, D. (1996). Literacy techniquesfor building successful readers andwriters. Markham, ON: Pembroke. Booth, D. (2001). Reading and writing in the middle years. Markham, ON: Pembroke. Borko, H., & Putnam, R (1996). Learning to teach. In D. Berliner & R Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 673-708). New York: Macmillan. Borko, H., Shavelson, R, & Stem, P. (1981). Teachers' decisions in planning ofreading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 449-466.
•
Boschee, F., Whitehead, B. M., & Boschee, M. A. (1993). Effective readingprograms. Lancaster, PA: Technomic Publishing Co . Bouchard, D. (2001). The gift ofreading: A guide for educators and parents. Victoria, BC: Orca. Bowen, G. M., Potter, S., & Roth, W.-M. (2002). Paired practicum placements in secondary science teacher education as "peer-coaching" (Paper presented at the Thirtieth Annual Conference of the Canadian Society for Studies in Education, Toronto, Canada). Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, De: National Academy Press. Bruinsma, R. W. (1985). The ejJect ofa summer workshop on teachers' theoretical orientation to the teaching ofreading (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 283 120). Bruneau, B., & Vacca, J. L. (1996). Early childhood. The Reading Teacher, 50(2), 168170.
•
Calderhead, 1. (1996). Teachers: Beliefs and knowledge. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook ofeducational psychology (pp. 709-725). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
218
•
Calderhead, J. (Ed.). (1987). Exploring teachers' thinking. London: CasseIl . Calfee, R, & Drom, P. (1986). Research on teaching reading. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook ofResearch on Teaching (3rd ed., pp. 804-849). New York: Macmillan. Camboume, B. (1988). The whole story: Naturallearning and the acquisition ofliteracy in the classroom. Auckland, NZ: Ashton Scholastic. Camboume, B. (1999). Explicit and systematic teaching of reading - A new slogan? The Reading Teacher, 53(2), 126-127. Carter, K. (1990). Teachers' knowledge and learning to teach. In R W. Houston (Ed.), Handbook ofresearch on teacher education (pp. 291-310). New York: Macmillan. Chall, J. S. (1975). The reading problem: A diagnosis of the national reading problem; a national strategy for attacking the reading problem; legislative and administrative actions. In J. Carroll (Ed.), Toward a literate society: The report of the Committee on Reading of the National Academy of Education (pp. 3-45). New York: The National Academy.
•
Chall, J. S. (1983). Stages ofreading development. New York: McGraw Hill . Chall, J. S. (1990). The reading crisis: Why poor childrenfall behind. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press. ChaIl, J. S. (1996). Learning to read. The great debate (3rd ed.). Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace College Publishers. Cherland, M. R (1989). The teacher educator and the teacher: When theory and practice conflict. Journal ofReading, 32,409-413. Clandinin, D. J. (1986). Classroom practice: Teacher images in action. London & Philadelphia: Falmer Press. Clandinin, D. J., & ConneIley, F. M. (1986). Rhythms in teaching: The narrative studyof teachers' practical knowledge of classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 2(4),377-387. Clandinin, D. J., & Connelley, F. M. (1987). Teachers' personal knowledge: What counts as "personal" in studies of the personal? Journal ofCurriculum Studies, 19,487500.
•
Clandinin, D. J., & ConneIly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research. San Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
219
•
Clark, C. M., & Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teachers' thought processes. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (3rd ed., pp. 255-296). New York: Macmillan. Clay, M. (1991). Becoming literate: The construction ofinner control. Auckland, NZ: Heinemann. Commeyras, M., & DeGroff, L. (1998). Literacy professionals' perspectives on professional development and pedagogy: A United States survey. Reading Research Quarterly, 33(4),434-472. Connelley, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1986). On narrative method, personal philosophy, and narrative unities in the story of teaching. Journal ofResearch in Science Teaching, 14, 147-157. Cunningham, J. W., & Fitzgerald, J. (1996). Epistemology and reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 31(1),36-60. Day, C., Calderhead, 1., & Denicolo, P. (Eds.). (1993). Research on teacher thinking: Towards understanding professional development. London & Washington: F almer Press.
•
Day, C., Pope, M., & Denicolo, P. (Eds.). (1990). Insights into teachers' thinking and practice. London & New York: Falmer Press. Dechant, E. (1993). Whole-language reading: A comprehensive teaching guide. Lancaster, PA: Technomic Publishing Co. DeFord, D. (1979). A validation study of an instrument to determine a teacher's theoretical orientation to reading instruction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University. DeFord, D. (1981). Literacy: Reading, writing and other essentials. Language Arts, 58(6), 652-659. DeFord, D. (1985). Validating the construct oftheoretical orientation in reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(3),351-367. Depree, H., & Iversen, S. (1994). Early literacy in the classroom: A new standardfor young readers. Lower Hutt, NZ: Lands End Publishing. Dewey, J. (1956). The child and the curriculum and The school and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
•
DFEE. (1998). The Nationalliteracy strategy,frameworkfor teaching. London: Department for Education and Employment.
