“You teach!” beginning teachers’ challenges to teacher educators

This article was downloaded by: [University of Auckland Library]On: 27 November 2014, At: 15:18Publisher: 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

“You teach!” beginningteachers’ challenges toteacher educatorsDixie Massey aa North Carolina A & T State UniversityPublished online: 28 Jan 2010.

To cite this article: Dixie Massey (2004) “You teach!” beginning teachers’challenges to teacher educators, Reading Research and Instruction, 43:4, 75-94,DOI: 10.1080/19388070409558417

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19388070409558417

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,

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ulri19

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/19388070409558417

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19388070409558417

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 [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

15:

18 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Reading Research and instructionSummer 2004, 43(4) 75-94

"You Teach!"Beginning Teachers' Challenges to Teacher Educators

Dixie MasseyNorth Carolina A & T State University

Abstract

This research describes three beginning teachers and the development of their literacyinstruction. Research questions addressed included a) what characterized theirinstruction throughout their beginning years of teaching and b) were they using thecontent from their literacy methods coursework? Additionally, as their former teacherfor literacy methods courses, I wanted to reflect on and improve my own instruction inthese methods courses. The three teachers' approach to instruction developed in similarpatterns. First, they all relied on mandated and suggested curricula and neglectedintegration of ideas not listed in the curricula. Second, they each went through periodsof abandoning the curricula in favor of creating their own plans. Third, they all askedme to teach for them, while they watched. This development was not linear; rather, theirdevelopment occurred in a recursive pattern. Implications are described for teachereducators regarding how we might better facilitate beginning teachers' learning.

We know what marks exemplary literacy instruction: positivelearning environments, classroom management, authentic reading and writingactivities, and encouragement from the teacher, just to name a few (Block,Oakar, & Hurt, 2002; Pressley, Allington, Wharton-McDonlad, Block, &Morrow, 2001). With this awareness, it would seem a simple connection toteach these skills and dispositions in preservice teacher education programs,then study the effectiveness of those programs in preparing preservice andbeginning teachers to be strategic and flexible in their literacy instruction.However, this analysis of and reflection upon our own teaching remains oneseldom-addressed area regarding preservice teacher education. As Hoffman andRoller (2001) concluded, "We are a community of reading researchers active inteacher education who have not been systematic about studying our ownpractices" (p. 33).

This article is aimed in that direction. In it, I describe three beginningteachers and their development as teachers, particularly with regards to the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

15:

18 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

76 Reading Research and Instruction Summer 2004, 43 (4)

development of their literacy instruction. I wanted to understand a) whatcharacterized their instruction throughout their beginning years of teaching andb) were they using the content from their literacy methods coursework?Additionally, as their former teacher for literacy methods courses, I wanted toreflect on and improve my own instruction in these methods courses.

Theoretical Framework

The benefits of preservice teacher education programs have longbeen questioned (Darling-Hammond & Sclan, 1996; Richardson, 1996;Weinstein, 1990). Criticisms include the need for more content knowledgeand lesson pedagogy (Grossman, 1990), the lack of changes in preserviceteachers' understandings about teaching (Weinstein, 1990), and little or noapplication of learning from the teacher education program (Darling-Hammond& Sclan, 1996).

Richardson (1996) reviewed relevant literature regarding changesattributed to preservice teacher education programs. After quoting numerousresearchers who found no change in preservice teachers beliefs about education,Richardson concluded:

Except for the student-teaching element, preservice teacher educationseems a weak intervention. It is sandwiched between two powerfulforces—previous life history, particularly that related to being astudent, and classroom experience as a student teacher and teacher(p. 113).

Not all researchers hold such a negative view of teacher educationcourses. In their review of teacher education, Anders, Hoffman, and Duffy(2000) posited that teacher education, specifically literacy education, at theundergraduate level does influence practice and philosophy of beginningteachers. Grossman, Valencia, Evans, Thompson, Martin, and Place (2000)conducted a longitudinal study of 10 beginning teachers, following them fromtheir last year of teacher preparation program into their first two years ofteaching. They found that the teachers did use many conceptual and practicaltools introduced to them in their undergraduate education courses. As Anders etal. (2000) posited,

The good news from these kinds of studies is that future teachers dolearn what they are taught. The bad news is that questions of long-termeffects and uses—and overall program impact on career developmentor on teaching effectiveness—have not been adequately addressed(p. 727).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

15:

18 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

Beginning Teachers 11

If one operates on the assumption that preservice teachers do learn fromtheir methods courses, what is taught in these methods courses is crucial. Weknow research suggests that preservice teachers base their initial readinginstruction on their personal literacy experiences (A. Duffy & Atkinson, 2001).When faced with challenges that confront their prior knowledge, preserviceteachers look to methods instructors to provide quick fixes and simple answers(Duffy & Hoffman, 1999; Roskos, Risko, & Vukelich, 1998). Research onteaching concludes that the best teachers are thoughtfully adaptive (Duffy,1993a) and that the most effective teacher education programs should provideopportunities for "creative responsiveness rather than technical compliance"(Anders et al, 2000, p. 732). Most teacher education programs operate on thesepremises, trying to offer a complex body of integrated instruction. Whatpreservice teachers take and retain is often more simplistic. Research suggeststhat what preservice teachers use from the teacher education programs are thosestrategies which are most easily and quickly implemented (A. Duffy &Atkinson, 2001; Heafner & Massey, 2004).

