This article was downloaded by: [George Mason University]On: 19 December 2014, At: 05:46Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

Reading Research andInstructionPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ulri19

Developing beliefs aboutliteracy instruction: Across‐case analysis ofpreservice teachers intraditional and field basedsettingsWayne M. Linek a , Olga G. Nelson b , Mary BethSampson a , Catherine K. Zeek c , Kathleen A.J.Mohr d & Linda Hughes ea Texas A&M University‐Commerce , Commerceb Eastern Michigan Universityc Texas Women's Universityd Kennesaw State Universitye University of West AlabamaPublished online: 28 Jan 2010.

To cite this article: Wayne M. Linek , Olga G. Nelson , Mary Beth Sampson ,Catherine K. Zeek , Kathleen A.J. Mohr & Linda Hughes (1999) Developingbeliefs about literacy instruction: A cross‐case analysis of preservice teachersin traditional and field based settings, Reading Research and Instruction, 38:4,371-386, DOI: 10.1080/19388079909558302

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19388079909558302

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views ofthe authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor andFrancis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of accessand use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geo

rge

Mas

on U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

46 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

Reading Research and InstructionSummer 1999, 38 (4) 371-386

Developing beliefs about literacy instruction:A cross-case analysis of preservice teachers

in traditional and field based settings

Wayne M. LinekTexas A&M University-Commerce

Olga G. NelsonEastern Michigan University

Mary Beth SampsonTexas A&M University-Commerce

Catherine K. ZeekTexas Women's University

Kathleen A.J. MohrKennesaw State University

Linda HughesUniversity of West Alabama

ABSTRACT

This paper reports the results of three similar case studies of preserviceteachers enrolled in literacy methods courses. In each study, preserviceteachers beliefs about literacy were described through the use of multipledata sources before, during, and after the course. The settings of the stud-ies included: a university based course with no field experience, a univer-sity-based course with unsupervised field experience, and a field-basedcourse. Preservice teachers in each program experienced change. Factorscontributing to the changes common to all programs were instructor mod-eling, course assignments/readings, cognitive dissonance, and reflection.Only students participating in the field-based program, however, describeda greater variety of dissonance factors impacting their beliefs about liter-acy instruction. Factors unique to the field-based course include: culturaldissonance, emotional dissonance, experiential dissonance, and politicaldissonance. Implications support a field-based model of teacher educationfor development of a complex view of the process of literacy teaching.

Why do teachers teach as they do? Recent research suggests that teachers'beliefs exert a critical influence on classroom practice (Pajares, 1992; Rokeach,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geo

rge

Mas

on U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

46 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

372 Reading Research and Instruction Summer 1999 Vol. 38 No. 4

1968; Schommer, 1990). Although the study of teachers' beliefs has only recentlybecome a focus of educational researchers (Kagan, 1992), research in other disci-plines provides some insight into ways in which beliefs may influence practices.Psychological research suggests that beliefs influence knowledge acquisition,interpretation, and comprehension monitoring (Pajares, 1992), while the study ofepistemological beliefs may aid in understanding comprehension (Schommer,1990). In addition, human decision-making appears to be greatly influenced bybeliefs (Pajares, 1992; Rokeach, 1968).

A variety of factors appear to affect beliefs and practices (Ford, 1993; Hun-saker & Johnston, 1992; Sturtevant, 1993, 1996). Beliefs that form early in lifetend to resist change (Pajares, 1992), even in the face of contradictory evidenceor experience (Rokeach, 1968), and beliefs which have been recently acquired arethe most susceptible to change (Clark, 1988; Nespor, 1987; Rokeach, 1968). Beliefsabout teaching begin to form very early in life and seem to be well established bythe time students enter college (Clark, 1988; Clark & Peterson, 1986; Lortie, 1975;Rokeach, 1968), implying that changing preservice teachers' beliefs through theirteacher education programs may be a challenging task. Such change may beaccomplished through a gestalt shift, or conversion to a new authority (Pajares,1992).

Student teaching has been identified as possibly the most potent aspect ofpreservice teacher education (Britzman, 1991), due in part to the influence on stu-dents of trusted mentor teachers (Goodson, 1992; Sturtevant, 1992). Previousresearch has found that most methods courses, however, do little to change pre-service teachers' beliefs based on their prior experience (Clark, Smith, Newby, &Cook, 1985), indicating the need to redesign teacher education. Goodlad (1991)identified the use of clinical or "teaching" schools as one condition for such aredesign in the nineties. Field-based teacher education programs and professionaldevelopment schools are increasingly popular responses to this call for renewal.The goal of this field-based movement is to create a new "organic" collaborativethat combines the best current theory and research with the most effective prac-tice in a public school setting (Dixon & Ishler, 1992), while facilitating the gestaltshift that can lead to changes in beliefs for preservice teachers interacting withmentor teachers.