220
•
Duchein, M., Frazier, D., Konopak, B., & Palmer, P. (1994). Preservice teachers' literacy lift histories: exploring the influence ofpersonal experience on beliefs about reading and instruction. San Diego, CA: Annual Meeting of National Reading Conference. Dudley-Marling, C. (1995). Uncertainty and the whole language teacher. Language Arts, 72(4),252-257. Duffy, C. A. (1981). Theory to practice: How does it work in real classrooms? (Research Series # 98). East Lansing: MI: Institute for Research on Teaching, College of Education. Duffy, G. G. (1977). A study ofteacher conceptions ofreading (paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, New Orleans, LA). Duffy, G. G. (1982). Fighting off the alligators: What research in reai classrooms has to say about reading instruction. Journal of Reading Behavior, 14, 357-373. Duffy, G. G., & Anderson, L. (1984). Teachers' theoretical orientations and the real classroom. Reading Psychology, 5(1-2),97-104.
•
Duffy, G. G., & BalI, D. (1986). Instructional decision making and reading teacher effectiveness. In J. V. Hoffman (Ed.), Effective teaching ofreading: research and practice (pp. 163-?). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Duffy, G. G., & Hoffman, J. V. (1999). In pursuit of an illusion: The search for a perfect method. The Reading Teacher, 53(1), 10-16. Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L., & Herrmann, B. A. (1988). Modeling mental processes helps poor readers become strategie readers. The Reading Teacher, 41, 762-767. Durkin, D. (1966). Chi/dren who read early. New York: Teachers College Press. Ehri, L., & Williams, J. (1996). Learning to read and learning to teach reading. In F. B. Murray (Ed.), The teacher educator's handbook (pp. 231-241). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Elbaz, F. (1981). The teacher's "practical knowledge": Report ofa case study. Curriculum Inquiry, 11(1),43-71. Elbaz, F. (1983). Teacher thinking: A study ofpractical knowledge. London: Croom Heim.
•
Evans, A. D. (1995). Bridging reading theory and practice: A study of interns' beliefs (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED382 927) .
221
•
Fang, Z. F. (1996). A review of research on teacher beliefs and practices. Educational Researcher, 38(1),47-65. Feiman-Nemser, S., & Floden, R. E. (1986). The cultures ofteaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook ofResearch on Teaching (3rd ed., pp. 505-526). New York: Macmillan. Fenstermacher, G. D. (1978). A philosophical consideration of recent research on teacher effectiveness. In L. S. Shulman (Ed.), Review ofresearch in education (Vol. 6, pp. 157-185). ltasca: IL: Peacock. Fenstermacher, G. D. (1994). The knower and the known: The nature ofknowledge in research on teaching. In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Review ofeducational research (Vol. 20, pp. 3-56). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Fisher, R., Lewis, M., Davis, B. (2000). Progress and performance in nationalliteracy strategy c1assrooms. Journal ofResearch in Reading, 23, 256-266. Fosnot, C. T. (Ed.). (1996). Constructivism: Theories, perspectives, and practice. New York: Teacher's College Press.
•
Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (2001). Guiding readers and writers, Grades 3-6: Teaching comprehension, genre, and content literacy. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Fullan, M., & Hargreaves, A. (1994). The teacher as a person. In A. Pollard & J. Boume (Eds.), Teaching and learning in the primary school (pp. 67-72). London: Routledge. Gambrell, L. B. (1996). Creating c1assroom cultures that foster reading motivation. The Reading Teacher, 50, 14-25. Gardiner, J. (1980). Stone Fox. New York: Harper & Row. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation ofcultures. New York: Basic Books. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery ofgrounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine. Glesne, C. (1999). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (2nd ed.). New York: Longman.
•
Glesne, C., & Peshkin, A. (1992). Becoming Qualitative Researchers: An introduction. White Plains, NY: Longman.
222
•
Goodman, K. (1965). A linguistic study of cues and miscues in reading. Elementary English, 42, 639-643. Goodman, K. (1967). Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game. Journal of the Reading Specialist, 4, 126-135. Goodman, K. (1974). Effective teachers ofreading know language and children. Elementary English, 51(6),823-828. Goodman, K., Brooks Smith, E., Meredith, R., & Goodman, Y. (1987). Language and thinking in school: A whole language curriculum (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Richard Owen. Goodman, Y. M., & Burke, C. L. (1972). Reading miscue inventory. New York: Richard C.Owen. Goodman, Y. M., Watson, D. J., & Burke, C. L. (1987). Reading miscue inventory (2nd ed.). New York: Richard C. Owen. Graves, M. F., Pauls, L. W., & Sallinger, T. (1996). Reading curriculum and instruction. In F. B. Murray (Ed.), The teacher educator's handbook (pp. 217-230). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
•
Gray, W. S. (1961). The role ofteacher education. In N. B. Henry (Ed.), Development through and in reading: Sixtieth Yearbook ofthe National Society for the Study of Education (part 1, pp. 144-164). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Green, T. (1971). The activities ofteaching. New York: McGraw-Hill. Greene, M. (1986). Philosophy and teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 479-501). New York: Macmillan. Grisham, D. L. (2000). Connecting theoretical conceptions ofreading to practice: A longitudinal study ofelementary school teachers. Reading Psychology, 21, 145170. Grossman, P. L. (1995). Teachers' knowledge. In L. Anderson (Ed.), International encylopedia ofteaching and teacher education (pp. 20-24). Kidlington, Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 105117). Thousand Oaks: California: Sage Publications .
