Hollingsworth - Prior Beliefs and Cogntive Change in Learning To Teach

Prior Beliefs and Cognitive Change in Learning to Teach
Sandra Hollingsworth
American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 26, No. 2. (Summer, 1989), pp. 160-189.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8312%28198922%2926%3A2%3C160%3APBACCI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-D
American Educational Research Journal is currently published by American Educational Research Association.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained
prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in
the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/journals/aera.html.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academic
journals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers,
and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community take
advantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
http://www.jstor.org
Thu Jan 3 08:03:14 2008
American Educational Research Journal
Summer 1989, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 160-189
Prior Beliefs and Cognitive Change in Learning to

Teach
University of California, Berkeley
This is a report of the first year of a longitudinal study to investigate

changes in presewice teachers' knowledge and beliefs about reading in-
struction before, during, and after a fifth-year teacher education program.
In particular, changes in global preprogram beliefs about education, teach-
ing, and learning were traced as presewice teachers acquired specific
knowledge of how to manage, assess, and instructionallyfacilitate students'
learning through text. Researchers interviewed and observed 14 elementary
and secondary presewice teachers as they entered the teacher education
program, attended reading classes at the university, then taught reading
in school classrooms. These qualitative data were analyzed to determine
(a) the patterns of intellectual change from novice presewice teacher to
beginning classroom teacher; (b) the personal, program, and contextual
influences or constraints on that change; (c) the role of the cooperating
teacher and university supervisor in supporting intellectual change; and (4
the nature ofprior beliefs on identity maintenance while learning. Findings
include the importance of understanding presewice teachers' prior beliefs
to inform supervision and university course design, the value of cognitive
dissonance in practice teaching contexts, the need to routinize classroom
management knowledge before attending to subject-specificpedagogy, and
the importance of the academic task as part of the teaching knowledge
base.
"It's easy to describe what a good teacher does, but helping a student
teacher learn to become a good teacher is another thing again!" (Mrs.
Drew, Cooperating Teacher). This paper was written to help Mrs. Drew
and other preservice teacher educators better understand the preparation
Funding for this work was partially provided by the SUPER project: School-
University Partnership for Educational Renewal, University of California, Berkeley
and by the Ofice of Educational Research and Improvement/Department of
Education Grant No. 6008720227.
Prior Beliefs and Cognitive Change
of future teachers. It is clear that we don't really know enough about

structuring preservice programs. That is, even given a current plethora of
suggestions for doing so (cf. Carnegie Task Force, 1986; Holmes Group,
1986), we've much to learn about preparing new teachers to professionally
handle the complexities of unknown classrooms. The research questions
needed to inform our thinking must go beyond content and structural
issues in teacher education program design to examine the underlying
program values, role relationships, and other factors that affect learning to
teach (Hoffman, 1986). In particular, it seems we must know more about
cognitive changes in the preservice and early teaching years. We should
also find out how a teacher education program influences its candidates'
thinking so that they refine global preprogram ideas about teaching and
classrooms to specific knowledge of pupils' learning of particular concepts
in particular contexts.
The research reported here represents one beginning attempt to wholis-
tically and systematically look at intellectual changes while learning to
teach. By presenting a dynamic picture of Mrs. Drew's preservice teacher
(and 13 others) during a fifth year multiple level credential program at the
University of California, Berkeley, I hope to raise questions and suggest
possible answers about how those beginning teachers cognitively adapted
to the culture of the teacher education program, to specific school contexts,
and to the societal institution of schooling, while simultaneously remaining
true to their own socially or culturally defined beliefs. To accomplish these
goals, our research team developed baseline profiles of prior knowledge
and beliefs about teaching and learning, then attempted to isolate specific
program, personal, and contextual influences that encouraged or inhibited
changes in preprogram beliefs. Our purpose was to increase our theoretical
and applied knowledge of teacher education by better understanding the
nature of intellectual growth and identity maintenance while learning to
teach and by delineating effective and suggested teacher education program
elements.
Influences on Learning to Teach
In order to organize and interpret our descriptive data we reviewed three
areas in the literature: (a) the effect of prior knowledge and beliefs on
knowledge acquisition, (b) program design to foster knowledge acquisition,
and (c) knowledge bases of teaching. These areas-used to formulate
research questions, interview formats, and observational foci-are briefly
outlined here.
We know that students come to any learning situation with previously
constructed ideas-or knowledge and beliefs-that help make sense of new
information (cf. Schallert, 1982). Students entering teacher education
programs, for example, have definite ideas about teaching and learning,
although their ideas cannot always be articulated (Lortie, 1975; Zeichner
& Liston, 1987). That is, teaching candidates begin with loosely formulated
philosophies of education that personally explain what teachers do and
how children learn in classrooms (Buchmann & Schwille, 1983). These
perspectives serve as culturally based filters to help make sense of the
program content, their roles as student teachers, their observations of
classrooms at work, and their translation of program content into teaching/
learning activities in classrooms (Hollingsworth, 1986; Nespor, 1985).
Teacher education programs are traditionally designed in a manner that
capitalizes on preexisting knowledge of what schools and classrooms are
like, thereby ensuring that preservice teachers turn out to be very much
like the existing teaching force. The most predominant model of teacher
education takes on an apprenticeship structure, where preservice teachers
learn the dominant curriculum in the public schools (Zeichner & Tabach-
nick, 1981) and the pedagogical methods of teaching that cuniculum as
apprentices in existing teachers' classrooms. Both the curriculum and the
methods tend to closely resemble the preservice teachers' educational
backgrounds. Those that differ appear to be washed out in the real world
of the classroom (Lortie, 1975).
There is, however, some evidence that inservice teachers can learn new
theories and methods that supplant traditional cuniculum (Guskey, 1986;
Hollingsworth, 1986; Joyce & Showers, 1982) and even that a few pre-
service teachers do so in field-based programs (Hollingsworth, 1988; She-
felbine & Hollingsworth, 1987). Those who do appear to learn both
managerial and subject matter routines have a metacognitive ability to use
that knowledge flexibly when the context varies, and when they are coached
by informed supervisors. The question remains: What conditions exist
within a given program to foster such learning contexts, and how can they
be extended to reach more than a few preservice teachers?
A related question to program structure is program content. What should
new teachers learn? What knowledge of teaching is prerequisite to subse-
quent learning? Although a definitive knowledge base for teaching does
not yet exist (Richardson-Koehler, 1987; Shulman, 1986), there appear to
be at least three overlapping areas that comprise teaching knowledge bases:
(a) subject matter-both content and subject-specific pedagogy, (b) general
pedagogy or management and instruction, and (c) the ecology of learning
in classrooms.
Subject Pedagogy
It seems obvious that teachers must know both the content of the subjects
that they will teach and how to translate that content to students. Shulman
and his associates (cf. Shulman, 1986; Wilson, Shulman, & Richert, 1987)
have written extensively about the importance of pedagogical content
knowledge in learning to teach. What is not obvious, though, is what
content and pedagogy subject area teachers should know, nor how and
162
when that content might be presented to preservice teachers in their

programs so that they can most effectively learn to translate it to students
with varying learning backgrounds. The how and when questions are
specifically addressed in this paper.
Management and Instruction

Across subject areas, new teachers must also learn general pedagogical
knowledge such as organizing and managing the classroom environment.
Attention to management occupies so much of teachers' concerns, in fact,
that it tends to drive how the subject matter is presented and even what
pupils learn (Doyle, 1986). Thus, suficiently learning pedagogical or
organizational routines to be able to adapt those routines to varying content
and contexts appears to be necessary for successful teaching of academic
content in classrooms (Rosenshine, 1987; Wilson, Shulman, & Richert,
1987). How teachers learn pedagogical routines in preservice programs,
however, is not clear.
The Ecology of Learning in Classrooms