Because the move to field-based teacher education is quite recent, littleresearch has been completed to describe the development and change of preser-vice teacher beliefs in this setting. Most current literature focuses on subjects intraditional university campus-based methods courses (Commeyras, Reinking,Heubach, & Pagnucco, 1993; Wilson, Konopak & Readance, 1993; Zeek, Walker,Fleener, 1997), the incorporation of field experience (Robbins & Patterson,1994), or clinical campus settings (Roskos & Walker, 1993). Comparisons of thedevelopment and change of preservice teacher beliefs in campus-based and field-based settings are lacking, yet understanding how preservice teachers constructpedagogical knowledge bases is critical in significantly reforming teacher educa-tion (Butt, Raymond, & Yamagishi, 1988; Grimmett & MacKinnon, 1992).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geo

rge

Mas

on U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

46 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

Developing beliefs about literacy instruction 373

This article reports the results of three similar studies of preservice teachersenrolled in literacy methods courses. In each study, preservice teachers describedtheir beliefs and provided rationales for them. The settings of the studies included:(a) a university-based course with no field experience, (b) a university-basedcourse with unsupervised field experience, and (c) a field-based course. All stud-ies were guided by three questions:

What are preservice teachers' beliefs about literacy, literacy instruction,and assessment before and after completing literacy methods courses?

What shifts occurred in their beliefs?What factors did students report as contributing to changing their beliefs?

METHOD

All three case studies followed a qualitative approach (Merriam 1988, 1998),using ethnographic techniques to gather and analyze data (Huberman & Miles,1994). The design of the studies was the same. Each study was conducted duringone academic semester when preservice teachers were enrolled in literacy meth-ods courses.

Data sources. All of the students responded in writing to questions on thePhilosophical Orientation to Literacy Learning (POLL; see Appendix), a set ofopen-ended questions designed to assess preservice teachers' beliefs about liter-acy learning and teaching (Nelson, Linek, & Sampson, 1993). The POLL wasadministered in written form at the beginning and at the end of the semester. Inaddition three key informants in each study were selected for in-depth audiotaped interviews based on their willingness to volunteer and share information.The interviews were based on the POLL and were conducted at the beginning,middle, and end of the semester to probe preservice teachers' beliefs, changes inbeliefs, and factors contributing to the changes. The researchers took field noteswhile observing in classrooms and collected artifacts including course syllabi,students' learning logs/journals, portfolios, and assignments completed for thecourses.

The studies differed in the structure of the literacy methods courses, whichwere selected, and in the size of the sample. Study A involved students in a mid-sized southwestern university. Their course was taught entirely on campus withno field experience. Although all students enrolled in the course participated in allactivities, data from 7 volunteers were analyzed.

Students in Study B were enrolled in a mid-sized northern university. Theircourse included campus-based class sessions and unsupervised field experience:students either arranged their own placements or asked the university to placethem in nearby school districts. The university instructor and the classroom teach-ers had no contact; students delivered a brief explanation of the course and theirrequirements to the cooperating teacher. Data from all 25 students enrolled in thecourse were analyzed.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geo

rge

Mas

on U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

46 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

374 Reading Research and Instruction Summer 1999 Vol. 38 No. 4

Study C was conducted in the same university as was Study A, but preserviceteachers were enrolled as interns in a field-based literacy methods course. Univer-sity liaisons and public school mentor teachers and administrators interviewed andplaced interns in area schools. Students were required to work in public schoolclassrooms two full days each week and to attend an integrated seminar one fullday each week. Data from 8 volunteers were analyzed. In total the researchers ana-lyzed 40 preservice teachers' written responses to the POLL. Of these subjects, 9key informants (3 from each course) participated in in-depth interviews.