•
223
•
Gubrium, J. F., & Holstein, J. A. (2002). From the individual interview to the interview society. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (1998). What's worthfightingfor out there? New York: Teachers College Press. Harste, J. C., & Burke, C. L. (1977). A new hypothesis for reading teacher research: Both the teaching and learning ofreading is theoretically based. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Reading: Theory, research and practice (pp. 32-40). New York: Mason Publishing Co. Harste, J. C., Strickler, D. J., & Fay, L. (1976, May). The teacher ofreading (paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the IRA Anaheim, CA. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED123 552). Harvey, O. (1986). Beliefsystems and attitudes toward the death penalty and other punishments. Journal ofPersonality, 54, 143-159. Hoffman, J. V. (1991). Teacher and school effects in learning to read. In R. Barr & M. Kamil & P. B. Mosenthal & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), HandbookofReading Research (Vol. IT, pp. 911-950). White Plains, NY: Longman.
•
Hoffman, J. V., & Kugle, C. L. (1982). A study oftheoretical orientation to reading and its relationship to teacher verbal feedback during reading instruction. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 18(1), 2-7. Hoffman, J. V., & Pearson, P. D. (2000). Reading teacher education in the next millennium: What your grandmother's teacher didn't know that your granddaughter's teacher should. Reading Research Quarterly, 35(1), 28-44. Hollingsworth, S. (1989). Prior beliefs and cognitive change in learning to teach. American Educational Research Journal, 26(2), 160-189. Johnson, K. E. (1992). The relationship between teachers' beliefs and practices during literacy instruction for non-native speakers ofEnglish. Journal ofReading Behavior, 24(1),83-108. Johnson, M. (1987). The body and the mind: The bodily basis ofmeaning, imagination, and mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kagan, D. (1990). Ways of evaluating teacher cognition: inferences concerning the Goldilocks Principle. Review ofEducational Research, 60(1), 419-470.
•
Kagan, D. (1992). Professional growth among preservice and beginning teachers. Review ofEducational Research, 62(2), 129-169.
224
•
Kami!, M., & Pearson, P. D. (1979). Theory and practice in teaching reading. New York University Education Quarterly, 10-16. Kibby, M. (1995). Student literacy: Myths and realities. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation. Kinzer, C. K. (1988). Instructional frameworks and instructional choices: comparisons between preservice and inservice teachers. Journal of Reading Behavior, 20(4), 357-377. Kinzer, C. K., Hinchman, K. A., & Leu, D. J. (Eds.). (1997). Inquiries in literacy theory and practice: Forty-sixth yearbook of the National Reading Conftrence. Chicago: National Reading Conference. Kliebard, H. M. (1993). What is a knowledge base and who would want to use it ifwe had one? Review ofEducational Research, 63,295-303. Kropp, P. (1993). The reading solution: Make your child a reader for lift. New York: Random Rouse. Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews. An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
•
Kynigos, c., & Argyris, M. (2004). Teacher beliefs and practices formed during an innovation with computer-based exploratory mathematics in a c1assroom. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 10(1),247-273. Lampert, M. (1984). Teaching about thinking and thinking about teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 16, 1-18. Leher, K. (1990). Theory ofknowledge. San Francisco: Westview Press. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newberry Park, CA: Sage Publications. Longberger, R. (1992). The belief systems and instructional choices of preservice teachers. In N. D. Padak & T. V. Rasinski & J. W. Logan (Eds.), Literacy Research and Practice: Foundations for the Year 2000 (pp. 71-78). Pittsburg, Kans.: College Reading Association. Maguire, M. (1994). Cultural stances informing storytelling among bilingual children in Quebec. Comparative Education Review, 38(1), 115-143.
•
Majhanovich, S. (2002). Conflicting visions, competing expectations: Control and deskilling of education - A perspective from Ontario. Mcgill Journal ofEducation, 37(2), 159-176.