What preservice teachers are able to use in their classrooms is furtherinfluenced by accountability measures and high stakes testing. Initial studiessuggest that the impact of these high-pressure tests may be negative for teachers,as well as students (A. Duffy, 2003; White, Sturtevant, & Dunlap, 2003).Researchers are voicing numerous concerns regarding the actual outcomes ofthese tests (Valencia & Villarreal, 2003). Some of the "unintended outcomes"include narrowing of the curriculum to exclude science and social studies, lack ofauthentic instruction, and teacher attrition (A. Duffy, 2003; Jones, Jones, Hardin,Chapman, Yarbrough, & Davis, 1999). Within this testing environment, thereexists an increasing divide between what is taught in teacher education programsand what teachers are expected to do within their classrooms. While highereducation instructors often model and teach a balanced approach to literacyinstruction, relying on teachers as decision-makers (Donovan, 1999; Zeek &Wickstrom, 1999), K-12 schools are frequently looking for teacher compliance(Duffy, in press) to curricular and school-wide programs. As teacher educators,we can no longer ignore the impact of packaged curricula and mandated programsin such an environment. Instead, literacy educators must begin to bridge the gapbetween effective literacy instruction and high-stakes test preparation. Anders, etal. (2000) concluded, "We must commit our energies to studying our programs,our courses, our teaching, and our expectations and requirements. In short, itmeans consenting to be the subject of study ourselves" (p. 734).

Methods

This research followed three elementary school classroom teachers intotheir first and second years of teaching. Whitney, Darcy, and Paula were former

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

15:

18 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014


students in my language arts and reading methods courses, giving me a uniqueperspective into the content and modeling each received. Further, I had alsobeen the university supervisor during their student teaching.

BackgroundMy reading and language arts methods courses were based on a

balanced approach to literacy instruction (Duffy & Hoffman, 1999; Pearson &Raphael, 2003; Spiegel, 1998, 1999). I wanted to give my preservice teachers abackground in theory and application that allowed them to thoughtfully applymultiple strategies based on student needs. To do this, I modeled a variety ofstrategies, including language experience approaches to writing, multiplecomprehension strategies such as checking predictions and visualization, andtried to help them apply these strategies thoughtfully by including assessmentas an important part of the application of strategies. During both language artsand reading methods, my preservice teachers were asked to apply what I hadmodeled not only in their internship experiences, but also in the one-on-oneliteracy tutoring that I required as part of both courses.

ParticipantsThe three participants in this study were exemplary preservice

candidates. I selected these three teachers based on their academic performancein their undergraduate methods courses and their exemplary performance intheir internships and student teaching observed by myself, other university-based personnel, and their school-based teachers. In addition, all three of theseteachers were quite willing to have me come into their classroom as they begantheir teaching careers.

Table 1Description of Teachers

Whitney

Darcy

Paula

Year One

First gradeTitle I SchoolPhonics program and basalreaders

Second gradeTitle I SchoolSuccess for All readingprogram and prescriptivewriting programThird gradeTitle I SchoolGuided reading program andScott Foresman basalreaders

Year Two

Moves to a new grade andschool. Kindergarten in anupper-middle class school.Guided reading groups, but noguided reading library.

Same grade and schoolScott Foresman basal readersand prescriptive writing program

First gradeSame school as Year OneGuided reading program andScott Foresman basal readers

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

15:

18 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014


Grossman (1990) described the selection of exceptional participants asadvantageous when trying to unravel what methods courses can contribute tolearning to teach. By selecting the atypical participants, one can address thecommon concern that methods courses are unnecessary for contributing to theknowledge of pedagogy and content.

Each of the three beginning teachers was Caucasian, with similarbackgrounds. All were raised in two-parent middle to upper class homes. AHwere hired in Title I schools, the local area's designation for schools where morethan 85% of the students were on free and reduced lunch. All three schools weredesignated as magnet schools. This designation had a lot to do with the district'sattempts to integrate the schools. The schools designated themselves as ascience magnet or arts magnet school, usually with large federal and state grantsto fund the initiatives, in hopes of attracting a diverse population to the school.These magnet schools were commonly found in the low-wealth, subsidizedhousing sections of the towns. Racial composition of these schools was largelyminority, predominantly African American, followed by Hispanic immigrants.

Whitney was hired in such a school, known as a science magnet school.This school's reputation in the district was well-known as a "problem" schoolwhere teachers left as soon as they could transfer or quit. Whitney discoveredthat the school employed 36 teachers, 12 of whom were new to the schoolduring her first year. The year prior to Whitney's first year of teaching, onekindergarten class had five teachers within the year; and one fifth-grade classhad eight different teachers. Whitney was hired to teach first grade with 16students—8 boys, 8 girls. Of the 16 students, 1 girl was Caucasian, the otherswere African American. Whitney was asked to use a specific reading programwhich emphasized phonics and the use of basal readers. During Whitney'ssecond year of teaching, she asked for a transfer to a school that was not a TitleI school. This school was a brand-new school, with a population of mostlymiddle to upper class Caucasian.