Individual case data analyses. Researchers in each study analyzed the datarecursively using grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Glaser, 1978) andconstant comparison (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Primary data sources includedtranscripts of interviews with key informants and journal entries. To establishvalidity in each study, a minimum of 2 researchers independently identified cate-gories of beliefs, changes, and factors in change. The researchers then comparedtheir independently generated categories and through discussion and joint recur-sive analysis reached concensus on refined categories. To enhance validity theresearchers then corroborated the categories across secondary data sources. Toestablish reliability a portion of the data, at least ten percent, was then given tooutside researchers who read and categorized the data using the refined categorieswith at least 90% initial accuracy. Discussion ensued among the outsideresearchers and the primary researchers until consensus was reached on theremaining 10% of the data. The primary researchers then jointly reanalyzed allprimary data for consistency. Categories from each of the three studies were thenconsidered for the cross-case analysis.

Cross-case analysis. A researcher not previously involved with analysis inthe individual case studies used a case-oriented strategy (Huberman & Miles,1994) employing grounded theory (Glaser, 1978) to build up a framework induc-tively. The framework was tested and refined with recourse to multiple compari-son groups by the new researcher. The new researcher then had the individualcase researchers conduct an audit on the cross-case analysis using three of the sixlevels of attention described by Schwandt and Halpern (1988). The three specificquestions used were:

Are findings grounded in the data?Are inferences logical?Is the category structure appropriate?

The primary researchers then jointly reanalyzed all primary and secondarydata for consistency. Discussion ensued among the new researcher and the primaryresearchers until concensus was reached on the final interpretation.

RESULTS

These three case studies investigated changes in preservice teachers' beliefs dur-ing semester-long literacy methods courses. In all studies data analysis indicated

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geo

rge

Mas

on U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

46 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

Developing beliefs about literacy instruction 375

that preservice teachers gained conceptual knowledge about learning and teach-ing literacy, the processes of reading and writing, and instructional strategies.Specific results for each research question are discussed below.

Question 1: What are preservice teachers' beliefs about literacy, literacyinstruction, and assessment before and after completing literacy methodscourses?

Table 1 summarizes preservice teachers' beliefs before and after completingthe methods courses. At the beginning of the semester, preservice teachers in allthree studies generally believed that literacy consisted of acquiring a set of skillsand that instruction should proceed hierarchically from letter to word to sentenceto connected text. They saw the child as a receiver of factual knowledge. They

Table 1

Beliefs about literacy, literacy instruction, and assessmentbefore and after completing methods courses

Beliefs about: Before methods courses

Literacy • Acquiring a set of skills• Skill acquisition should

proceed hierarchically

Literacy instruction • Child is a receiver ofknowledge

• Teacher transmits knowledgein the form of skills; part towhole

• Teacher "telling"• Methods include basals,

workbooks, flashcards

Assessment • Deficit view• Limited, vague ideas

Self as a teacher • Don't know enough to teachreading

After methods courses

• Engaging in the processesof reading and writing

• Developing strategies

• Child is a constructor ofknowledge

• Teacher models• Methods include reading

and writing across thecurriculum, integratedinstruction, trade books,environmental print

• Demonstration of progress• Use of portfolios, miscue

analysis, observation

• Better sense of howchildren learn

• Empowered throughknowledge

• Still had questions to beanswered

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geo

rge

Mas

on U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

46 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

376 Reading Research and Instruction Summer 1999 Vol.38 No. 4

believed that literacy instruction should be teacher-directed and skills-based, withthe teacher providing knowledge, primarily through "telling." They tended tosuggest only a few instructional methods such as basals, workbooks, and flashcards. Although some mentioned using children's literature or whole language,their responses indicated that they did not understand how either could be used ininstruction. The preservice teachers in Study A reflected the same beliefs abouttheir own learning, reporting initially that they expected their instructor to informthem about literacy and to tell them which instructional strategies to use.

Preservice teachers' initial beliefs about assessment reflected their beliefsabout instruction. They tended to see assessment from a deficit perspective, as away to identify which skills a child had not mastered, and to suggest limited andvague uses of alternative methods of assessment. In fact many of the preserviceteachers indicated that they had no clear idea or plan for assessing reading andwriting.

By the end of the semester, preservice teachers defined literacy developmentas acquiring processes and strategies rather than gaining factual information.They described instruction as holistic and student-centered, with the child activelyparticipating in constructing knowledge and the teacher functioning as a modelrather than an informer. This participatory, constructivist approach was reflectedin the instructional methods and materials they suggested, including reading andwriting across the curriculum, integrating content areas into instruction, and usingtrade books and environmental print. Preservice teachers believed that assessmentshould provide a positive view of a child's progress, and suggested assessingreading and writing by using alternative methods such as portfolios, miscueanalysis, and observation.