225
•
Mangano, N., & Allen, J. (1986). Teachers' beliefs about language arts and their effects on students beliefs and instruction. In J. Niles & R. Lalik (Eds.), Solving problems in literacy: Learners, teachers, and researchers (pp. l36-142). Rochester, NY: National Reading Conference. Maykut, P., & Morehouse, R. (1994). Beginning qualitative research: A phi/osophical and practical guide. London & Washington: Palmer Press. McGee, L. M., & Tompkins, G. E. (1995). Literature-based reading instruction: What's guiding the instruction? Language Arts, 72(6),405-414. Meek, M. (1991). On being literate. London: Bodley Head. Mishler, E. (1986). Research interviewing. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Morrow, L. M., Tracey, D., Woo, D. G., & Pressley, M. (1999). Characteristics of exemplary first-grade reading instruction. The Reading Teacher, 52(5),462-476. Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
•
Munby, H. (1982). The place of teachers' beliefs in research on teacher thinking and decision making, and an alternative methodology. Instructional Science, Il, 201225 . Munby, H., Russell, T., & Martin, A. K. (2001). Teachers' knowledge and how it develops. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (4th ed., pp. 877-904). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching chi/dren to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Rockville, MD: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. National Research Council. (1998). Preventing reading difjiculties in young chi/dren. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Nespor, J. (1987). The role ofbeliefs in the practice ofteaching. Journal ofCurriculum Studies, 19(4),317-328. O'Brien, D. G., Stewart, J. P., & Moje, E. B. (1995). Why content literacy is difficult to infuse into the secondary school: Complexities of curriculum, pedagogy, and school culture. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(3),442-463.
•
Ontario College ofTeachers. (1999). Standards ofpracticefor the teachingprofession. Toronto, ON: Author.
226
•
Otto, W., Wolf, A, & Eldridge, R G. (1984). Managing instruction. In P. D. Pearson & R. Barr & M. Kamil & P. B. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook ofReading Research (Vol. l, pp. 799-828). New York: Longman. Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and educational research: cleaning up a messy construct. Review ofEducational Research, 62(3),307-332. Paris, N. J. (1997). An investigation of consistency between theoretical orientation to reading and planning for reading instruction: a three year study. Unpublished dissertation, Louisiana State University. Paris, S. G., Wasik, B. A, & Turner, J. C. (1991). The development ofstrategic readers. In R Barr & M. Kamil & P. B. Mosenthal & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research (Vol. Il, pp. 609-640). White Plains, NY: Longman. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Pearson, P. D., & Fielding, L. G. (1991). Comprehension instruction. In R Barr & M. Kamil & P. B. Mosenthal & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook ofReading Research (Vol. Il, pp. 815-860). White Plains, NY: Longman.
•
Pennac, D. (1999). Better than lift. Portland, ME: Stenhouse . Poulson, L., Avramidis, E., Fox, R, Medwell, J., & Wray, D. (2001). The theoretical beliefs of effective teachers of literacy in primary schools: an exploratory study of orientations to reading and writing. Research Papers in Education, 16(3),271292. Prawat, R S. (1992). Teachers' beliefs about teaching and learning: A constructivist perspective. American Journal ofEducation, 100(3),354-395. Pressley, M., Rankin, J., & Yokoi, L. (1996). A survey of the instructional practices of outstanding primary levelliteracy teachers. Elementary School Journal, 96, 363384. Queen Smith, R (1998). Revisiting Juanita's Beauty Salon: An ethnographie study of an African-American beauty shop. In K. Bennett deMarais (Ed.) Inside Stories: Qualitative Research Rejlections (pp. 79-85). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Raphael, T. E. (1987). Research on reading: But what can 1 teach on Monday? In V. Richardson-Koehler (Ed.), Educator's Handbook: A research perspective (pp. 2649). White Plains, NY: Longman.
•
Readence, J. E., Konopak, B. C., & Wilson, E. K. (1991). An examination ofcontent teachers' beliefs and instructional choices and their actual planning and practices
227
•
(Paper presented at Annual Meeting of National Reading Conference, Paim Springs, California). Richards, J. C., Gipe, J. P., & Thompson, B. (1987). Teachers' beliefs about good reading instruction. Reading Psychology, 8(1), 1-6. Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. Sikula & T. Buttery & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook ofresearch on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 102-119). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan. Richardson, V., & Anders, P. L. (1994). The study ofteacher change. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Teacher change and the staffdevelopment process: a case in reading instruction (pp. 159-180). New York: Teachers College Press. Richardson, V., Anders, P. L., Tidwell, D., & Lloyd, C. (1991). The relationship between teachers' beliefs and practices in reading comprehension instruction. American Educational Research Journal, 28(3), 559-586. Roehler, L., & Duffy, G. G. (1991). Teachers' instructional actions. In R. Barr & M. Kamil & P. B. Mosenthal & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook ofReading Research (Vol. II, pp. 861-883). White Plains, NY: Longman.