Darcy began teaching second grade at an arts magnet school. Thisschool was situated in the oldest African-American, subsidized housing projectin the city. As part of their magnet program, students attended seven weeklyspecials classes, including music, computer music composition, dance, anddrama. The whole school grouped for reading, using Success For All (Slavin &Madden, n.d.). During this time, Darcy taught a specified level of readers. Asthe new teacher, she was given the lowest readers, which meant she had manyfirst grade students in her classroom, even though she taught second grade.Darcy's homeroom class was comprised of 16 students, mostly AfricanAmerican. Darcy continued in second grade at the same school during hersecond year of teaching.

Paula taught 3rd grade at a science magnet school. The schoolparticipated in a national grant that allowed them to offer several special

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

15:

18 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014


classes, including aeronautics. Paula had 18 students in her class. Paula's gradelevel grouped for reading instruction, so Paula sent many of her students to theother seven third grades. Assistants and specialist teachers were required to leadsmall reading groups during this time. Paula's reading group was comprised of5-10 students on similar levels, according to running records. Paula was givena basal reader and the accompanying workbooks, as well as leveled books,although as the year progressed, books were abandoned for test-preparatoryworksheets and leveled texts gave way to one text for every guided readinggroup in the third grade. Lessons were often planned among the third gradeteachers during their weekly planning meetings and every guided reading groupleader taught from the same plan. During the second year of teaching, Paulaasked to be moved to a first grade classroom within the same school.

ContextIt is important to document the context of my ongoing interaction with

these three teachers. When I initially contacted them, I began by explaining theresearch project that I wanted to do and why I had chosen them. In essence, Itold them that I wanted to document their journeys. Further, I wanted them tohelp me reflect on my own teaching of the methods courses and improve thecontent and practices to better meet beginning teachers' needs. When I firstentered their classrooms, I asked that they put me to work doing whatever theyneeded done—filing papers, grading, or working with individual students.

Data SourcesData sources included initial and ongoing interviews, classroom

observations, teacher lesson plans, field notes, and informal conversations andemails. I visited each class a total of six times during the first year and a totalof five visits during year two. During the first visits of each year, I spent mostof the morning in these classrooms, getting a feel for the classroom routines. Asthe year progressed and I began seeing the same things, I usually stayed for theliteracy instruction block only, which lasted about 90 minutes. In addition, Iconducted interviews at the beginning and end of both years (see Appendix A).During the two years, I often emailed or phoned each teacher to see how eachwas doing, if there were any special events that required volunteers, andgenerally to provide encouragement.

Data AnalysisData analysis occurred in six phases. In Phase I, informal analysis, I

took field notes, reflected on interview and classroom observation transcripts,and discussed the information informally with colleagues knowledgeable aboutthe context in order to fully ground my role as researcher and participant in theparticipants' classrooms (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000). Within this phase, I used

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

15:

18 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014


constant-comparative methodologies (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) to create andbuild grounded theory. In Phase II, initial coding, I coded the data, writinganalytical and methodological memos on the data sources. Some of the initialcodes included: "Appeals for help (Ap)," "Evidence of coursework (C),""Management (Mg)," "Mandated curricular influences (CI)," and "Facultyinfluences (FI)."

In Phase III, initial category creation, I used the memos to discover thepotential categories that emerged from the data. Initial categories included"Abandoning teacher education content," "The power of accountability," and"Worksheets, worksheets." Some of the initial categories included collapsingthe codes such as Mandated curricular influences (CI) and faculty influences(FI) into the broader category of "Influences on Instruction." This category Ilater retitled, "Accepting the curricula: 'I just do what they tell me'" to includethe teachers actual comments. In Phase IV, category confirmation, Idocumented positive and negative cases within each of the categories (Patton,1990), and reworded or discarded categories as necessary based on the resultsof the confirmation process. I considered an item to be a category if it wasevident in multiple data sources across the two years. In Phase VI, memberchecking, I asked Whitney, Paula, and Darcy to consider and comment on thecategories I had listed as results. Paula offered some further clarification ofschool policy and student background, but no changes were made to thecategories. In addition, transcripts and data analysis were discussed with acolleague who was familiar with the university preservice teaching program andarea schools in order to increase reliability.

Results

After creating initial categories as part of data analysis, I began to see that thethree teachers' approach to instruction developed in similar patterns. Forexample, they all struggled with mandated curriculum and felt overwhelmed bytrying to learn and use all of the curricula. This certainly existed at the start ofthe first and second years, as well as at times during the school years when newprograms were introduced. Common to all three of the teachers was a secondpattern—they each went through periods of abandoning the curricula in favor ofcreating their own plans. Third, they all asked me to teach for them, while theywatched. This development was not linear, which is why I do not describe theresults in terms of stages. Rather, I use the term "phases" to describe therecursive nature of their instruction and instructional influences. They wouldenter one phase, move to the second phase, then go back to trying to use all ofthe curricula given to them by the school again. (Interview excerpts inAppendix B offer anecdotal record of the following phases.) Conclusions andimplications will be considered in the discussion section.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

15:

18 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014


Phase I: Accepting the Curricula, "I just do what they tell me"All three of the beginning teachers were faced with mountains of

curriculum that they were asked to learn quickly and implement. For example,Whitney's school was using a literacy program that emphasized phonicsinstruction. In addition, they used a basal reader and workbooks. Whitney spentthree afternoons and evenings, plus one Saturday during the first month ofschool being trained to incorporate this literacy program. The school literacyfacilitator came to visit Whitney's class frequently in the first months,criticizing Whitney when the basal workbooks were not being used.