Question 2: What shifts occurred in preservice teachers' beliefs?During the semester beliefs about learning and teaching literacy demon-

strated several key shifts (see Table 2). While preservice teachers' initial theory ofinstruction featured a simplistic view of the teacher transmitting skills-basedknowledge in a prescribed linear sequence, by the end of the semester they devel-oped a more complex view of learners constructing literacy knowledge throughvaried strategies and materials. While they initially saw learning as a rote, decon-textualized experience, they later described a meaning-centered situation thatallowed for divergent thinking. Fostering student interest and motivation wereimportant components of literacy instruction at the end of the semester. Assess-ment became a tool to measure progress in the context of classroom activities.Students reported feeling more confident in their ability to teach reading becauseof what they had learned during the semester. Students in Study A, however,reported that they had more questions at the end of the course than when theybegan. They felt overwhelmed by the complexity of literacy development: someof the students expressed a need to apply what they had learned before they for-got it.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geo

rge

Mas

on U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

46 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

Developing beliefs about literacy instruction 377

Table 2

Shifts in preservice teachers' beliefs during methods courses

Theory of instruction

Theory of practice

Theory of literacy acquisition

Instructional strategies

View of teaching

Use of materials

Use of assessment

From:

Teacher centered

Child is a receiver offactual knowledge

Teacher tellingSkill and text-driven

Separate subjectsDecontextualizedRote learning

SimplisticLinearConvergent

Limited awarenessMaterials they used asstudents (basals,flashcards)

Deficit viewVague ideas

To:

Learner centered

Child actively constructsknowledge

Teacher modeling

Integrated instructionContext-drivenStrategic learning

ComplexRecursiveDivergent

Varied awareness"New" materials such astrade books andenvironmental print

Measure growthSpecific ideas for usingalternative assessmentmethods

Question 3: What factors did students report as contributing to changing theirbeliefs?

A variety of factors contributed to the changes in beliefs reported by preser-vice teachers (see Figure 1). Preservice teachers' initial beliefs were shaped bytheir own experiences in school. Methods and materials were suggested becausepreservice teachers recalled using them in learning to read. As the semester pro-gressed, preservice teachers cited unique factors that caused them to change theirbeliefs, with different factors noted in each study.

Preservice teachers in Study A most often cited recollections, reflections, andprojecting themselves into the teacher's role as factors in understanding how chil-dren learn (Linek & Sampson, 1993). These activities occurred during class or

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geo

rge

Mas

on U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

46 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

378 Reading Research and Instruction Summer 1999 Vol.38 No. 4

Study A: No FieldExperience• Recollections• Projecting self into

teacher's role• Insight into child's view• Comparison with peers• Classroom artifacts

Study B: UnsupervisedField Experience

Discussing fieldexperiences

College classroom

Instructor modelingCourse assignments

and readingsCognitive dissonanceReflection

Field experienceobserving andteaching strategies

Experiencingstrategies inclass/seminar

Study C: Integrated, SupervisedField Experience

Dissonance: cultural,emotional, experiential,political

Workshops/inservices

Figure 1. Factors contributing to preservice teachers' belief changes.

were recorded in various assignments. They also discussed the cognitive disso-nance that occurred during the semester. Based on their past experience, they hadinitially expected the instructor to provide knowledge. However the constructivistphilosophy reflected in the course led them to examine their beliefs and precon-ceptions and to begin to develop their own classroom philosophies and practices.The instructor's modeling of alternative strategies and preservice teachers'involvement in their use were also cited as factors in changing beliefs. Severalpreservice teachers commented that they wished they had been taught to readusing the holistic strategies modeled by the instructor because their own attitudestoward reading and writing would have been more positive with such a founda-tion. The preservice teachers in Study A attributed changes in their beliefs to cog-nitive and affective factors resulting from in-class activities.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geo

rge

Mas

on U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

46 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

Developing beliefs about literacy instruction 379

Preservice teachers in Study B cited their field experience as the most influ-ential factor in their belief changes, saying that they were able to practice some oftheir university learning in authentic settings. They reported that the opportunityto work with children and see first-hand how they learn was a valuable compo-nent in the experience. These preservice teachers cited activities in the collegeclassroom "because you were able to see it and do it before you went out into the[elementary classroom]" (Linek, Nelson, Sampson, & White, 1993). They alsocited in-class discussions of their field experiences as factors in changing theirbeliefs. Although instructor modeling and the course textbook were also includedas change factors, these preservice teachers identified their field experiences andrelated in-class activities as the most influential factors.