•
Rosenblatt, L. M. (1978). The reader the text the poem: The transactional theory of the literary work. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press. Rosenblatt, L. M. (1994). The transactional theory ofreading and writing. In R. B. Ruddell & M. R. Ruddell & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes ofreading (4th ed., pp. 1057-1092). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Rosenshine, B., & Stevens, R. (1984). Classroom instruction in reading. In P. D. Pearson & R. Barr & M. Kamil & P. B. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research (Vol. I, pp. 745-798). New York: Longman. Ross, D. D. (1979). The role of teachers' beliefs in teaching practice (paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association). Routman, R. (1994). Invitations: Changing as teachers and learners, K-12 (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Routman, R. (1996). Literacy at the crossroads: Crucial talk about reading, writing and other teaching dilemmas. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
•
Routman, R. (2000). Conversations: Strategies for Teaching, Learning, and Evaluating. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
228
•
Rowan, 1. (1981). A dialectical paradigm for research. In P. Reason & J. Rowan (Eds.), Human inquiry (pp. 93-112). New York: Wiley. Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (1995). Qualitative interviewing: The art ofhearing data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ruddell, R. (1997). Researching the influentialliteracy teacher: Characteristics, beliefs, strategies and new research directions. In C. K. Kinzer & K. A. Hinchman & D. J. Leu (Eds.), Inquiries in literacy theory and practice (46th yearbook of the National Reading Conference) (pp. 37-53). Chicago, IL: National Reading Conference. Rupley, W. H., & Logan, J. W. (1984). Elementary teachers' belieft about reading and knowledge ofreading content: relationships to decisions about reading outcomes (ERIC Document Reproduction Service, No. ED285 162). Russell, D. H., & Fea, H. R. (1963). Research on teaching reading. In N. L. Gage (Ed.), Handbook ofresearch on teaching (pp. 865-928). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally. Russell, T., & Korthagen, F. (Eds.). (1995). Teachers who teach teachers: Rejlections on teacher education. Washington, DC: Falmer Press.
•
Sanford, K., & Hopper, T. (2002). Collective case study ofafield-based teacher education course: A three year action research project (Paper presented at the Thirtieth Annual Conference of the Canadian Society for the Study of Education, Toronto, Canada). Schleffier, A. J., Richmond, M., & Kazelskis, R. (1993). Examining shifts in teachers' theoretical orientations to reading. Reading Psychology, 14(1), 1-13. Schon, D. (1983). The rejlective practitioner. New York: Basic Books. Schuman, D. (1982). Policyanalysis, education, and everyday life. Lexington, MA: Heath. Schutz, A. (1967). The phenomenology of the social world (G. Walsh & F. Lenhert, Trans.). Chicago: Northwestem Press. Schwandt, T. A. (1997). Qualitative inquiry: A dictionary ofterms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Seidman, I. (1998). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
•
Shanahan, T., & Neuman, S. B. (1997). Literacy research that makes a difference . Reading Research Quarterly, 32(2),202-210.
229
•
Shavelson, R. (1983). Review ofresearch on teachers' pedagogicaljudgment, plans and decisions. Elementary School Journal, 83(4),392-413. Shiel, G. (2002). International perspectives on literacy: refonning reading instruction in Ireland and England. The Reading Teacher, 55(4),372-374. Shulman, L. S. (1986a). Paradigms and research programs in the study of teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook ofResearch on Teaching (3rd ed., pp. 1-36). New York: Macmillan. Shulman, L. S. (1986b). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2),4-14. Singer, H. (1976). Research in reading that should make a difference in classroom instruction. In S. J. Samuels (Ed.), What research has to say about reading instruction (pp. 57-71). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Smith, F. (1982). Understanding reading (3rd ed.). Toronto: HoIt, Rinehart & Winston. Smith, F. (1988a). Joining the literacy club: Further essays into education. Portsmouth: Heinemann.
•
Smith, F. (1988b). Understanding reading: A psycholinguistic analysis ofreading and learning to read. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Smith, F. (2004). Understanding Reading (6th Edition ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Squires, D., & Bliss, T. (2004). Teacher visions: Navigating beliefs about literacy learning. The Reading Teacher, 57(8), 756-763. Steiner, E. (1977). Criteria for theory ofart education (Paper presented for seminar for Research in Art Education, Philadelphia). Stern, P., & Shavelson, R. (1983). Reading teachers' judgment, plans and decision making. The Reading Teacher, 37(3),280-286. Strickland, D. S. (1998). What's basic in beginning reading? Finding common ground. Educational Leadership, 55(6),6-10.
•
Thomas, K. F., & Barksdale-Ladd, M. A. (1995). Effective literacy classrooms: Teachers and students exploring literacy together. In K. A. Hinchman & D. J. Leu & C. K. Kinzer (Eds.), Perspectives on literacy research and practice (pp. 169-179). Chicago, IL: National Reading Conference.
230
•
Tiemey, R. J., & Cunningham, P. M. (1984). Research on teaching reading comprehension. In P. D. Pearson & R. Barr & M. Kamil & P. B. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook ofReading Research (Vol. 1, pp. 609-655). New York: Longman. Vacca, J. L., Vacca, R. T., & Gove, M. K. (1995). Reading and learning to read (3rd ed.). New York: Harper Collins. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in saciety. The development ofhigher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thought and Language. In A. Kozulin (Ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Weaver, C. (Ed.). (1998a). Practicing what we knaw: informed reading instruction. Urbana, IL: National Council ofTeachers ofEnglish. Weaver, C. (Ed.). (1998b). Reconsidering a balanced appraach to reading. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Wells, J., & Hart-Hewins, L. (1994). Phonies too! How ta teach skills in a balanced language arts program. Markham, ON: Pembroke.