Darcy's school used Success For All and an intensive writingcurriculum. Darcy's first months of school were spent learning these specificcurricula and navigating her own implementation of these programs.Interestingly enough, she became so accustomed to having the curricula, thatshe began looking for and asking for other curricula programs, including agrammar program and a social studies program.

Paula seemed the most overwhelmed by the curriculum, in part becauseof the increased stress of high-stakes testing that began in her grade level.Administrators and other teachers emphasized preparing for tests over and over.Paula told me early in the year, "I do what they tell me. I'd like to use more ofmy coursework, but I just don't have time." Even in November, Paula told me,"I think I'm staying away from being creative this year . . . "I don't want to lose,control and if I'm creative, I'm afraid I will [lose control]. I rely more on whatothers tell me."

When overwhelmed by the curricula, these teachers tried to cover thecontent. They put as many worksheets, books, and activities into their dailyroutines as they could manage. They also sent home more worksheets andhomework than when they were not trying to fit in all of the required andsuggested material.

Phase Two: Rejecting the Curricula, "I Won't Teach That!"Whitney and Darcy were first to begin to add their ideas to the

mandated curricula, or to try their own thing completely. Whitney and Darcyalso had fewer problems with classroom discipline than Paula, providing themwith more time to focus on planning and instruction. Whitney abandoned doingthe workbooks that accompanied the basais by November, in spite of continualpressure to comply with the other teachers. At certain points over the next year,and again as she moved to a new school during her second year of teaching, sherelied heavily on what others told her, but Whitney was unique in herwillingness to stray from what others wanted her to do.

During her second year of teaching, a veteran teacher told Whitney thatshe needed to be quiet and comply or she would get fired. In fact, Whitney'sprincipal told her that she had until spring to prove herself. The principal

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

15:

18 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014


assured Whitney that she would be under close scrutiny. Whitney refused to beintimidated or to teach what she thought was inappropriate. For example, thekindergarteners she taught during her second year were supposed to be readinga guided reading level text of 3-4 by the end of the second quarter. Whitney hadseveral students who did not even know the letter sounds, so Whitney continuedteaching sounds and working at the reading levels of the students based on herrunning records. Other Kindergarten teachers were teaching students tomemorize a level 3-4 so that students would be "on track," but Whitney refused,saying, "I know what my kids need." When I asked how she knew, she said,"It's everything I learned from you and the cooperating teacher that I taughtwith." In methods, I had shown them how to take running records. Further, I hadrequired a tutoring project as part of learning to identify students' needs anddesign instruction. Student teaching had been an extension of matchinginstruction to needs, and Whitney felt comfortable in her ability to teachreading. When asked if the threat of her principal bothered her, she answered,"I can always go back to where I was my first year. They'd take me back in aheartbeat." Thus, Whitney seem to gain a great deal of confidence from havingsurvived a difficult first year.

Just as Whitney, Darcy quickly began to add to the curricula given toher. She did not feel that her students were getting enough reading from Successfor All, so in September of her first year she purchased chapter books with herown money and began literature circles with her second graders. This was anidea that she had seen me model in reading methods and had implemented onher own during her student teaching. This carried over into her first year ofteaching and she continued using some literature circles throughout her first andsecond years of teaching, even when no one else in her school used literaturecircles and when she had to purchase her own books. By November of her firstyear, she was creating her own spelling curriculum to supplement the readingand writing programs in place.

Paula also tried to vary from the established curricula and implementher own ideas, ideas that were easily traced to her literacy methods courses.Within the first month of teaching, Paula introduced Writer's Workshop(Atwell, 1998) into her classroom, as she did in her student teaching. Both Paulaand her students told me that they loved this type of writing. School-wide,students were expected to respond to constructed writing prompts, following atypical formula for all writing. Despite her students' positive reaction, Paula didnot maintain the Writer's Workshop because of the pressure to accomplish allthe test-practice procedures. Beginning before Christmas break and lastingthrough mid-February, there was another push for instructional independence.She began experimenting with her own ideas, of strictly following the providedcurricula. She started leaving out some of the worksheets and workbook pagesthat came with the basal series. "I'm just not doing it," she told me when I

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

15:

18 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014


asked. Instead, she wanted to work in science and social studies, two areas thatwere frequently omitted in the grade-level instruction because they were nottested on the annual tests. "My kids love it!" she told me as she showed mesome of the work she and her students were doing for their science unit on themoon and sun. During the time when Paula varied from the curricula others setout for her, she demonstrated and expressed her greatest contentment with herstudents and her school. However, this was the shortest of the three phases inPaula's teaching.

Phase Three: Appeals for help, "You teach forme"Darcy was the first of the three teachers to appeal for help. Darcy

struggled with confidence in her instructional ability throughout herundergraduate program. In an early internship, she worried that she couldn't doupper level math. Later, she asked me to help her with her own grammar. Herself-doubts continued into her beginning teaching. She commented to me, "Ifeel like I don't get enough reading time in." She was frustrated with theSuccess for All, commenting that even when students couldn't read the story,they were asked to go on to harder stories. "The other thing I hate is it is soooooboring. I mean, I probably yawn at least four times in an hour."