Preservice teachers in Study C also cited their field experience as the mostimportant factor in their shift in beliefs, reporting that the experience confirmedor strengthened their views of teaching and learning (Sampson, Linek, & Hughes,1994). In the public schools they observed: planned and conducted instruction,attended public school inservice, and met regularly with mentor teachers and uni-versity liaisons to discuss their field experiences. At weekly seminars, universityinstructors modeled a variety of literacy strategies in which the preservice teach-ers then participated. The seminars also included required readings. The preser-vice teachers cited all of these "hands-on" experiences as contributing to theirchanges in beliefs. However, preservice teachers in Study C were perceived bythe school community as "one of the staff rather than a "visitor." This percep-tion, combined with intensive field experience, provided the opportunity forexposure to problematic situations with public school students, parents, facultymembers, and administrators that a visitor might not be permitted to see. Theseexperiences led to several types of dissonance not experienced by preserviceteachers in Studies A or B. Specifically, these preservice teachers experiencedcultural, emotional, experiential, and political dissonance in addition to cognitivedissonance because of the unique course structure. These additional types of dis-sonance were cited by the preservice teachers as factors contributing to theirgrowth.

In all of the studies the preservice teachers experienced cognitive dissonancebetween their prior beliefs and the in-class modeling and activities which theyexperienced. These factors and the reflection incorporated into the courses con-tributed to changes in preservice teachers' beliefs. Students whose courseworkincluded field experiences cited the influence of the field experience and theaccompanying dissonance as contributing to their belief changes, while thosewhose courses were university-based identified personal and classroom-basedreflections as change factors.

DISCUSSION

The preservice teachers in these three studies described similar shifts in theirbeliefs about literacy learning and teaching. They generally moved from a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geo

rge

Mas

on U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

46 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

380 Reading Research and Instruction Summer 1999 Vol.38 No. 4

simplistic, teacher-centered, skills-based view in which the child is a passivereceiver of knowledge, to a complex, student-centered, meaning-based philoso-phy in which the child actively constructs knowledge. While preservice teachers'initial views were based on their own school experiences, they attributed thechanges in their beliefs to a variety of factors which varied with the structure ofthe course in which they were enrolled. Field experience was the most influentialfactor for preservice teachers in Studies B and C, while those in Study A seemedto realize that they needed a similar opportunity to test the beliefs they werebeginning to develop.

Preservice teachers in Study A reported that their beliefs about teaching hadshifted, but without a field experience they had no opportunity to apply, test, andconfirm their developing ideas. They were "all stirred up with no place to go"(Linek & Sampson, 1993). As the preservice teachers began the semester theyexpected that the instructor would essentially provide information. They experi-enced cognitive dissonance when the structure of the course required them to tryout new learning strategies and to reflect on themselves as learners, rather thansimply receive knowledge. During the semester their reflections became morepersonal, reflecting their attempts to resolve the dissonance they felt between oldconceptions and new beliefs. The end of the semester interrupted their growthprocess, leaving some of them still engaged in the uncomfortable struggle totransform their beliefs. The whole process of changing beliefs, constructing a per-sonal philosophy of instruction, and selecting appropriate classroom practiceswas part of the preservice teachers' growth. This course initiated the growthprocess by engaging students in a variety of active learning strategies and leadingthem to focus on their own internal growth and reactions. Without an opportunityto apply their new ideas about teaching and learning, however, their excitement islikely to fade and the long-term effect of the course will probably be diminished.Thus, while the course opened preservice teachers to new philosophies, there wasa need to try out those philosophies in authentic classroom settings. Without anopportunity for application and follow-up, the long-term durability of their beliefchanges was uncertain.

Preservice teachers in Study B cited their field experience as essential totheir shifts in beliefs. In contrast to Study A, Study B provided the opportunity totest developing ideas in authentic settings. In this situation preservice teacherswere able to arrange their own placements, but there was no communicationbetween the university and the cooperating teachers. They perceived conflictbetween the instructional approaches of the university instructor and those of thecooperating public school teachers. Some preservice teachers felt the cooperatingteacher's requirements actually conflicted with the university course content andmost were unsure about whether to please the university instructor or the cooper-ating teachers. They also expressed concern about being observed and evaluatedby their university instructor in the context of their field placement because of theuniversity instructor's minimal involvement. They reported that an evaluationbased on limited observations would not give an accurate picture of their field

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geo

rge

Mas

on U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

46 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

Developing beliefs about literacy instruction 381

experience and would be unfair. While Study B pointed out the influence of fieldexperience for preservice teachers whose beliefs were shifting, it also indicatedthe need for communication and cooperation between the university and cooper-ating public school teachers in designing an effective experience.