Beyond knowledge of the subject and pedagogy of teaching and man-
aging students, teachers need to know how pupils learn in classrooms.
That is, teachers must comprehensively understand both theories of knowl-
edge acquisition and the social nature of learning in classrooms to define
and clarify their roles as teachers. Further, skilled teachers know how to
merge knowledge of human learning, subject, and pedagogy into specific
academic tasks. As yet an unacknowledged part of the teaching knowledge
base, the convergence of these areas in academic tasks appears to be so
central to an understanding of the complexity of teaching and learning in
classrooms that it requires some explanation here.
An academic task is a theoretical construct "defined by the answers
students are required to produce and the routes that can be used to obtain
those answers" (Doyle, 1983, p. 161). Tasks, in other words, designate
situational structures that organize and direct both thought and action in
the classroom by defining the goals of the task, as well as the cognitive
operations, and available resources needed to accomplish the goals (Doyle,
1983; Doyle & Carter, 1984). The power of the academic task in minimiz-
ing the complexity of classroom learning comes from the teacher's routine
use of it to organize the subject matter content into a managerial system.
Understanding how to integrate the social and curricular aspects of the
academic task to facilitate student knowledge growth across varying sub-
jects and classroom contexts appears to lie at the heart of learning to teach,
yet also accounts for its difficulty. This paper will begin to suggest ways
that both preservice teachers and teacher education program staff can
become more aware of the learning that occurs through academic tasks.
163
Method of Program Research
Data were collected during and after a 9-month graduate teacher edu-
cation program at the University of California, Berkeley. The teacher
education program can be described in content as behavioristic or teaching
as an applied science and in structure as a traditional or teaching as craft
knowledge ideology (Zeichner, 1983). Through the guidance of classroom
teachers and supervisors-instructors who were also classroom teachers
temporarily assigned to the university, both elementary and secondary
preservice teachers (the latter in math and science) were to merge research-
based program information with experienced teachers' craft knowledge.
The program is conceptually divided into three areas: human learning,
instruction, and subject matter. The human learning strand is thematically
centered around Piaget's (1971) theory of cognitive development. The
subject matter strands replicate a constructivist or participatory view of
learning discussed in the human learning strand by advocating a process-
oriented approach to readinglwriting, mathematics, social studies, and
science. The third program strand-instruction-addresses lesson design
according to Madeline Hunter (1982) and classroom management. Addi-
tionally, there are state required courses in the social foundations, the legal
aspects of education, and mainstreaming. The 50 to 60 elementary and
secondary students attend university classes as a block 1% days per week.
The remainder of the week is spent teaching in at least one of two
classrooms assigned during the 9-month program. An attempt is made to
have students assigned to both innercity and suburban schools.
The research design employed to study learning to teach within the
program included sequential sampling techniques (Erickson, 1986) in
which a limited number of preservice teachers were selected from the full
program complement. Learning from the program was documented by
selecting major concepts from a particular subject area, and changes in
their thinking or learning was traced by selecting thematic examples of
their talk, writing, and teaching performances that reflected changes in
their preprogram beliefs.
Participants
Fourteen preservice teachers, 32 cooperating teachers, 6 university su-
pervisors, and 2 reading course instructors participated in the first year of
this 3-year research project. The 14 preservice teachers were selected from
all 53 teacher education candidates interviewed at the beginning of the
program to determine incoming knowledge and beliefs about reading and
classroom instruction. Care was taken to choose those teachers who rep-
resented a wide range of incoming views about teaching and reading
instruction and who planned to teach in a variety of classroom contexts
and grades (see Table I). The cooperating teachers, university supervisors,
and reading course instructors were those to whom the preservice teachers
TABLE 1
Subject und case selection based on incoming beliefs
Views about classroom management

Loosely structured for equality 47 13 all 4
Highly structured for efficiency 6 1 -
Views about teaching reading
Teacher directed; textbook based 25 7 Alice, Margaret
Teacher primary and some student
input; textbook based 12 3 Lynda
Based on students' wishes; lan-
guage based 9 2 Chris
Reading instruction not appropri-
ate in secondary mathlscience 7 2 -
Views about how children learn
From teacher and others 26 7 Alice, Margaret
Self-constructions in preplanned
situations 20 5 Lynda
Self-constructions in world 7 2 Chris
Student body in ideal school
Middle economic group, college
bound 25 7 Margaret
Lower economic group, culturally
diverse 8 2 Chris
Mixed economic groups, culturally
diverse 20 5 Alice, Lynda
Ideal subject area and/or grade
Primary 16 4 Alice
Upper elementary 20 6 Chris, Lynda
Jr. high math 3 1 -
Jr. high science 4 1 -
High school math 5 1 Margaret
High school science 5 1 -
were regularly assigned by the teacher education program staff. Finally, as

a reading instructor and principal research investigator, I personally served
in the capacity of a participant observer in the program.
Program Subject Area
The specific subject area selected for study within the program was
reading. It was chosen because of its inclusion as a methods subject in both
165
the elementary and secondary strands of the program, because of its
translation of the constructivist program philosophy of learning through
pedagogical recommendations, and because some aspect of reading or
learning from text could be studied with preservice teachers who planned
to teach in all school grades. The same was not true for the other subject
areas. Further, reading as a subject was a new content area, important
methodologically for studying intellectual changes. Full-task analyses of
the content of the reading methods courses, however, were not conducted.
Rather, only major course concepts were described in detail (i.e., those
that the course instructors felt were important enough to require a graded
assignment) because the intent of the study was to look at preservice
teachers' global changes in knowledge and beliefs while learning to teach,
with reading as the subject area focus.
Data Gathering to Document Cognitive Change
To describe changes in thinking, we used a constant comparative process
(cf. Erickson, 1986). Changes in teaching knowledge bases were compared
to preprogram conceptions of teaching and explained by an evolving
understanding of various influences on cognitive change. We conducted
initial or baseline interviews with the cooperating teachers and university
supervisors as well as the preservice teachers. The loosely structured
interviews were intended to capture the teachers' philosophies of education,
educational experiences, current teaching, and managerial practices, role
definitions, views of how children learn, and knowledge of reading instruc-
tion. Finally, follow-up observations of the preservice and cooperating
teachers occurred during the first weeks of the school placements. The
researchers looked for teaching performances to clarify interview data.
Those data sets were combined to produce background profiles.
Preservice teachers' intellectual change or knowledge growth in reading
was described through the extent of change or confirmation from their
baseline profiles using both Doyle's (1983) and Rumelhart and Norman's
(1976) taxonomies of cognitive processing and change. Multiple data
sources used to triangulate the data and carefully describe change and
potential program influences included (a) reading course information in
the form of observations and task analyses in each class, tape-recorded
instructor interviews-before, mid-way, and after the course-regarding
major concepts taught, materials used, and assignments given; (b) similar
information about the instruction/management and human learning pro-
gram classes; (c) classroom interviews every 2 weeks and observations
about reading instruction involving the preservice teachers and cooperating
teachers (the interviews were always audiotaped and the observations were
recorded via running narrative plus videotaping at least three times during
the year); (d) supervisor observation forms recording classroom observa-
tions and conference feedback across the program year; (e) tape-recorded
166
supervisor interviews spaced over the year; and ( f ) weekly preservice