On my first visit to her classroom during the first year, Darcy asked meto teach a reading lesson, which she watched voluntarily. Soon, Darcy asked meto teach again. She was struggling with a student who had severe behaviorproblems. "Dixie, this student is going to make me quit my job and stopteaching!" As she asked me to teach, she realized that I also had trouble withthis student's behavior. This was resolved only when the student moved inApril. At that point, Darcy did not ask me to teach any more during that year orduring the second year. She always had me work with students in my successivevisits, but she never asked me to teach the whole class while she watched again.She did continue to call and ask for specific instructional ideas. For example, atthe end of her second year of teaching, Darcy called me and asked, "What canI teach kids to help them with their spelling? I've taught the sneaky e rules;what else should I do?" She also continued to question how well she was doing,but having dealt with the behavior of a troubling student, even with anunresolved ending, seemed to help her feel that she could survive anything.

Whitney was the next to appeal for my help. In the first month, sheasked for ideas for centers. Following Christmas break, Whitney asked if Iwould conduct a read aloud. During the next visit, she asked me to teach ateacher-directed lesson. Review of field notes and interview transcripts showthat these requests happened following particular criticism from the literacyfacilitator during Whitney's first year. In the second year, Whitney again askedme to teach a lesson. This followed the principal's challenge for Whitney toprove herself.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

15:

18 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014


Because she was in a third grade classroom, Paula had the mostpressure to help her students pass the end-of-grade reading and math tests.Paula's principal required school-mandated test preparation every day. Paulacalled me, bemoaning her lack of planning freedom. "Every reading group doesthe same thing. It's not fun." She also began discussing transferring to a lowergrade within the school, hoping that first or second grade would allow her moreplanning freedom because they were not required to take the end-of-grade tests.As I walked in one March morning, she met me at the door. "I've had it; youteach for me. Here's what you can use," she said, as she handed me her scheduleand a stack of worksheets and overheads, copied by the school assistants for allof the third grade teachers. As the reading groups returned to their regularclassrooms, Paula stepped back as if to say, "Keep teaching." The next part ofthe morning was whole group reading. The school was so concerned aboutraising test scores through test practice, they had copied the practice test fromthe third quarter and made overheads of each page. Students did not have a copythat they could read. Instead, they were expected to read the overhead. No carehad been taken to make the overhead large enough to read. During all of myteaching, Paula sat in the back of the room and watched. Because of herseeming interest, I went back to her at each chance and explained what I wasdoing, using such phrases as, "Here's why I'm doing this;" "Here's how it canbe used when they have to take the test;" and "Remember this from our readingmethods?" When the students left for lunch, Paula said to me, "It helpswatching you. We never watched you actually teach kids."

Discussion and Implications

In discussing the nature of the beginning teachers' classroominstruction, it is important to note that though distinct phases seemed to exist intheir teaching, they did not progress through specific stages in a linear fashion.Rather, their progression through the phases may be better described in terms ofthe swinging pendulum pattern. That is, they swung from accepting thecurricula to rejecting the curricula and back to accepting the curricula. Theirappeals for my help followed their acceptance of the curricula-whether bychoice, by school policy, or based on some other Stressor in their classroom. Forexample, Paula fluctuated between trying to utilize all of the curriculum guidesprovided by her school district and ignoring most of the guides in favor of herown units. Following the greatest stress to comply with the curricula (duringtest preparation), she asked me to teach for her. While most veteran teachersdemonstrate a delicate balancing of mandated programs and their owninnovations, these beginning teachers swung between the two extremes withouta sense of balance. Evidence of this pattern is seen in the interview excerptsincluded in the Appendix B.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

15:

18 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014


While there is a need for further research to confirm and extend thesefindings, I focus on three critical areas as implications for teacher education.First, at what point were the teachers able to use teacher education content?Second, what brought on the fluctuation between rejecting and accepting thecurricula? And finally, what was the influence of my presence and modeling inthe classroom?

These teachers did evidence instructional approaches and strategies thatI had modeled in the methods courses, including centers, writer's workshop,and specific comprehension strategies. The point at which they implementedthe most from their teacher education courses is important to note, for itoccurred when these teachers were in the phase of rejecting the curriculumprovided for them. While it may be tempting to focus on the fact that they diduse what they learned in methods, the broader picture is that their application ofthe methods course instruction was limited in scope; that is, they could notintegrate such things as comprehension strategy instruction into an alreadyexisting curriculum. In order for them to use what they learned, all threeteachers had to abandon the curricula that they were provided with, whichincreased the pressure from other teachers and administrators to comply withthe school programs. This suggests that teacher educators should pay carefulattention to how we use packaged curricula in methods courses. Rather thanrejecting packaged curricula, we should explore packaged curricula, offeringteachers concrete ways of adapting and adding to such curricula(Grossman et al., 2001).