Preservice teachers in Study C indicated that field experiences were criticalin discovering what it means to be a teacher. They reported that their experienceconfirmed their thinking and led them to grow in understanding literacy learningand teaching. While they perceived some political dissonance between classroomdemands and teacher philosophy, this was not a major concern for them. In thissituation, communication among preservice teachers, mentor teachers, and uni-versity liaisons was extensive and ongoing, perhaps easing preservice teachers'concerns. The structure of the course in Study C provided a field experience inwhich to test changing beliefs and, as an integral part of that experience, it alsofocused on communication and cooperation between the university and the publicschools.

These three studies suggest that preservice teacher education programsshould include field experiences which expose them to a variety of teaching situ-ations, and that cooperation and communication between the university and thepublic schools are essential components in effective programs. Field experienceswere critical tests for students' developing beliefs. While campus-based seminarswere cited as being "scaffolds" for new information, the field experiences were"anchors" for that knowledge. This finding refutes the observation that methodscourses typically do little to cause changes in preservice teachers' beliefs. How-ever, courses without the anchor of field experience may fail to provide the criti-cal follow-up needed to actually transform preservice teachers' beliefs in thelonger term. Applying beliefs and practices in authentic settings allows preserviceteachers to confirm and strengthen the philosophies that they begin to develop inuniversity-based methods courses. In these studies, it was apparent that studentsin each study focused on different parts of the learning process. In Study A stu-dents examined their own internal learning and growth processes; in Study B theyemphasized the teacher's instructional delivery and strategy selection; and inStudy C they focused on the children's learning and engagement. Thus the uni-versity-based course encouraged preservice teachers to apply their beliefs to theirown learning, while the courses which included field-based experiences encour-aged applications to the classroom.

Field experiences should also expose preservice teachers to a variety ofteaching situations. During their semester as interns, students in the field-basedprogram of Study C observed and taught in the classrooms of at least two differ-ent mentor teachers from at least two different grade levels. Their weekly inte-grated seminars, led by both university and public school faculty, covered the tra-ditional content area methods courses, technology training, and strategies fordealing with diverse populations. Projects included case studies of students andteaching situations, textbook analysis, preparation of teaching materials, andreflections on classroom observations and teaching experiences. The seminars

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geo

rge

Mas

on U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

46 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

382 Reading Research and Instruction Summer 1999 Vol.38 No. 4

engaged the interns in a variety of learning strategies that could be observed orapplied immediately in the classrooms to which they were assigned. This diver-sity of experience accelerated the growth process in Study C, indicating that pre-service field experiences should provide opportunities for students to observe,help, teach, and ask questions with more than one mentor teacher, and in a varietyof grade levels and teaching situations. By encouraging preservice teachers tocompare and contrast the different phases of their field experience, this arrange-ment allowed them to independently evaluate practice in light of differing inter-pretations of theory. This reflective approach is more likely to move them awayfrom adopting a limited model of teaching and toward developing a personalteaching style that incorporates the best of theory and practice to facilitate chil-dren's learning.

The current studies also highlight the need for the university and publicschools to be in close communication. Establishing an organic collaborative(Dixon & Ishler, 1992) challenges all participants to redefine their roles and shareresponsibilities that have traditionally been separated. This type of cooperation,though difficult and time-consuming, is essential to designing effective preserviceteacher education programs.

One final finding provides a suggestion about the importance of terminology.Preservice teachers in Study C felt that "belief change" was a negative conceptthat implied that their beliefs were wrong and needed to be corrected. From thisperspective, discussing "change" devalued students' prior experience and knowl-edge, lowering their feelings of self-efficacy and detracting from their ability todirect their own learning. On the other hand, these students tended to perceivegrowth as a positive assimilation of new experiences and information that builton the foundation of earlier learning. These preservice teachers indicated that thefocus in teacher education should be on the positive concept of growth rather thanthe negative one of change.

It should be noted that Study C took place in one field-based program inTexas schools. The preservice teacher education program in this study was in theprocess of shifting from a traditional student teaching experience to a two-semes-ter field-based experience. Students who participated in this study selected theinternship program over the student teaching program. Thus they may not be typ-ical of most students in teacher education programs in terms of reflective practiceor motivation. In addition the Texas school culture, dominated by state-mandatedstudent and teacher evaluations, may not be typical of school cultures in otherstates. Studies of preservice teachers in other field-based or professional develop-ment programs could indicate whether the responses of these preservice teachersare typical.