•
Wharton-McDonald, R., Rankin, J., Misretta-Hampston, J., & Ettenberger, S. (1997). Effective primary-grades literacy instruction=Balanced literacy instruction. The Reading Teacher, 50(6),518-521. Wilson, E. K., Konopak, B. c., & Readence, J. E. (1992). Examining content area reading beliefs, decisions, and instruction: A case study of an English teacher. In C. K. Kinzer & D. J. Leu (Eds.), Literacy research, theory and practice: Many perspectives (pp. 475-482). Chicago: National Reading Conference. Yatvin, J. (2000). Minority View, Report of the National Reading Panel (pp. 1-6). Zeichner, K. M. (1992). Rethinking the practicum in the professional development school partnership. Journal of Teacher Education, 43(4),296-307. Zeichner, K. M., & Tabachnick, B. R. (1985). The development of teacher perspectives: Social strategies and institutional control in the socialization ofbeginning teachers. Journal ofEducation for Teachers, 11, 1-25.
•
Zutell, J., & McCormick, S. (Eds.). (1990). Literacy theory and research: Analyses from multiple paradigms: Thirty-ninth yearbook of the National Reading Conference. Chicago: National Reading Conference.
•
APPENDICES
•
•
232
•
APPENDIXA
Certificate of Ethical Acceptability (McGill University Faculty of Education)
•
•
233
•
APPENDIXB
The DeFord Theoretical Orientation to Reading Profile (TORP)
•
•
•
The DeFord Theoretical Orientation to Reading Profile (TORP)
Directions: Please read the following statements, and circle the response that best indicates the relationship of the statement to your feelings about reading and reading instruction. Select oruy Q.!!§. best answer that reflects the strength of yOUf agreement or disagreement. SA = strongly agree; SD = strongly disagree. SA
•
•
1.
A chi1d needs to be able to verbalize the rules of phonics in order to assure proficiency in processing new words.
1 SA
2.
An increase in reading errors is usually re1ated to a decrease in comprehension.
1 SA
3.
Dividing words into syllab1es according to mIes is a he1pfu1 instmctional practice for reading new words.
4.
2 2
3
sn
4 3
4
5 SD
2
3
4
5 SD
1 SA
2
3
4
5 SD
F1uency and expression are necessaty components of reading that indicate good comprehension.
1 SA
2
3
4
5 SD
5.
Materials for ear1y reading shou1d be written in natura11anguage without concern for short, simple words and sentences.
1 SA
2
3
4
5 SD
6.
When children do not know a word, they shou1d be instmcted to sound out its parts.
1 SA
2
3
4
5 SD
7.
It is a good practice to allow chi1dren to edit what is written into their own dialect when 1earning to read.
1 SA
2
3
4
5 SD
8.
The use of a glossaty or dictionaty is necessaty in determining the meaning and pronunciation of new words.
1 SA
2
3
4
5 SD
9.
Reversals (e.g., saying "saw" for "was") are significant prob1ems in the teaching of reading.
1 SA
2
3
4
5 SD
10. It is a good practice to correct a chi1d as soon as an oral reading rnistake is made.
1 SA
2
3
4
5 SD
Il. It is important for a word to be repeated a number of times after it has been introduced to ensure that it will become a part of sight vocabu1aty.
1 SA
2
3
4
5 SD
12. Paying close attention to punctuation marks is necessaty to understanding stoty content.
1 2 SA
3
4
5 SD
13. It is a sign of an ineffective reader when words and phrases are repeated.
1 2 SA
3
4
5 SD
•
•
•
The DeFord Theoretical Orientation to Reading Profile (TORP)
Page 2
14. Being able to label words according to grammatical function (e.g., nouns, etc.) is useful in proticient reading.
1 SA
2
3
4
5 SD
15. When coming to a word that' s unknown, the reader should be encouraged to guess upon meaning and go on.
1 2 SA
3
4
5 SD
16. Young readers need to be introduced to the root fonu ofwords (e.g., run, long) before they are asked to read inflected fonus (e.g., running,longest).
1 SA
2
3
4
5 SD
17. It is not necessary for a child to know the letters of the alphabet in order to learn to read.
1 2 SA
3
4
5 SD
18. Flash-card drills with sight words is an unnecessary fonu of practice in reading instruction.
1 SA
2
3
4
5 SD
19. Ability to use accent patterns in multisyllable words (pho' to graph, pho to' gra phy, and pho to gra' phic) should be developed as part of reading instruction.
1 SA
2
3
4
5 SD
20. Controlling text through consistent spelling patterns (e.g., The fat cat ran back. The fat cat sat on a hat.) is a means by which children can best leam to read .