What moved them from accepting the curricula to rejecting thecurricula? They did not experience changes at a similar pace. In fact, theirsuccession through the phases occurred at vastly different times from eachother. Thus, "regular" development of beginning teachers cannot account forthe changes. What was common to all three teachers was the type of events thatpushed them back into the mode of accepting all of the curriculum given tothem. The fluctuation back to this phase was brought on by some Stressor intheir environment. Whitney experienced the stress of being watched by aliteracy facilitator urging curricular compliance during her first year and thethreats made by her principal during her second year. For Darcy, the Stressor atthe beginning was her insecurity with teaching. That was the point where shewanted my confirmation and modeling to assure her and give her new ideas.Later in the year, she struggled with a student with severe behavioral problemsand an unsupportive parent. Paula found test preparation to be an ongoingStressor during her first year, while ongoing assessments proved to be equallyas stressing in her second year. At different times, the Stressor was a studentwith severe behavioral problems, an inservice that resulted in a new programthat was policed in some way by the school, or a high-stakes test. As theyanticipated or experienced the full effect of the Stressor, they resorted to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

15:

18 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014


curriculum that complied with school environment. Once the immediacy andemotional toil of the Stressor had worn off, the teachers often expressedfrustration at their lack of autonomy over their classroom and at the inability toimplement things they learned in their undergraduate courses and internshipexperiences. This sense of dissonance can be a positive influence, pushingteachers to reflect on their own practice and to consider change (Weinstein,1990). However, such internal discord may be resolved through compliancewith mandates and taking the path of least resistance.

What about my influence in these beginning teachers' classrooms?What impact did their appeals for help and my modeling have on fluctuationbetween rejecting and accepting the curricula? Once the beginning teacherswere well into the difficulties brought on by the Stressor and the pressure oftrying to teach mandated curricula, they began to appeal to me for help. Inessence, they seemed to use me as a balancing feature for their instructionalpractices. In looking at Paula, Whitney, and Darcy, my presence seemed toencourage them and remind them to recall teacher education content. Further,they all stated that they benefited from having me come into their classroomswith their students and teach lessons. I need to make it clear that I do notconsider my modeled lessons my best teaching. They were often spur-of-the-moment, brought about not by advance invitation but by a sense of desperationfrom these three teachers. Thus, I did not have time to prepare. Their studentsknew me but were certainly willing to test me and my discipline approaches.Somehow, this seemed to give the lesson more authenticity with the beginningteachers. They saw me now as someone who was participating with them in thegeneral chaos of teaching. However, I was able to make explicit thoseconnections between their context and the content of the methods courses.While each of them said they felt supported by other teachers and theadministration in their school, they did not feel free to discuss too many of theirproblems, for as Whitney said, "Who wants to tell their principal that they don'tknow what to do?"

This gives rise several suggestions for teacher educators. First, we areresponsible to research our own effectiveness in specific ways. The results fromWhitney, Darcy, and Paula had a direct impact on my own instruction of readingand language arts methods. In addition to being purposeful about what I model,I emphasize that my teaching is about problem-solving and decision making.With the models, we talk about when that model might be important to use andhow it could be changed for different grades and different content. I becamemore explicit about the potential difficulties facing beginning teachers. Ratherthan rejecting packaged curricula, we explored packaged curricula, anddiscussed concrete ways of adapting and adding to such curricula (Grossman,et al., 2001). For my own classes, I have made a concentrated effort to includemore curriculum review and be explicit about how the same comprehension

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

15:

18 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014


strategies can be used with reading basais, trade books, and even test passages.I also began talking about my visits to the beginning teachers, discussing thechallenges and joys they were facing. I often brought in some of the curriculumthat the beginning teachers were being asked/required to use and asked mypreservice teachers to design a lesson integrating strategies we discussed inclass with the mandated programs.

Second, university personnel and school administration alike must lookat ways of supporting beginning teachers. Long term support has proved to beparticularly powerful for new teachers (Swan, 2004). However, it is not justabout providing support, because the three teachers of this study all stated thatthey felt "supported" by a variety of peers and administration. What is neededis not just support, but support at crucial points—those points when theStressors are most prevalent. Some of these Stressors can be predicted. Asuniversity educators, we often know in advance when schools begin newprescriptive programs or when test preparation will begin in earnest. These arekey times for monitoring and intervention with beginning teachers. Not all ofthese Stressors can be predicted, which makes continued contact essential inhelping beginning teachers survive and learn to balance the "all or nothing"approach to utilizing teacher education content. As I explored the dynamics ofclassroom instruction for these three teachers, I also stumbled into the messy,but powerful, part of teaching in their classrooms—not the well planned outlessons I modeled in methods classes. These were the lessons where they sawmy own shortcomings as a teacher.

Third, we must take a longitudinal look at beginning teachers—fromthe preservice level through the first years of teaching (Pearson, 2001; Roller,2001). Our work is not done at graduation. Helping beginning teachers connectcontent and classroom context requires ongoing participation. This is timeconsuming. Out of a group of 24 students in one methods course, I observedonly these 3. That did not account for the classes I taught and supervised in eachof the successive semesters. The answer many researchers adopt is to shortenthe intervention time and the explicit links back to methods course content.They design the methods courses separate from what beginning teachers areexperiencing. Any follow-up with beginning teachers is often done in a one-shot survey format. This provides a plethora of data, but is limited in scope. Atany one point of contact with these 3 teachers, I could have concluded that theywere using all of the content from their literacy methods courses or rejecting allof the methods course content. As researchers, we must avoid the simplistic,and often incorrect, description of beginning teachers based on short-termportraits.