teacher journals noting changes in their thinking about reading instruction,
classroom management, and students' learning from text.
Data Analyses
After initial training periods to achieve 80% or better interrater reliability
rates in running narrative data and data coding techniques, the nine
researchers then regularly reviewed and coded field notes, interview tran-
scripts, teacher journals, and supervisor observation forms according to
emerging categories. The categories indicated (a) the general protocol type
(e.g., management comment, subject reference, task demonstration), (b)
the explanatory sublevel (e.g., preventative or interventive management,
specific subject concept or materials, task design or evaluation), (c) the
representative type of cognitive processing (e.g., memory, routine, or
comprehensive, after Doyle, 1983), and (d) cross references to possible or
known program influences (e.g., elementary reading course instructor,
supervisor, or cooperating teacher). We then summarized both preservice
and cooperating teachers' current thinking about reading instruction.
University instructor and supervisor interview summaries were used to
clarify program influences on those changes.
The method itself served an evaluative function. By constructing sum-
mary maps of the preservice teachers' thinking about reading after each
visit, researchers could note areas of change and verify and/or modify what
they thought they knew about the teachers. Finally, the research team met
weekly to compare cases, clarify methodological problems, and summarize
findings across cases. Information gained from each inquiry and summary
cycle (Spradley, 1980) was used to refine questions, select or add new
collection procedures, and guide the continuous analyses.
At the middle and end of the year, the team brought in-progress case
studies of the preservice teachers to a 2-day retreat and assigned numerical
ratings that indicated the depth of cognitive processing across subcategories.
For example, a teacher could be rated on understanding task evaluation as
0, for not considered; 1, for conscious or rarely mentioned or demonstrated;
2, for memory level processing or occasionally mentioned without use; 3,
for routine level processing or frequently mentioned and used; or 4, for
comprehensive level processing or consistently discussed and used in vary-
ing contexts. Similar scoring was used to assess the degree of change
(accretion, fine-tuning, or restructuring) from baseline profiles. Each re-
searcher compared his or her ratings with those independently scored by
the project director. Discrepancies (less than 10%) were resolved by dis-
cussion and reexamination of the data.
Data verification was further addressed in these systematic ways:
1. Twice during the semester varying pairs of research team members
wrote simultaneous narrative descriptions of classroom lessons and com-
167
pared their results quantitatively. Positive tallies were recorded when both
had noted a similar concept in their field notes, and negative tallies were
indicated when only one researcher had recorded an incident or remark
that both researchers felt-in retrospect-was important to understand the
lesson. The ratio of positive to negative tallies among raters consistently
exceeded 85 % .
2. In the same manner with similar results, the researchers cross-checked
random portions of the narrativeltaped data for consistency.
3. The participants also periodically reviewed written summaries to
verify the research team's interpretation of changes in their thinking about
teaching reading. No significant discrepancies were reported.
4. Care was taken in the analyses to look for negative evidence, extreme
cases or outliers, and rival explanations (see Miles & Huberman, 1984).
5. Seven preservice teachers who were not systematically followed were
interviewed and observed one each semester to gauge the research team's
influence on learning to teach. No major patterns of differences in devel-
opment were noted. However, four of the nontarget teachers indicated that
they would have found more of our nonevaluative interviews valuable for
helping them positively reflect on their teaching.
Interpretations and Discussion
Data analyses supported the existence of thematic patterns to suggest a
dynamic model of learning to teach in which prior beliefs played a critical
role. That is, changes in preservice teachers' thinking from global views of
teaching in classrooms to understandings about context-specific student
learning from text could be traced in predictable patterns. The model had
initially emerged from patterns in pilot study data collected the previous
year within the same program and was used as a conceptual framework to
guide the current study. It shows how preprogram beliefs about teaching
might interact dynamically with both program content and classroom
opportunities, leading to varying levels of teaching knowledge. Both within
and across case studies from the two cohorts, categorical themes stood out
in the data suggesting that preprogram beliefs served as filters for processing
program content and making sense of classroom contexts, that general
managerial routines had to be in place before subject specijc content and
pedagogy became a focus of attention, and that interrelated managerial
and academic routines were needed before teachers could actively focus
on students' learningfrom academic tasks in classrooms, while preprogram
interest students as individuals and a program-developed interest in subject
pedagogy were needed to provide the motivation to do so. In turn, each
new level of knowledge affected changes in preprogram beliefs. The rela-
tionship between the various areas of the model is depicted in Figure 1.
The personal, program, and contextual factors that appeared to account
for or hinder such intellectual change will be described here through partial
168
Key:
_ ., . Re-Program
\.;:, ,,:,:,,,
,:; Change in
0
\
Program Content ,.v,,,.,,
8; Context
,.I l
Beliefs
.~;\,~,~ ,,,,.,,. Pre-Progmm
Beliefs
4
Indicates concepts are dynamically interrelated; they shift posihons.
FIGURE 1 . A model of learning to teach
case studies of Lynda, Chris, Alice, and Margaret. Their representative

stories will create a composite portrait of cognitive change within the
"culture" of the teacher education program at UC Berkeley. The four are
not only representative of the studied group as a whole (see Table l), but
their examples detailed here are prototypical of other cases of similar
learning or nonlearning. Their cases are described in terms of the influence
of prior or preprogram beliefs on the various interrelated areas of the
model: postprogram beliefs, pedagogical knowledge growth-both general
managerial and subject specific-and understanding academic classroom
tasks.
169
Pre- and Postprogram Beliefs
We asked preservice teachers about their ideas on education, teaching,
students, curriculum, and learning as part of their background interviews.
Because of the program's philosophical emphasis on constructivist or
participatory learning as a pedagogical tool, we particularly were interested
in noting changes in their thinking about the constructivist concept of
learning as the year progressed. Chris, an unmarried 30-year-old artist
enrolled in the program for an elementary credential, reported in the initial
interview and throughout the year that he believed that children learned
by self-constructing their own knowledge. "Education is the world," he
said early in the first semester of the program. "Kids need to determine
the boundaries of it for themselves." Chris's ideas were compatible with
those of the teacher education program that supported Piaget's (197 1) idea
that children learn developmentally and self-constructively through ma-
nipulations of their worlds. Chris's preprogram beliefs led him to both
agree with and trust the program messages.
Easy compatibility was not the case for many of the 14 subjects. Fully
half, in fact, initially believed that learning was primarily accomplished
through teacher-directed information (see Table 1). Lynda, for example,
was a 35-year-old mother of two who planned to teach in the elementary
grades and came into the teacher education program believing in an
ordered world. She had very exact ideas about what teaching and education
should be about in elementary schools: to foster children's natural aptitude
for learning. In particular, Lynda believed that children were best educated
by self-discovering "ordered truths" within environments carefully struc-
tured by teachers.
Though Lynda believed in more teacher-directed structure than the
program suggested, her views about children's self-participation to obtain
the outcomes of teaching were similar enough that she could modify and
formalize her thinking in closer alignment with that of the program. By
the end of the 9-month credential program, in fact, every subject in both
the elementary and secondary strands expressed the belief that students
should be responsible for their own learning and should actively construct
it. But the depth of their convictions varied. The extent of their knowledge
about the program's constructivist concept, influenced by personal beliefs,
can be illustrated by contrasting Alice and Margaret's changes in thinking
with Chris and Lynda's.
Alice, a 23-year-old elementary credential candidate just out of her
bachelor's program in developmental psychology, professed agreement
with the constructivist view of learning throughout the program. The basis
for her agreement, though, differed substantially from both Chris's and
Lynda's. For example, whereas Chris embraced such a philosophy from
critical analyses of his self-taught artistic experiences and Lynda watched
her own small children grow, Alice seemed to rely on the experiences of
170
her student culture. That is, she tended to adopt or map the philosophies
presented by her own teachers and professors because she had not had the
benefit of less fornal educational settings to help her personally evaluate
the merit of new ideas about teaching and learning. Early in the year she
told a researcher:
I don't know how [constructivism] works, but I trust that it works. I know
it works. I'm just not sure how to make it happen. I don't have a lot of
self-confidence when it comes to making decisions about teaching. I'm
counting on the [teacher education] program to give me suggestions to
put it into place. (9130)
Thus, though superficially similar, Alice's understanding of the pro-

gram's constructivist position on human learning was much less developed
at the end of the program than either Chris's or Lynda's. Alice tended to
model or copy constructivist activities presented in the program, giving
her a memory or routine level understanding of the concept (Doyle, 1983)
and affecting little change in her preprogram beliefs. Chris's integration of
the program's central philosophy into his life as well as his teaching gave
him a more comprehensive understanding that became apparent in his
self-constructed reading activities. Though he had not totally restructured
his thinking, as reflected in his preprogram beliefs, the degree of change
certainly represented at least a fine-tuning (Rumelhart & Nornan, 1976)
of those beliefs. Lynda's understanding of constructivist lessons deepened
from routine to comprehensive during the year, but still retained evidence
of her own views about teacher direction. Examples to follow will help
clarify the variations in cognitive processing, or depth of learning, and
change in beliefs.
Variations in preservice teachers' thinking about constructivist learning
corresponded to their preprogram notions of how students learned in
school settings. Following a period of modeling or mapping, which all
beginning teachers appeared to do to adjust to new learning situations both
at the university and in the classroom, Chris and Lynda were encouraged
to break away from that tradition and to discover what teaching was for
themselves-a natural fit with their preprogram beliefs. Alice saw her role
in schools in more evaluative terns, a position that also reflected her
family's expectations of her as a student. She spoke of modeling cooperating
teachers as important for earning a good grade. Though distressed when
she received negative criticism for being different from her teachers, she
did not appear to struggle with different ideas about management, lesson
design, and children's learning. When she received positive feedback for
her modeling, it reaffirmed her notion of being on track in learning to
teach. The result was satisfaction in terms of her performance, but not a
deepening understanding of her own beliefs that might have resulted from
confronting and examining her preprogram ideas about education.
Sandra Hollings worth
Unlike Lynda, Alice, and Chris, Margaret came into the teacher educa-
tion program with a stated philosophy about schools and learning that
stood in direct contrast to the program views. A 25-year-old secondary
math credential candidate, Margaret said that schools were to "prepare
children as citizens of a democracy" and that children were dependent
upon the teacher for "getting the tools necessary to be good citizens"
through basic subject areas such as mathematics. If children failed to learn,
though, it was their fault for not trying hard enough, not paying attention.
Margaret's views appeared to be the result of her own educational experi-
ences, her post-Bachelor's experiences working in a governmental agency,
her clear understanding of mathematics, and a corresponding belief that
all students should want mathematics knowledge. Although Margaret, like
all other credential candidates, professed to believe by the end of the
program that children constructed their own knowledge, she was not able
to demonstrate-through her talk, writing, or teaching perfomances-
that her beliefs had changed to a sufficient depth to transform the new
ideas into an instructional repertoire. Her preprogram beliefs appeared to
limit her understanding of the constructivist concept to a memory or
copying level. Her notion of her role as a student teacher further confirmed
her beliefs about learning in classrooms. Though not driven by the quest
for a positive evaluation, Margaret thought she would learn to teach best
and easiest by following her cooperating teachers' models, not from self-
trials. That position was shared by 6 of the other 14 presemice teachers
and supported by the actions and expectations of fully half of the cooper-
ating teachers and university supervisors.
Summary. The cases just described illustrate how preprogram beliefs
affected presemice teachers' postprogram understanding of a major pro-
gram concept-constructivist or participatory learning. Standardized tests
of basic knowledge, such as the California Basic Education Skills Test
(CBEST) and the National Teacher Examinations (NTE), and screening
performance measures to indicate candidates' social/interactional skills,
task flexibility, and concrete-to-abstract behaviors did not prove to be as
explanatory of an ability to comprehensively learn the constructivist con-
cept as did an understanding of preprogram beliefs. Differences in prior
beliefs became a significant factor in suggesting differential learning of
other program concepts as well.
Preprogram Beliefs and Pedagogical Knowledge Growth
In addition to knowledge of students as constructivist learners, the
program studied wanted presemice teachers to know (a) the social or
managerial aspects of directing a classroom of students and (b) the aca-
demic or subject-specific content and pedagogy of classroom learning.
Within that general knowledge base, nothing seems to trouble beginning
teachers more than classroom management. That fact, which is well
documented in the literature (see Doyle, 1986), is supported again by this