CONCLUSION

As noted in these three studies, a connection to the field appears to providethe concrete experience preservice teachers need to test their new knowledge and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geo

rge

Mas

on U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

46 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

Developing beliefs about literacy instruction 383

anchor their developing beliefs about literacy teaching and learning. Those thatdo not have a field experience desire it. When the course ends, those who did nothave a connection to the field are left in an uncomfortable struggle. When thecourse ends the dissonance stimulating growth and change ends. Newly formingbeliefs that have not been worked through or anchored in experience are likely tobe dropped from conscious thought so that previously held beliefs will likelyreassert their prominence.

The research discussed here confirms the need to redesign teacher educationand gives direction to an evolving design. Thus, as theorists and practitionerswork to create a new model of teacher education, the issue of consistently inte-grating field experiences is critical. Instructor modeling, course assignments,reading, and reflection are recognized by preservice teachers in all learning situa-tions as critical stimuli for the cognitive dissonance which creates the impetus forgrowth and change. But an integrated field based is unique in that preserviceteachers experience a wider variety of dissonances and focus on children's learn-ing and engagement. This situation provides the greatest opportunity for longterm professional growth and change in preservice teachers' beliefs about literacyteaching and learning.

REFERENCES

Britzman, D. P. (1991). Practice makes practice: A critical study of learning to teach.Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Butt, R., Raymond, D., & Yamagishi, L. (1988). Autobiographic praxis: Studying the for-mation of teachers' knowledge. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 7(2), 87-164.

Clark, C. M. (1988). Asking the right questions about teacher preparation: Contributions ofresearch on teaching thinking. Educational Researcher, 17(2), 5-12.

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.

Clark, D. C., Smith, R. B., Newby, T. J., & Cook, V. A. (1985). Perceived origins of teach-ing behavior. Journal of Teacher Education, 36(6), 49-52.

Commeyras, M., Reinking, D., Heubach, K. M., & Pagnucco, J. (1993). Looking within: Astudy of an undergraduate reading methods course. In D. J. Leu & C. K. Kinzer (Eds.),Examining central issues in literacy research, theory, and practice. Forty-secondyearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 297-304). Chicago: NationalReading Conference.

Dixon, P. N., & Ishler, R. E. (1992). Professional development schools: Stages in collabo-ration. Journal of Teacher Education, 43, 28-34.

Ford, M. P. (1993). The process and promise of portfolio assessment in teacher educationprograms: Impact on students' knowledge, beliefs, and practices. In T. V. Rasinski &N. D. Padak (Eds.), Inquiries in literacy learning and instruction (pp. 145-152).Pittsburg, KS: College Reading Association.

Goodlad, J. I. (1991). Why we need a complete redesign of teacher education. EducationalLeadership, 48(4), 4-10.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geo

rge

Mas

on U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

46 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

384 Reading Research and Instruction Summer 1999 Vol. 38 No. 4

Goodson, I. F. (1992). Studying teachers' lives: problems and possibilities. In I. F. Goodson(Ed.), Studying teachers' lives (pp. 234-249). New York: Teachers College Press.

Grimmett, P. P. & MacKinnon, A. M. (1992). Craft knowledge and the education of teach-ers. In G. Gradt (Ed.), Review of Research in Education (Vol. 18, pp. 385-456).Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Huberman, A. M. & Miles, M. B. (1994). Data management and analysis methods. In N. K.Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 428-444). Thou-sand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hunsaker, L., & Johnston, M. (1992). Teacher under construction: A collaborative casestudy of teacher change. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 350-372.

Kagan, D. M. (1992). Professional growth among preservice and beginning teachers.Review of Educational Research, 62, 129-169.

Linek, W. M., Nelson, O. G., Sampson, M. B., & White, M. (1993, November). Preserviceliteracy teachers and field experience: Quo vadis? Paper presented at the annualmeeting of the College Reading Association, Richmond, VA.

Linek, W. M., & Sampson, M. B. (1993, December). What? No field experience? Whatpreservice teachers have to say. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the NationalReading Conference, Charleston, SC.

Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteachers: A sociological study. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress.

Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education (2nd.ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Nelson, O. G., Linek, W. M., & Sampson, M. B. (1993, April). A pilot study of preserviceteachers' philosophical orientation to literacy learning. Paper presented at the annualmeeting of the International Reading Association, San Antonio, TX.

Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messyconstruct. Review of Educational Research, 62, 307-332.

Robbins, M. E., & Patterson, L. (1994). Authentic contexts for learning to teach: Goingbeyond Cambourne's model in field-based preservice literacy courses. In E. G. Sturte-vant & W. M. Linek (Eds.), Pathways for literacy: Learners teach and teachers learn(pp. 169-182). Pittsburg, KS: College Reading Association.

Rokeach, M. (1968). Beliefs, attitudes, and values: A theory of organization and change.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sampson, M. B., Linek, W. M., & Hughes, L. (1994, December). Exploring the Developmentand Change of Preservice Teachers' Beliefs about Literacy Teaching and Learning inSite-Based Professional Development Centers. Paper presented at the annual meetingof the National Reading Conference, San Diego, CA.

Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension.Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 498-504.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory proceduresand techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Sturtevant, E. G. (1992). Content literacy in high school social studies: Two case studies ina multicultural setting (Doctoral dissertation, Kent State University, 1992). Disserta-tion Abstracts International, 53-04 A, p. 1119.

Sturtevant, E. G. (1993). Content literacy in high school social studies: A focus upon oneteacher's beliefs and decisions about classroom discussion. In T. V. Rasinski & N. D.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geo

rge

Mas

on U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

46 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

Developing beliefs about literacy instruction 385

Padak (Eds.), Inquiries in literacy learning and instruction (pp. 3-11). Pittsburg, KS:College Reading Association.

Sturtevant, E. G. (1996). Lifetime influences on the literacy-related instructional belief ofexperienced high school history teachers. (1996). Journal of Literacy Research, 28(2),pp. 227-257.

Walker, B. J., & Roskos, K. (1994). Preservice teachers' epistemology of diagnostic read-ing instruction: Observations of shifts during coursework experience. In E. G. Sturte-vant & W. M. Linek (Eds.), Pathways for literacy: Learners teach and teachers learn(pp. 59-71). Pittsburg, KS: College Reading Association.

Wilson, E., Konopak, B., Readance, J. (1993). A case study of a preservice secondarysocial studies teacher's beliefs and practices about content-area reading. In D. J. Leu& C. K. Kinzer (Eds.), Examining central issues in literacy research, theory, andpractice. Forty-second yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 335-343).Chicago: National Reading Conference.

Zeek, C., Walker, C., & Fleener, C. (1997). Connecting and reflecting: Changing beliefsabout literacy instruction by integrating methods courses. In C. K. Kinzer, K. A.Hinchman, & D. J. Leu (Eds.), Inquiries in literacy theory and practice. Forty-sixthyearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 308-318). Chicago: NationalReading Conference.

Acknowledgement: This research was supported in part by an Organized Research Grant from TexasA&M University-Commerce.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geo

rge

Mas

on U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

46 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

386 Reading Research and Instruction Summer 1999 Vol.38 No. 4

APPENDIX

POLL (Philosophical Orientation to Literacy Learning)

1. What is a good reader? Why do you say that?2. What do students need to know about letter/sound relationships? How would you

teach that?3. Consider children's initial encounters with print in a school setting.

a) What would you do to teach beginning readers to read? Why would you do that?b) What materials would you use to teach beginning readers? Why have you decided

to use these materials?4. There are some unfamiliar words in a fourth grade passage on how a forest develops.

Will you do anything to familiarize students with the vocabulary before reading thepassage? If so, what would you do and why would you do that? If not, why not?

5. Children learn language and leam about language by being a language user. Whatdoes that mean to you as a teacher of readers, writers, speakers, and listeners?

6. How would you organize and manage subjects such as reading, math, science, socialstudies, and other subjects in your classroom?

7. What would you use to assess or evaluate students in reading and writing? How willyou collect and use what you have assembled?

8. How did you feel about learning to read and write in elementary school? What madeyou feel that way?

9. Describe your own current attitudes toward reading and writing. That is, do you seereading and writing as positive or pleasurable activities you do, or do you have somenegative feelings toward them? Describe your attitudes and the kind of materials,reading, and writing activities, or topics/subjects about which you have strong feelingsone way or another.

10. As you enter (finish) this class, explain what you are thinking and feeling as you areabout reading and writing to elementary students. Why are you thinking and feelingthis way?

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geo

rge

Mas

on U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

46 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014