The problem is that we as teacher educators have fallen into the trap oflooking for the panacea, the same action we criticize in K-12 programs. In oursearch for the right answer, we often neglect doing what we can. We restructure

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

15:

18 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014


teacher education courses, and rightly so, but we may neglect to note thatpowerful learning comes after the undergraduate teacher education courseswhen university educators and teachers work collaboratively (Duffy, 1993a,1993b). This point in teacher learning forms the training ground for helpingteachers move beyond technical, narrow responses and become problem-solvers. It also provides an important opportunity for ongoing learning for us asteacher educators. The effectiveness of such collaboration and the long-termimpact and effectiveness of initial and ongoing teacher education will remain acrucial issue for ongoing research in the years to come.

References

Anders, P. L., Hoffman, J. V., & Duffy, G. G. (2000). Teaching teachers to teachreading: Paradigm shifts, persistent problems and challenges. In M. Kamil,P. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of ReadingResearch, Vol. III (pp. 719-742). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Atwell, N. (1998). In the middle (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Block, C. C., Oakar, M., & Hurt, N. (2002). The expertise of literacy teachers:

A continuum from preschool to Grade 5. Reading Research Quarterly, 37,178-206.

Darling-Hammond, L., & Sclan, E. M. (1996). Who teaches and why:Dilemmas of building a profession for twenty-first century schools. In J.Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teacher Education (pp. 102-115).New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). Introduction: The discipline andpractice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.),Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.), (pp. 1-36). Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Donovan, C. (1999). Learning to teach reading/language arts: Considering theimpact of experience on understanding. In T. Shanahan & F. V. Rodriguez-Brown (Eds.), National Reading Conference Yearbook 48 (pp. 451-465).Chicago: National Reading Conference.

Duffy, A. M. (2003). Responding to the rhetoric: Perspectives on readinginstruction. The Reading Teacher, 56 (7), 684-686.

Duffy, A., M. & Atkinson, T. (2001). Learning to teach struggling (and non-struggling) elementary school readers: An analysis of preservice teachers'knowledges. Reading Research & Instruction, 41(1), 83-102.

Duffy, G. G. (1993a). Rethinking strategy instruction: Four teachers'development and their low achievers' understandings. The ElementarySchool Journal, 93 (3), 231-247.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

15:

18 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014


Duffy, G. G. (1993b). Teachers' progress toward becoming expert strategyteachers. The Elementary School Journal, 94 (2), 109-120.

Duffy, G. G. (In Press). Developing adaptive reading teachers: Metacognition,visioning, and the expert's changing role. In C. Block, S. Israel, K.Kinnucan Welsch, & K. Bauserman (Eds.), Metacognition and literacylearning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Duffy, G. G., & Hoffman, J. V. (1999). In pursuit of an illusion: The flawedsearch for a perfect method. The Reading Teacher, 53(1), 10-16.

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategiesfor qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.

Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge andteacher education. NY: Teacher's College Press.

Grossman, P., Valencia, S. W., Evans, K., Thompson, C., Martin, S., & Place,N. (2000). Transitions into teaching: Learning to teach writing in teachereducation and beyond. Journal of Literacy Research, 32(4), 631-662.

Heafner, T. L., & Massey, D. D. (2004). Beginning teachers and collaboration.Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association'sAnnual Conference, San Diego, CA.

Hoffman, J. V., Roller, C. M., & the National Commission of Excellence inElementary Teacher Preparation for Reading Instruction (2001). The IRAExcellence in Reading Teacher Preparation Commission's report: Currentpractices in reading teacher education at the undergraduate level in the UnitedStates. In C. M. Roller (Ed.), Learning to teach reading: Setting the researchagenda (pp. 32-79). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Jones, M. G., Jones, B. D., Hardin, B., Chapman, L., Yarbrough, T., & Davis,M. (1999). The impact of high-stakes testing on teachers and students inNorth Carolina. Phi Delta Kappan, 81, 199-203.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.).Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Pearson, P. D. (2001). Learning to teach reading: The status of the knowledgebase. In C. M. Roller (Ed.), Learning to teach reading: Setting the researchagenda (pp. 4 - 19). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Pearson, P. D., & Raphael, T. E. (2003). Toward an more complex view ofbalance in the literacy curriculum. In L. B. Gambrell, L. M. Morrow, S. B.Neuman, & M. Pressley (Eds.), Best practices in literacy instruction (2nded.), (pp. 23-42). New York: Guilford Publications.

Pressley, M., Allington, R., Wharton-McDonald, R., Block, C. C, & Morrow,L. M., (2001). Learning to read: Lessons from exemplary first-gradeclassrooms. NY: Guilford Publications.

Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. InJ. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teacher Education (pp. 102-115).New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

15:

18 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014


Roller, C. M. (2001). A proposed research agenda for teacher preparation onreading. In C. M. Roller, (Ed.), Learning to teach reading: Setting theresearch agenda, (pp. 198-206). Newark, DE: International ReadingAssociation.