study and partially explained by prior beliefs.
General Managerial Knowledge. Out of the 14 subjects, 13 came into
the program with the belief that management was synonymous with
relating equally with their classroom pupils-a position that the tradition-
ally disciplined pupils tested. The single preservice teacher who believed in
a more authoritarian position was a secondary science student. All of the
others struggled with classroom control, gaining respect, and teaching
lessons to students who were simultaneously engaged in other forms of
social dialogue. Those teachers seemed to share incoming beliefs about
management similar to these:
I can't be too firm with these children. It seems so mean. (Lynda, 1012)
Kids know what they want and need. Why do we try to force our structures
on them? (Chris, 1/23)
If they don't like me, I just can't teach them. (Alice, 9/30)
I wish I could be more consistent, but I can't do that and stay on their
wavelengths. (Margaret, 10110)
There appeared to be a definite pattern in realizing that such beliefs were

not conducive to teaching. First, teachers expressed an awareness that
endorsing a loose or unstructured classroom environment was not working.
Then there was a shift to try and overcome that problem by becoming too
firm and inflexible. That second stage was characterized by a frustration
while attempting to model the cooperating teacher's managerial style
without regard to students' individual needs and reactions. Lynda illus-
trated this stage in the second semester.
I just don't know if teaching is for me. I didn't really know about this
part. It seems like I've got to be on them all the time to get them to pay
attention, and I don't like this about me. It seems like all I'm doing is
babysitting-getting them to finish some work to get on to the next task.
(219)
Guided carefully by her cooperating teacher, her university supervisor,
and her own sense of herself as a critic of teaching, Lynda worked through
that stage into a final, more balanced managerial style. Limiting the
complexity in achieving that balance by first becoming confident in the
routines of classroom organization, then focusing her energies on what she
wanted to accomplish in specific subject areas, she was able to vary her
managerial routines to suit the subject and children.
It seems really easy now. What I was trying to do before was apply one
method to every lesson. What I should have been doing was just making
sure the children knew what I wanted them to do for each lesson. That's
much more comfortable for me. (5112)
Only 1/2 of the 14 subjects were able to reach that balanced managerial
style during the 9-month teacher education program. For those who did,
there seemed to be at least four explanatory factors that helped them

acquire that knowledge: (a) a role image of themselves as learners and
critics of teaching, which allowed for error and change; (b) an awareness
that they needed to change their initial beliefs to come to terms with
classroom organization; (c) the cooperating teacher and/or university
supervisor as role models and facilitators of that change; and (d) a notion
of having something worth teaching that demanded student cooperation
(See Figure 2). Chris's case, prototypical of the 6 other preservice teachers
who restructured their preprogram thinking about classroom management,
illustrates the common but not necessarily linear points.
Teachers as learners. Having tried unsuccessfully to make a living as an
artist, Chris had come to decide that all of life was for learning. He had no
particular goals to achieve in learning to teach, but saw himself as a learner,
free to try and make mistakes. Therefore, seeing that he needed to change
some of his incoming beliefs about learning to teach was at once possible
but difficult to realize because of his self-acceptance at each stage of his
learning.
A need to change beliefs. Chris believed that education was a meaning-
making experience, and that meaning could only come from the students;
Entering beliefs about Believes in Revised beliefs about

classroom management unstructured classroom management
management
7
Believes in more
Role image of shucturebalanced
student teacher managerial routines
as learner to integrate subject
knowledge
University
supervisor
intervention
Need to change Subject specitic

beliefs about content and pedagogy;
unstructured having something
management wonh teaching
Classroom context
Cooperating teached
classroom context as Overly rigid
role model and/or in modeling
facilitator of change
FIGURE 2. Learning general classroom management

174
they should determine what to learn and how to learn it. The teacher was
a loose adjunct of that learning. Because of his perspective, Chris readily
adopted the teacher education program's constructivist theme, but had
great difficulty seeing that children needed some external structure in order
to construct their own meaning. Therefore, Chris fit the initial pattern of
learning to manage by using an unstructured managerial system through
the first half of his second semester. It was only later, given freedom by his
cooperating teacher to try some of his own ideas, that he realized a need
to modify his initial perspectives to accomplish his academic and social
goals.
Role models for classroom structure. Chris's second semester cooperating
teacher had a different idea of classrooms and teaching from both Chris
and the program. Ms. Jones felt that classrooms should be rigorously
structured by the teacher-that children were incapable of determining
what they needed to learn. She provided a very structured role model that
she insisted Chris follow. She was highly critical of his loose managerial
style-so much, in fact, that she would not let him design his own lessons
until he could follow her managerial lead. Chris was uncomfortable with
that approach.
Student teachers are expected to be clones of their [cooperating] teachers.
That's what learning to teach is all about. If we follow right behind her
and do what she's doing, she'll think we're doing a good job, and the
[program] supervisors will think we're doing a good job. Then we'll be
stamped as "competent teachers." Our individuality is lost. (1123)
With guidance from his program supervisor, who also saw a need for
Chris to learn more structure, Chris eventually was persuaded to appease
the cooperating teacher and follow her managerial style. Behaving in ways
that he perceived as opposing his own values caused him to temporarily
abandon his philosophy of self-acceptance. At that point, Chris became
overly firm with his class and even more unhappy.
Is that what teaching is all about? I dread coming here. I'm killing these
kids. I've sold out to the program to make other people happy with me
and get [the opportunity] to teach, but I've lost the joy of working with
kids. They don't like me and I don't like them. I want out. (4120)
Something to teach. Trust in the teacher education program and his