1 2 SA
3
4
5 SD
21. Fonual instruction in reading is necessary to ensure the adequate development of all skills used in reading.
1 2 SA
3
4
5 SD
22. Phonic analysis is the most important fonu of analysis used when meeting new words.
1 SA
2
3
4
5 SD
23. Children' s initial encounters with print should focus on meaning, not upon exact graphic representation.
1 2 SA
3
4
5 SD
24. Word shapes (word configuration) should be taught in reading to aid in word recognition.
1 2 SA
3
4
5 SD
25. It is important to teach skills in relation to other skills.
1 2 SA
3
4
5 SD
26. If a child says "house" for the written word "home," the response should be left uncorrected.
1 2 SA
3
4
5 SD
27. It is not necessary to introduce new words before they appear in the reading text.
1 SA
2
3
4
5 SD
28. Sorne problems in reading are caused by readers dropping the inflectional endings from words (e.g., jumps, jumped).
1 2 SA
3
4
5 SD
Source: "Validating the construct oftheoretical orientation in reading instruction" by Diane E. DeFord, Reading Research Quarterly 20, Spring 1985 . Reprinted with permission of the International Reading Association
234
• APPENDIXC
Certificate of Permission to Reproduce the TORP Onternational Reading Association)
•
•
235
• APPENDIXD
Preliminary Letters of Information to Principals and Teachers
•
•
236
•
APPENDIXE
Informed Consent to Participate in Research
•
•
•
INFORMED CONSENT TO PARTICIPA TE IN RESEARCH Researeh Projeet: Teachers ofReading Beyond the Primary Grades: Studying the Relationship of Theoretical Orientation to Reading and Instructional Practice with Grade 5 Teachers Researeh Institution: McGill University, Montreal Researeher: Susan E. Elliott-Johns, PhD Candidate, McGill University Researeh Supervisor: Dr. Helen Amoriggi, McGill University
1, the undersigned, herebyagree to participate in a research project entitled "Teachers of Reading Beyond the Primary Grades: Studying the Relationship of Theoretical Orientation to Reading and Instructional Practice with Grade 5 Teachers ", conducted by Susan Elliott-Johns. The purpose of this research is to explore the nature of relationships between the theoretical orientation to reading of Grade 5 teachers and their instructional practice in the teaching of reading. 1 understand that my participation is voluntary and that at any time during the research process 1 can withdraw my contributions without question. 1 will retain a copy of the Informed Consent Form.
•
1 understand that 1 will be asked to respond to a questionnaire that will be sent to approximately 300 Grade 5 teachers. Ali nominal informationfrom the questionnaire will be protected for confidentiality by assigning a random identification code to each respondent. 1 am aware that once initial data from the questionnaire has been analyzed, a randomly selected sample of teachers will be invited to meet for a follow-up interview of one-hour to further discuss their theoretical orientation to reading and instructional practice. The researcher will interview teachers in the sample at a mutually convenient time and location. Interviews will be audio-tape recorded so that transcriptions will accurately reflect the participants' language. Names of teachers who are interviewed will be changed to protect the anonymity of ail participants and to ensure confidentiality. Pseudonyms will be used when the exact phrasing ofparticipants' language is quoted 1 am aware that teachers interviewed may also be invited to reflect and respond in writing to (2) questions that will provide additional datafrom their individual perspectives. 1 understand my participation in this study offers both the opportunity to reflect on my theoretical orientation to reading and instructional practice in my work as a Grade 5 teacher, as weil as to contribute to further development of the knowledge base in reading and the teaching of reading beyond the primary grades. 1 have care/ully studied the above and understand my participation in this agreement. I/reely consent and voluntarily agree to participate in this study. Name (please print)_"_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Signature
"---------------------------------------Date~---------------
"Telephone_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (H) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (B)
•
e-mail
-----------------------------------------------------------
237
• APPENDIXF
In-depth Interview Guide
•
•
•
In~Depth
Interview Guide: Utilizing the Three Interview Series
Interview One: Focused Life History
"How did you come to be a teacher of reading in Grade Five?" (A review of the participant's life history related to the topic ofinquiry, up to the time slhe became the teacher slhe is today. Objective: to discover as much as possible about the context of the participant's life leading up to the present position as a Grade Five teacher of reading: early experiences with reading in their own families? in school? with friends? in adult life? during teacher education? and current work? what were the perceived origins of the
•
knowledge/beliefs/attitudes towards reading and the teaching of reading?)
Questions/Explorations: What was that like for you? How did that affect ... ? What/who shaped... ? How do you think that contributed to ... ? How was that significant in your development as (e.g. a teacher ofreading) '" ? How would you describe ... ?
•
•
Interview Two: The Details of Experience
"What is it like for you to be a teacher of reading at the Grade Five level? What are the details of your work as a teacher of reading?"
Questions/Explorations:
If 1 were to visit your classroom during a typical reading lesson, what kinds of things would 1 see you doing, and why? Please tell me about the procedures, materials, and information you use when deciding what to teach in reading and how you will teach it. How would you describe the kinds of materials you select and use for classroom reading instruction? Please explain how you set goals for the reading program in your classroom.