Roskos, K., Vukelich, C , & Risko, V. (2001). Reflection and learning to teachreading: A critical review of literacy and general teacher education studies.Journal of Literacy Research, 33 (4), 595-635.

Slavin, R., & Madden, N. (n.d.) Success for All. Retrieved August 31, 2004from http://www.successforal.net

Spiegel, D. L. (1998). Silver bullets, babies, and bath water: Literatureresponse groups in a balanced literacy program. The Reading Teacher, 52 (2),114-124.

Spiegel, D. L. (1999). The perspective of the balanced approach. In S. M.Blair-Larsen & K. A. Williams, (Eds.), The balanced reading program:Helping all students achieve success (pp. 8-23). Newark, DE: InternationalReading Association.

Swan, A. (2003). Effective professional development: Tell me and I will hear;show me and I will see; support me and I will evolve. In M. B. Sampson, P.E. Linder, J R. Dugan, & B. Brancato (Eds.), Celebrating the freedom ofliteracy, 25th College Reading Association Yearbook (pp. 239-250).Commerce, TX: College Reading Association.

Valencia, R. R., & Villarreal, B. J. (2003). Improving students' readingperformance via standards-based school reform: A critique. The ReadingTeacher, 56 (7), 612-621.

Weinstein, C. S. (1990). Prospective elementary teachers' beliefs aboutteaching: Implications for teacher education. Teaching and TeacherEducation, 6 (3), 279-290.

White, C. S., Sturtevant, E. G., & Dunlap, K. L. (2003). Preservice andinservice teachers' perceptions of the influence of high-stakes tests on theirliteracy-related instructional beliefs and decisions. Reading Research andInstruction, 42, 39-61.

Zeek, C , & Wickstrom, C. (1999). The making of a teacher: The influence ofpersonal literacy development on students' current teaching practices. In T.Shanahan, & F. V. Rodriguez-Brown (Eds.), National Reading ConferenceYearbook, 48 (pp. 478-490). Chicago: National Reading Conference.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

15:

18 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014


Appendix AInitial Interview Questions

1. Tell me about your school.

2. Tell me about the students in your classroom. (Prompt with the literacyneeds of students in the classroom, if needed)

3. Tell me about how you teach reading and writing in your classroom. Arethere specific programs used? Do you change or adapt those programs?Why?

4. Is this how you wanted your literacy instruction to be? What would youhave changed?

5. Does this literacy instruction meet the needs of all of your students?

6. How does you school help teachers and students prepare for tests?

7. What are your greatest influences in planning for your literacy instruction?

8. Looking back on your literacy coursework, what was most helpful? Why?

9. What from your literacy coursework haven't you used so far that youthought you would/wanted to use? Why?

10. How can I as a teacher educator support preservice teachers? Support firstyear teachers?

Final Interview Questions: (These questions were asked in addition to askingthe initial interview questions again.)

11. What do you hope to do differently next year?

12. Have you done anything differently as a result of my being in yourclassroom?

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

15:

18 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

Example A


Appendix B

Excerpts from Initial Interview with Paula, Year One(Is this how you wanted your literacy instruction to be?)No, I am doing what they tell me.(Was your coursework helpful?)Coursework was helpful- if I could use it. There's just not enough time. I haveused a lot of reading strategies that you taught us. I'm trying to use a variety ofstrategies so they see different ways of reading and writing. Science and SocialStudies I just don't get to.(How could I have better prepared you for your first year of teaching literacy?)Nothing really except memorize the Standard Course of Study for the state.Reading has so many objectives. But what's really tough is things likemanagement, transitions, reality of things. Maybe you could give more ofreality- school environment was a surprise—record keeping, programs—everything is so demanding. It would also be helpful to see more programs thatare used in different schools.

Example B

Excerpts from Final Interview with Darcy, Year One

(Tell me about your literacy instruction.)Success For All is out now, because of scheduling. We'll use a basal next year.

I didn't do the writing curriculum they gave me, I had to adapt my expectationsin writing. I modeled for them, then they wrote their own stories. I made up myown spelling words and lessons. I still don't know how to do centers [She laterasked me for ideas].

(What was most helpful from your methods coursework?)Activities were helpful, as well as when you demonstrated lessons. We were justlike kids; we need hands on.

(How could I better prepare you for your literacy instruction?)Teach us where to get spelling words if we don't have a curriculum.

Example C

Excerpts from Initial Interview with Whitney, Year Two

(Tell me about your literacy instruction.)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

15:

18 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014


The principal wants everyone reading at a level 15/16 by the end ofKindergarten. My other grade level teammates send home four to fiveworksheets a night. I send home one each night that they can do by themselves.I'm still teaching the alphabet. One of my grade level teammates stoppedteaching the letters at "h" so that she could teach word families. I'm only on theletter "O" and I'm not teaching word families yet because they need to knowthe sounds first. I do five words a week and last week (first week of October)we wrote our first sentence. I'm a good teacher, but I feel that the bar is set sohigh, my kids will never get there. I'm following what my supervising teacherduring student teaching did. There's no guided reading library in the school, soI ordered Scholastic books. I guess I'm going to create my own [guided readinglibrary].

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

15:

18 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

Documents

“You teach!” beginning teachers’ challenges to teacher educators