program supervisor convinced Chris to continue to try it their way. His
initial discomfort began to subside with Ms. Jones's approval of his firmer
managerial style and her subsequent permission to design and teach some
of his own lessons. The program supervisor was also instrumental in
helping Ms. Jones realize that she needed to give Chris more freedom to
teach.
Once Chris began to seriously look at his own lessons and choose his
Sandra HoNingsworth
own goals for the students, he also realized a need for more structure to
accomplish those goals. At that point, he achieved a balance between his
loose structure and Ms. Jones's firm structure to gain student cooperation.
Summary. Both Chris and Lynda changed their incoming beliefs about
classroom management and established balanced routines. Though their
routines were different-Lynda's took on a more teacher-directed style,
and Chris followed a more student-directed approach-they both served
the same function. That is, they developed cognitive "scripts" for manage-
ment that appeared to free mental "space" to think about subject, task
design, and what pupils were learning from those tasks (Anderson, 1980;
Anderson & Pearson, 1984). Each of the other five who restructured their
thinking about classroom management also incorporated unique facets of
their preprogram beliefs into their managerial repertoires. Their changes
in thinking, in other words, were accomplished without changing their
basic identities.
Obviously, not all teachers matched Lynda and Chris in developing
working managerial routines. (For further explication of this topic, see Tee1
& Hollingsworth, 1988.) In the cases of two other teachers in our study,
the managerial system in the classroom was so well established by the time
they entered the class that they never really had to deal with it. The
classrooms ran on automatic pilot previously achieved by the cooperating
teachers, and the preservice teachers never attempted to try new systems.
Margaret, for example, had simply stepped into a well-run high school
mathematics classroom in her first semester placement and followed the
cooperating teacher's lead, giving her the appearance of success with
classroom management.
In her second classroom placement, her lack of managerial skill became
evident. The students in her new school were much less motivated to
attend school, could not read as well as those in the first placement, and
were much more disruptive. They were not the college-bound group she
taught the first semester and wanted to be teaching in the future. Thus,
although Margaret tried hard to model the authoritarian style of her
cooperating teacher and was supported in her attempts by her university
supervisor, she did not receive the encouragement to develop alternative
approaches for gaining student cooperation that might have helped her
incorporate some of her preprogram ideas about classroom order and
become more balanced in her managerial style. She maintained an uncom-
fortable but rigid stance until the end of the program.
Four other teachers were simply never given the opportunity to develop
their own styles. Alice's cooperating teacher, for example, provided a
balanced role model but never did absolutely relinquish control of the
class to Alice. She was usually present and stepped in regularly when pupils
failed to pay attention or were off task. Further, Alice never developed her
own lessons because of her shallow understanding of academic content or
subject, and thus never had ownership of her own teaching, which became
driving forces for Chris, Lynda, and four other teachers.
Subject-Specific Content and Pedagogical Knowledge

Learning to manage a classroom does not often occur in isolation within
teacher education programs-which may account for part of its difficulty.
It occurs simultaneously and, in fact, reflexively with learning to teach
school subjects and becoming aware of pupils' task comprehension. Classes
on general management not only occurred in conjunction with other
strands in the block design of the teacher education program studied, but
was given far less time (i.e., 4 class sessions per year for management vs.
15 for reading). In spite of that traditional sequence and allocation, this
investigation showed that understanding subject specific content and ped-
agogy was a necessary but not sufficient condition for learning to teach.
Regardless of the extent of subject matter knowledge, every preservice
teacher who failed to routinize knowledge about classroom management
also failed to reach the point of understanding pupils' learning from
academic tasks. These findings confirm earlier work in this area (Hollings-
worth, 1986; Shefelbine & Hollingsworth, 1987). It appeared that gaining
students' cooperation was necessary to reduce the complexity in teaching
to be able to concentrate on transforming subject matter knowledge for
student understanding.
Margaret, for example, had extensive preprogram knowledge of algebra
and geometry, as confirmed by her entrance exams and the opinions of
her university professors and cooperating teachers. Her strong subject
matter knowledge in mathematics could not compensate for her need to
cope with classroom management in order to teach. Further, Margaret's
specific lack of knowledge about reading content and pedagogy, such as
the assessment and remediation of students who had difficulty reading
from content area materials, prohibited her from solving a possible cause
of behavioral problems: students' frustration in not comprehending the
math concepts contained in text but for which they were held accountable.
In addition, she had little understanding of how a text could be used in a
math classroom beyond her preprogram belief that texts were used by the
teacher to give assignments. Although she was able to prepare some of her
own materials to get around the hard-to-read texts for her own university
program assignments, she admitted that she did not know how to help
students who were having problems actually learning to read the prescribed
text.
I know they skip over the text explanations and go right to the problems.
I think some of them simply can't read the explanations.. . . I can help
them when they have trouble with the algebraic concepts outside of the
books, but I really don't know how to help them learn to read. (4/20)
Beyond her subject-specific knowledge of mathematics, Margaret ap-

peared to require those features of the teacher education program that
helped Lynda, Chris, and four other preservice teachers in the sample
(including one secondary student) come to understand the place of reading
in the classroom from the program's perspective: (a) an understanding of
some important features of the content and pedagogy of reading, (b) the
cooperating teacher's permission and encouragement to experiment with
text use, and (c) an expectation to try the reading program content in the
classroom, either from the supervisor or program assignment (see Figure
3). With a balanced managerial repertoire behind them, the order of
observing these additional features varied, but were noted in all six cases
of preservice teachers who seemed to have processed some important
reading concepts at a comprehensive level. That level of processing led to
major cognitive changes or restructured beliefs about reading instruction.
None of the 14 preservice teachers appeared to have preprogram ideas
about reading instruction that were initially congruent with the program
(determined by background interview questions such as "How would you
teach a nonreader to read?" or "How would you use text in a secondary
Entering beliefs about Revised beliefs about

teaching reading teaching reading
GeneraVtraditional More specific

ideas about teaching comprehensive
reading knowledge
of teaching reading
General Supervision'
management Program
Comfortable with
balance between prior
beliefs and new Expectation to by

understanding of program content
structure and routine
Subject
pedagogy Academic
classroom
tasks
Cooperating teacher's
Program: developing encouragement and
knowledge of reading permission to
activities, routines, with
and principles existing reading
programs
FIGURE 3. Learning subject-specific content and pedagogy