•
Tell me about how you incorporate diagnostic information into your plans for teaching reading in Grade Five. Describe the criteria you use to determine student growth in reading. How would you describe the kind of learning environment you feel to be most conducive to reading growth? How do you continue to learn about reading and the teaching of reading yourself? Please elaborate. How would you define the significance of your own beliefs and knowledge about reading in your experiences as a teacher of reading?
•
•
Interview Three: Reflection on the Meaning
"Given what you have said about your life before you became a Grade Five teacher of reading, and given what you have said about your work now, how do you understand the teaching of reading in theory and practice? What sense does it make to you?"
Questions/Explorations How would you describe yOuf understanding of yOuf theoretical orientation to reading? To what extent do you feel yOuf knowledge and beliefs about reading are reflected in yOuf instructional practice? Please tell me about how you think yOuf theoretical orientation assists you in yOuf work as a Grade Five teacher of reading.
•
Drawing on yOuf experiences as a teacher in the junior division, do you find yOuf theoretical orientation to the teaching of reading constrained in any way? In yOuf experience, what kinds of knowledge and experience do you consistently use as part of yOuf personal/professional approach to teaching reading at the Grade Five level? In the light of yOuf own experience, what would you suggest you would like to see happening in i) pre-service and ii) in-service reading education for teachers?
•
238
•
APPENDIXG
Regnest for Teaeher Participants' Biographiea} Information and Written Responses
•
•
•
PARTICIPA TING TEACHERS: BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION l.N~
_______________________________________________
2.SCHOOL _____________________________________________ 3. HOME ADDRESS ____________________________________
4. HOME TEL. ________________ 5. E-MAIL ___________ 6. F ACULTY OF EDUCATION ________________________________ 7. DATES ATTENDED _____________________________________ 8. TYPE OF PRE-SERVICE PROGRAM __________________________ 9. PRE-SERVICE PROGRAM INCLUDED COURSES IN TEAClllNG READING? YES/NO (please circ1e your response and elaborate) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___
•
10. TOTAL # YEARS TEAClllNG _ _ 11. # YEARS TEAClllNG JUNIORS 12. # YBARS TEAClllNG GR. 5
13. # YEARS AT CURRENT SCHOOL
14. AQ. COURSES COMPLETED IN READING (Please identify any courses taken and years completed) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ 15. IDGHER DEGREES COMPLETED (OR IN PROCESS) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ 16. WHAT KINDS OF KNOWLEDGE GAINED IN AQ COURSES, IDGHER DEGREES AND/OR OTHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EXPERIENCES HAVE YOU FOUND USEFUL IN YOUR WORK AS A TEACHER OF READING IN THE JUNIOR DIVISION? (*P lease focus on one or Iwo specific examples and use the
•
attached sheet for your written response to Question 16) .
•
Written response to Question 16:
•
•
(please continue on reverse side ofsheet ifnecessary ....)
•
For # 17, please record your focused responses below: 17. Please consider and list below (in arder ofpriority) J aspects ofteaching reading at the Grade 5 level you find a) most challenging: 1. 2.
3.
b) most effective: 1. 2.
•
3.
18. Please describe major factors that contributed to your decision to participate in this research study on teachers and the teaching of reading at the Grade 5 level?
(please continue on reverse side of the sheet ifnecessary ...)
•
239
• APPENDIXH
Reguest for Sam pIe Unit Plans, Lesson Plans, and Written Response
•
•
•
November 8th , 2002. Dear
------------------
Thank you very much for contributing your time, energies and insights as a participant in my research project "Teachers of Reading Beyond the Primary Grades:
Studying the Relationship of Theoretical Orientation to Reading and Instructional Practice with Grade 5 Teachers". It has been a sincere pleasure to meet and to talk with you over the course of the series of three interviews, and 1 really do appreciate yOuf having made time for this in yOuf very busy schedule. 1 am writing to request yOuf assistance with one final part of the Data Collection process, a written component that will be gathered from aIl teacher-participants and analyzed alongside the data collected during interviews. Here's what 1 like you to do: A. Please make 1) a copy of a lesson plan that is representative of yOuf planning style for reading instruction 2) a copy of a Unit Plan (e.g. a novel study or other Unit where you are planning for reading instruction over time)
•
B. What is your metaphor for teaching? Please think about this from yOuf own personaVprofessional perspective. Then write a reflective piece comparing teaching to an analogous activity and citing the reason(s) for yOuf choice. ("Teacher as ........ ") If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at (Home Telephone); 1 can also be reached via email at (Personal E-Mail Address). It would be very helpful if you could arrange to have copies these ready for me to collect from yOuf school office during the day on Tuesday 26th November. 1 will contact you on or before Monday, 25 th November to confirm the materials will be available for pick-up on the 26th • Thanks again!
y OUfS sincerely,
Susan E. Elliott-Johns
•