178
sciencelmath classroom?"). Learning about reading instruction from the

program's literature-based process-oriented perspective was new-and re-
quired changes in thinking.
Understanding reading program content and pedagogy. All of the pre-
service teachers attended 15 hour lecture/discussion periods on reading
during the course of the 9-month program. The coursework occurred
simultaneously with field-based classroom teaching. The primary focus of
reading for secondary students was understanding reading as a process and
the difficulties inherent in text. Elementary preservice teachers were ex-
posed to information on the assessment of reading difficulties, planning
for reading to take into account individual needs, and expanding reading
instruction beyond the basal materials through the use of literature. Their
learning of that content varied widely.
Alice, for example, never asked questions or made comments in elemen-
tary reading class, designed any lessons to show she had understood that
content, nor could she satisfactorilycritique her own lessons to demonstrate
an understanding of the program content. Her reading lessons were very
predictable and mechanical, following both the cooperating teachers' style
and explicit directions in the teacher's manual. Both her beliefs that she
should be following the teacher's manual and her lack of knowledge of
reading assessment appeared to keep her from inquiring about what
students were actually learning or failing to learn about reading, and then
modifying her lessons to suit their needs. The depth of her knowledge of
reading instruction appeared to be limited to routine or algorithmic level
of lesson structure (Doyle, 1983; Leinhardt & Greeno, 1983; Shank &
Abelson, 1977)' but included no discernible reading program concepts.
In contrast to Alice, Lynda was very attentive in class sessions, asked
many critical questions, and showed that she understood and could transfer
specific concepts to the classroom. For example, she demonstrated an
understanding of the assessment principle of miscue analysis both in a
kindergarten classroom with beginning readers during the first semester as
well as in a sixth grade classroom with a majority of above-level readers in
the second semester. In other words, she was able to adapt that program
concept to fit varying contexts.
Lynda was never satisfied, however, with her ability to move below-
grade-level readers in her sixth grade classroom up to grade-level texts. Her
lack of understanding in that area appeared to be both due to incoming
beliefs about limited student input in designing reading instruction and a
second semester program focus on literature-based approaches that did not
specifically address moving below-grade-level readers through those types
of texts. The program content related to teaching problem readers occurred
during the first semester when Lynda was assigned to a classroom where
the pupils could read relatively well. She had apparently forgotten that
information by the second semester when she needed it. Additionally, both
her second semester cooperating teacher and university supervisor failed
to provide sufficient coaching about teaching either her low-level readers
or those children who had text comprehension problems because of cul-
turally distinct backgrounds.
I keep asking for help in reaching them, but the answers I get-use the
workbooks, motivate them with easy-to-read literature-don't seem to
make much difference. I'd just have to say I don't know what to do with
kids who can't read. (31 17)
Lynda's learning to teach low-achieving readers was further confounded
by her limited contact: They were usually taught by an aide. Her case was
typical in that none of the 14 felt they had enough experience or instruction
to successfully work with low-achieving readers by the end of the program.
Encouragement to experiment fvom the cooperating teacher. Lynda did
receive some specific assistance that helped her transfer some concepts she
learned in the university reading program to the classroom: her second
semester cooperating teacher's permission and encouragement to experi-
ment with reading lessons. Mrs. Drew, who used an individualized ap-
proach with her students through workbooks and contracts, encouraged
Lynda to "understand the existing system, then change it to fit [her] own
style." Following her method of learning other classroom organization
routines, Lynda first abandoned attention to the content of reading to
learn Mrs. Drew's pedagogical system for reading and eventually mastered
that routine as well. Lynda then critiqued Mrs. Drew's approach using
specific pedagogical concepts learned in the university reading program.
For example, she felt the existing individualized approach lacked enough
direct instruction for slower readers and lacked enough discussion to meet
the needs of the advanced readers. After clarifying conversations with the
university supervisor, which helped her translate reading program princi-
ples into applications suitable for her classroom, Mrs. Drew acknowledged
Lynda's criticism and encouraged her to try a different approach.
Margaret's second semester cooperating teacher treated her quite differ-
ently. Although she had two periods to teach alone, her cooperating teacher,
Mr. Tilden, never encouraged her to develop lessons that differed from
his. He felt her inadequate command of classroom management left him
no choice but to dictate what she did. Because Margaret thought she would
learn best by following Mr. Tilden's lead, and he did not ask his pupils to
read and understand the explanations in the mathematics text, Margaret
might not have attempted to apply concepts from her university reading
course even with a good understanding of them.
Program/supewisory expectations. In addition to laclung a direct model
and encouragement for experimentation from her cooperating teacher,
Margaret also failed to receive clear expectations from the program and
her supervisor to try concepts from the secondary reading course, such as
text analysis, in her classroom. In contrast, both an assignment from the
180
Prior Beliefi and Cognitive Change
reading program and Lynda's university supervisor required that she try a
literature based approach in her classroom. Once she had mastered Mrs.
Drew's individualized system and learned the more discussion-oriented
approach at the university, Lynda fulfilled those requirements. She received
extensive help from the university supervisor during the change and
encouragement from Mrs. Drew-who later revised her own teaching to
incorporate many of Lynda's contributions. Lynda talked about the class-
room change.
It was hard at first. The students were used to working on their own,
checking their own papers, going ahead at their own paces. I asked them
to change all of that and sit with me and talk about what they'd read.
They had to learn new ways of behaving and talking and interacting. I
moved gradually away from the system she set up. After a few weeks of
chaos, they came around. Mrs. Drew and [my supervisor] supported me
all the while. (51 12)
Summary. This study has identified program contributions that can help
preservice teachers learn new concepts that were not part of their prepro-
gram belief and knowledge structures. Beyond initially encouraging mas-
tery of general pedagogical principles, it seems important to provide both
an opportunity and an expectation to apply important ideas presented in
methods courses. The concepts from reading course tasks that the teachers
were not specifically asked to apply, for example, were rarely observed in
the classroom. Further, preservice teachers showed a less extensive under-
standing of students' learning of those concepts when questioned in inter-
views. Even when required, directed supervision or coaching with preserv-
ice teachers (Hollingsworth, 1988; Joyce & Showers, 1988) and commu-
nicating program expectations to cooperating teachers appeared to be
necessary for comprehensive understanding and application of reading
content. (For further discussion of this phase of the study, see Cantrell &
Hollingsworth, 1988.)
Preprogram Beliefs and Understanding Learningfrom Academic
Classroom Tasks
In this sample of preservice teachers, Chris and Lynda moved full circle
through the complex learning to teach process to clarify (and modify) their
beliefs about learning, managing, and teaching, to establish a balanced
managerial system to accomplish specific content instruction, and to
become task aware or understand what pupils were actually learning from
text. This cumulative level of learning to teach, though not specifically
addressed in any program strand, was observed in preservice teachers as
they taught reading in their school settings. Of the 14 teachers, 5 reached
that level of understanding-a somewhat remarkable number given the
limited time in the program. That Lynda, Chris, and the others did become
task aware appeared to be a result of (a) a disequilibration set up by
differences between their own beliefs and those of the cooperating teacher,
(b) substantive cognitive integration of managerial and subject knowledge,
and (c) an opportunity to try their own ideas across different contexts. (See
Figure 4. Note: Again, the order is not as important in this illustration as
is the cumulative effect of the features.)
Disequilibration. The 10 preservice teachers who did not come to un-
derstand what students were actually learning from text basically agreed
with their cooperating teachers' instructional approaches. In other words,
because their preprogram beliefs were congruent with those of their coop-
erating teachers, there was little opportunity to confront and possibly
modify those beliefs by testing them in the classroom.
Alice agreed with both her first and second semester cooperating teach-
ers. Her second semester cooperating teacher, for example, used a whole-
class approach to the teaching of reading to teach skills and conduct
teacher-led discussions of literature and basal stories. Because the approach
worked well to keep order and promote test-evident learning for the
majority of the students, neither the teacher nor Alice focused on individual
Entering beliefs
about teaching Revised beliefs
about teaching
Global knowledge
about what students ' Focusing on
learn in classrwms task awareness:
& h o w teachers attention to student's
facilitate learning learning
Classroom/ Subject
university pedagogy
supervision
Disequilibration
between preservice Fine-tuning of
teacher's beliefs and subject routines
cooperating teacher's combined with
beliefsluniversity mangerial
supervisor's support knowledge
Classroom
General tasks
management
Balanced and Opponunity to hy
routinized owdprogram ideas
in different
contexts
FIGURE 4. Understanding students' learning from academic tasks in class-

rooms
182
students enough to understand their particular levels of learning from text.
Further, Alice's modeling of her cooperating teacher verified and simplified
her preprogram of classrooms.
Chris also agreed strongly with the program philosophy and with the
philosophy of his first semester cooperating teacher. Little change in his
learning to teach was noted during that semester. He simply learned new
examples of his intuitive preprogram teaching strategies. In the second
semester, though, he strongly disagreed with his cooperating teacher about
management and reading instruction. To gain an opportunity to use
program methods at all, he had to sharply clarify his new knowledge and
communicate it to his cooperating teacher. He had to convince her, for
example, that the fifth-grade students would not be hurt educationally if
he allowed them to help set their own learning goals instead of requiring
them to comply only with his instructional demands. He had to explain to
Ms. Jones that using cooperative discussion groups to teach literature
would not result in lower test scores. Their differing views seemed to make
him more accountable for his own.
Cognitive integration of management and subject knowledge. What Chris
learned to understand by contrasting his ideas with those of his teacher
was how to integrate his ideas and hers, routinize that knowledge, and
then concentrate on his pupils' learning of reading concepts. Although he,
like Alice, was quiet in reading methods class, his weekly journal entries
showed the progression of the integration of managerial structure into his
thinking and planning for lessons to discuss literature.
This is a dictatorship. She speaks. The children follow. (1120)
I think children should set their own rules and limits. (2117)
I changed this week, because [my supervisor] said I must appease [my
teacher]. I'm acting like the dictator. (4120)
I tried to get them to talk about the book, but they all wanted to talk at
once. We'll just keep working at it. (4128)
Backing off. But I've found it's necessary to establish a couple of her
"rules" to get some real discussion going. Seems to be working [reasonably]
well. (511 I)
Could be better, but it's going. Seems that the design of the lesson to
incorporate discussion formats is helpful. (5120)
The same pattern occurred in five other preservice teachers. That is,
they learned to integrate the social or managerial and academic aspects of
teaching into content-specific pedagogical routines. The other nine either
had trouble with knowledge of reading instruction or general management,
often modeling their teachers' instructional and managerial routines with-
out mentally confronting the concepts embedded within them. That level
of processing possibly prevented them from seeing that it was necessary to
mesh subject and management to help children successfully learn from
text.
Context. Even an understanding of how to design a lesson to incorporate

both managerial/social and academic needs did not ensure that the pre-
service teachers became task aware or understood what children learn from
academic tasks. Only five teachers reached that level of understanding.
Gaining a knowledge of student learning from tasks seemed to require that
the teachers saw that tasks in classrooms were not only content specific,
but context specific as well. That is, they came to understand that the same
lesson would have different learning effects on children, depending on
what they perceived the goal of the lesson to be and what they needed to
do mentally to achieve that goal (Doyle, 1983). An example will help
clarify that notion.
Chris seemed to have a good understanding that the students in his fifth-
grade class were learning something different than the teacher wanted them
to early during the second semester. His understanding of the various
meanings children ascribed to tasks seemed to come from his self-ques-
tioning of his own learning from life experiences, a program lecture near
the end of the first semester, and his opportunity to reflect on student
learning while he was observing the teacher and the class. Because of his
poor management skills, he was forced to sit and watch his cooperating
teacher for several weeks into the second semester. He wrote as he watched.
She thinks she's getting them to learn vocabulary by having them look up
any definition in the dictionary, writing it down, then making up a
sentence with it. What they're really learning is to do what she asks. To
be good students. They look up these ridiculously long words that they'll
never use again, write down sentences using the word improperly in
context, get a grade, and go onto the next set of words. (219)
Though Chris had an understanding of what students learned from
vocabulary tasks, he had to invent various ways of teaching different
content to students with varying backgrounds and abilities before he
understood how to actually construct academic tasks to achieve meaningful
student learning. He taught the same vocabulary unit on the Middle Ages
to both his regular and gifted groups in his fifth-grade classroom and talked
about the project in an interview.
I tried to get the regular group to learn some new words about the Middle
Ages by allowing them to design a Middle Age village and set up shops
and conduct business. The test at the end, though, showed that they didn't
learn much about the Middle Ages. What they did learn was how to
cooperate with each other, which was really valuable. Next time, I'll
redesign that unit to make them more accountable for the words as they're
moving through it, not wait until the end.
The gifted group, now, did OK with that unit. They're more motivated
by grades. Some of them kept notebooks on the words to study for the
test at the end. I'd try that technique with the regular group next time. (5/
12)
Lynda followed a similar pattern to Chris's. She realized early into her
second semester that the higher level sixth-grade students were simply
going through the motions of completing worksheets and getting grades
without really learning anything. It took trying to teach reading to both
the high- and low-level students, though, before she really recognized what
she could help children learn, and what she could not.
Those [workbook] activities were not challenging enough for [the ad-
vanced] group. I had them talk about what they were reading about, what
they interpreted the author's message to be, then to challenge each other
on their interpretations. They really began to learn about what they were
reading instead of filling in the blanks to guess what the workbook author
thought they should learn!
With the low group, though, I'm at a loss. They can't read the words
well enough to do what the high group's doing, and I don't know how to
help them. I need to learn more about working with slower readers before
I can do a good job with them. (5126)
The remaining nine preservice teachers who did not come to understand
student learning explained what children had learned in qualitatively
different ways from Chris and Lynda. Their explanations were the same,
regardless of context. These are typical examples, focusing on students'
academic products instead of their thinking processes.
Margaret: I know what they've learned because they do well on their tests.
(614)
Alice: I walk around and check them while they're writing about our
reading lesson. Most of them put down what I think they should have.
(5122)
Though the teacher education program was set up to afford the preservice
teachers an opportunity to work with children of different abilities and
ethnic groups, six of those nine were either assigned to classrooms where
such differences were not adequately addressed in terms of teaching for
ethnic and ability variations, and/or the cooperating teachers never felt
comfortable in turning over their lower ability groups to the preservice
teachers.
Summary. The ultimate level of learning to teach reading observed in
this study was task awareness or understanding students' learning from
text-related tasks. To reach that level, it appeared that the preservice
teachers had to organize their thinking in specific ways to overcome the
complexities of orchestrating a classroom. One such organizer was to
simply take the role of an apprentice and reduce classroom complexities
by default-by modeling the cooperating teacher's approach as all the
teachers initially did. Continuing to copy, as Alice did, reduced the com-
plexity but also appeared to limit knowledge growth to a surface level.
Chris and Lynda, on the other hand, acquired more usable knowledge by
confronting inappropriate beliefs and receiving supervisory assistance to
185
sort, schematize, organize, and interconnect teaching routines to make

them less wieldy. Margaret was not afforded that type of program experi-
ence.
The preservice teachers who became task aware in this study learned to
integrate managerial and subject knowledge and establish teaching routines
(Rosenshine, 1983) to give them the attentional capacity necessary to focus
on what students were actually learning (Doyle & Carter, 1987). Finally,
those preservice teachers tested their newly acquired knowledge by working
with cooperating teachers whose ideas were somewhat incompatible with
their own, but who would also allow them to try out their own ideas in
different contexts (i.e., with groups of students differing in backgrounds
and abilities) while giving supporting and content-specific feedback.
Limitations, Implications, and Further Research
Though obviously limited by the single program studied and the small
sample size, this study suggests that some teacher education factors were
more effective than others in preparing these preservice teachers to manage
classrooms, teach reading, and understand student learning or become task
aware. Given appropriate contextual conditions, the study further suggests
that preservice teachers can learn ideas that they did not bring into the
program. That finding implies that it might be possible to educate preserv-
ice teachers who will challenge conservative school models. A more com-
prehensive understanding of that point must await analysis of the data
from first and second year teaching graduates currently underway.
Results clearly indicate that preservice programs should come to under-
stand the incoming beliefs of its students along with other screening criteria
in order to direct their placements in school settings, inform their super-
vision, and understand their learning. Further, it appears that contrasting
viewpoints were helpful in clarifying complex aspects of classroom life and
promoting comprehensive learning when accompanied by an expectation
and support for preservice teachers to try out their own and program-
related ideas. The study challenges the common sense notion that preserv-
ice teachers should be placed with teachers with whom they agree and that
cooperating teachers should be chosen who are model teachers according
to program philosophy. Such teachers tended to promote rote copying or
modeling of their behavior, limiting the depth of preservice teachers'
processing of information and change in beliefs. The matched pairings, in
other words, hindered knowledge growth.
Additionally, results suggest that there might be some sequential order
to program focus that could limit the cognitive overload and improve
learning if preservice teachers were not required to think about all the
aspects of teaching at once. Potential designs might be tested experimen-
tally. Extensive and comprehensive attention to helping new teachers come
to terms with management, for example, might maximize the subject-

specific learning that occurs during the preservice year. Another example
specific to the program studied might be to reverse the order of program
content so that information on remediation and assessment of problem
readers could occur in the second semester when preservice teachers had
more experience with both the content and pedagogy of reading and were
placed in classrooms with students who have more learning difficulties.
Staff development for supervisors and cooperating teachers designed to
facilitate teacher change might also warrant more attention. Though not
explicated fully in this text, it is clear from the examples that supervisors
who coached or intervened informatively had a definite impact on their
preservice teachers' learning. Because particular attention was given in this
study to the role of the cooperating teacher in learning to teach, additional
research is needed to determine more precisely how supervisors facilitate
preservice teachers' knowledge growth. That-along with follow-up studies
of first and second year teachers-is the focus of our immediate work.
The current investigation also supported a notion embedded in the
construct of the academic task-that students will learn what teachers ask
them to learn (Doyle, 1983). The tasks designed by the program instructors
included those concepts that the students learned best. In the program
studied, more accountable assignments might be given that require an
understanding of what students actually learn from teaching in classrooms,
particularly among lower achieving children. Similar assignments might
be given to help change preservice teachers' preprogram ideas about the
need to focus on individual students. Evaluation of preservice teacher
success might focus on the depth of their learning of those concepts rather
than on program conformity for congruence. Additionally, teaching and
evaluating program components to bring preservice teachers to task aware-
ness could help achieve that success.
What seems to be needed in teacher education is a flexible approach
that will help candidates with different incoming beliefs understand the
complexities involved in classroom life, and learn that the methods,
management, and even content will vary given particular schools and
children. A more generic approach to teacher education-valuing a single
cultural view to the exclusion of others, for example-may indeed contrib-
ute to the reproduction of existing instructional patterns and superficial
learning, and promote learning to teach in a qualitatively different way.
This study gives teacher educators an organizing model to use in accom-
plishing more flexible goals. It also provides a methodology to evaluate
both the extent of preservice teachers' learning to teach and the model
itself. Finally, the study provides suggestions about experimentation in
varying program designs that might reveal cross-program patterns and help
direct our thinking about teacher education reform.
References
Anderson, J. R. (1980). Cognitive psychology and its implications. San Francisco:
Freeman.
Anderson, R. C., & Pearson, P. D. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic
processes in reading comprehension. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading
research (pp. 829-864). New York: Longman.
Buchmann, M., & Schwille, J. (1983). Education: The overcoming of experience.
American Journal of Education, 92, 30-5 1.
Cantrell M. S., & Hollingsworth, S. (1988, April). Learning to use text in teaching
secondary science and math: Three case studies in preservice teacher education.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, New Orleans.
Carnegie Task Force on Teaching as a Profession. (1986). A nation prepared:
Teachers for the 21st century. Hyattsville, NY: Carnegie Forum on Education
and the Economy.
Doyle, W. (1983). Academic work. Review of Educational Research, 53, 159- 199.
Doyle, W. (1986). Classroom organization and management. In M. C. Wittrock
(Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 394-431). New York:
Macmillan.
Doyle, W., & Carter, K. (1984). Academic tasks in classrooms. Curriculum Inquiry,
14, 129-149.
Doyle, W., & Carter, K. (1987). Choosing the means of instruction. In V. R.
Koehler (Ed.), Educator's handbook: A research perspective. New York: Long-
man.
Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock
(Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 119-161). New York:
Macmillan.
Guskey, T. R. (1986). Staff development and the process of teacher change.
Educational Researcher, 15(5), 5- 12.
Hoffman, J. V. (1986). Reality and reform in clinical teacher education. New York:
Random.
Hollingsworth, S. (1986). Learning to teach reading. Unpublished doctoral disser-
tation, University of Texas at Austin.
Hollingsworth, S. (1988). Making field-based programs work: A three-level ap-
proach to reading education. Journal of Teacher Education, 39(4), 28-36.
Holmes Group. (1986). Tomorrow's teachers: A report of the Holmes Group. East
Lansing, MI: Author.
Hunter, M. (1982). Mastery teaching: Increasing instructional effectiveness in
secondary schools, colleges and universities. El Segundo, CA: TIP.
Joyce, B. R., & Showers, B. (1982) The coaching of teaching. Educational Leader-
ship, 40, 4-10.
Joyce, B. R., & Showers, B. (1988) Student achievement through staffdevelopment.
New York: Longman.
Leinhardt, G., & Greeno, J. (1983, April). The cognitive skill of teaching. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Associ-
ation, Montreal, Canada.
Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteachers: A sociological study. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
188
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis. Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.
Nespor, J. (1985). Work and academic tasks in a high school english class. Austin,
TX: R & D Center for Teacher Education, The University of Texas at Austin.
Piaget, J. (1971). The theory of stages in cognitive development. In B. Green, M.
Ford, & G. Flamer (Eds.), Measurement and Piaget (pp. 1-1 1). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Richardson-Koehler, V. R. (1987). Educator's handbook: A research perspective.
New York: Longman.
Rosenshine, B. V. (1983). Teaching functions in instructional programs. Elemen-
tary School Journal, 84, 335-35 1.
Rosenshine, B. V. (1987). Explicit teaching and teacher training. Journal of Teacher
Education, 38(3), 34-36.
Rumelhart, D. E., & Norman, D. (1976). Accretion, tuning, restructuring: Three
modes of learning (Report No. 7062). La Jolla, CA: La Jolla Center for Human
Information Processing.
Schallert, D. L. (1982). The significance of knowledge: A synthesis of research
related to schema theory. In W. Otto & S. White (Eds.), Reading expository
material (pp. 13-48). New York: Academic Press.
Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding:
An inquiry into human knowledge structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Shefelbine, J. L., & Hollingsworth, S. (1987). The instructional decisions of pre-
service teachers during a reading practicum. Journal of Teacher Education, 38(1),
36-42.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching.
Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-2 1.
Spradley, J. (1980). Participant observation. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Win-
ston.
Teel, K., & Hollingsworth, S. (1988, April). Learning classroom management: Case
studies in preservice teacher education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.
Wilson, S. M., Shulman, L. S., & Richert, A. R. (1987). "150 different ways" of
knowing: Representations of knowledge in teaching. In J. Calderhead (Ed.),
Exploring teacher thinking. Sussex: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Zeichner, K. (1983). Alternative paradigms of teacher education. Journal of Teacher
Education, 34, 3-9.
Zeichner, K. M., & Liston, D. P. (1987). Teaching student teachers to reflect.
Harvard Educational Review, 5 7(1), 23-48.
Zeichner, K. M., & Tabachnick, B. (1981). Are the effects of university teacher
education washed out by school experience? Journal of Teacher Education, 32,
7-11.
Author
SANDRA HOLLINGSWORTH, Assistant Professor, University of California,
Berkeley, Graduate School of Education, 4423 Tolman Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720.
Specializations: teacher education, reading.
LINKED CITATIONS
- Page 1 of 2 -
You have printed the following article:

Prior Beliefs and Cognitive Change in Learning to Teach
American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 26, No. 2. (Summer, 1989), pp. 160-189.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8312%28198922%2926%3A2%3C160%3APBACCI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-D
This article references the following linked citations. If you are trying to access articles from an
off-campus location, you may be required to first logon via your library web site to access JSTOR. Please
visit your library's website or contact a librarian to learn about options for remote access to JSTOR.
References
Education: The Overcoming of Experience

Margret Buchmann; John Schwille
American Journal of Education, Vol. 92, No. 1. (Nov., 1983), pp. 30-51.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0195-6744%28198311%2992%3A1%3C30%3AETOOE%3E2.0.CO%3B2-1
Academic Work
Walter Doyle
Review of Educational Research, Vol. 53, No. 2. (Summer, 1983), pp. 159-199.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0034-6543%28198322%2953%3A2%3C159%3AAW%3E2.0.CO%3B2-V
Academic Tasks in Classrooms

Walter Doyle; Kathy Carter
Curriculum Inquiry, Vol. 14, No. 2. (Summer, 1984), pp. 129-149.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0362-6784%28198422%2914%3A2%3C129%3AATIC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-J
Staff Development and the Process of Teacher Change

Thomas R. Guskey
Educational Researcher, Vol. 15, No. 5. (May, 1986), pp. 5-12.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0013-189X%28198605%2915%3A5%3C5%3ASDATPO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-7
LINKED CITATIONS
- Page 2 of 2 -
Teaching Functions in Instructional Programs

Barak Rosenshine
The Elementary School Journal, Vol. 83, No. 4, Special Issue: Research on Teaching. (Mar., 1983),
pp. 335-351.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0013-5984%28198303%2983%3A4%3C335%3ATFIIP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-R
Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching

Lee S. Shulman
Educational Researcher, Vol. 15, No. 2. (Feb., 1986), pp. 4-14.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0013-189X%28198602%2915%3A2%3C4%3ATWUKGI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-X

Hollingsworth - Prior Beliefs and Cogntive Change in Learning To Teach

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hollingsworth - Prior Beliefs and Cogntive Change in Learning To Teach

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Prior Beliefs and Cognitive Change in Learning to Teach

Prior Beliefs and Cognitive Change in Learning to

This is a report of the first year of a longitudinal study to investigate

of future teachers. It is clear that we don't really know enough about

when that content might be presented to preservice teachers in their

Management and Instruction

The Ecology of Learning in Classrooms

Views about classroom management

were regularly assigned by the teacher education program staff. Finally, as

supervisor interviews spaced over the year; and ( f ) weekly preservice

FIGURE 1 . A model of learning to teach

case studies of Lynda, Chris, Alice, and Margaret. Their representative

Thus, though superficially similar, Alice's understanding of the pro-

documented in the literature (see Doyle, 1986), is supported again by this

on them? (Chris, 1/23)

wavelengths. (Margaret, 10110)

There appeared to be a definite pattern in realizing that such beliefs were

there seemed to be at least four explanatory factors that helped them

Entering beliefs about Believes in Revised beliefs about

Need to change Subject specitic

FIGURE 2. Learning general classroom management

Something to teach. Trust in the teacher education program and his

Subject-Specific Content and Pedagogical Knowledge

Beyond her subject-specific knowledge of mathematics, Margaret ap-

Entering beliefs about Revised beliefs about

GeneraVtraditional More specific

balance between prior

beliefs and new Expectation to by

FIGURE 3. Learning subject-specific content and pedagogy

sciencelmath classroom?"). Learning about reading instruction from the

FIGURE 4. Understanding students' learning from academic tasks in class-

teacher]. I'm acting like the dictator. (4120)

once. We'll just keep working at it. (4128)

"rules" to get some real discussion going. Seems to be working [reasonably]

incorporate discussion formats is helpful. (5120)

Context. Even an understanding of how to design a lesson to incorporate

sort, schematize, organize, and interconnect teaching routines to make

to terms with management, for example, might maximize the subject-

You have printed the following article:

Education: The Overcoming of Experience

Academic Tasks in Classrooms

Staff Development and the Process of Teacher Change

Teaching Functions in Instructional Programs

Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching

You might also like