12 Appendix B

Appendix B
ANNOTATED ARTICLE: NEGOTIATING

DISCREPANCIES: LITERACY INSTRUCTION
All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law.
IN THE UNIVERSITY CLASSROOM

AND THE PRIMARY CLASSROOM
Author: Sherry Sanden

Affiliation: School of Teaching and Learning, Illinois State University,
USA
Published in: Journal of Literacy Practice and Research, Spring/Summer
2016, 30–37.
The following designations are used throughout this article to point out
theoretical components:
1. Conceptual Framework
2. Epistemology
3. Paradigm
4. Theory
5. Theoretical Framework
6. Methodology
7. Method
Abstract
This study used an activity theory framework5 to explore discrepancies between
discourses of literacy privileged in an undergraduate education course and lit-
eracy practices witnessed by preservice teachers in classroom settings. Findings
Copyright 2020. Routledge.
revealed a limited number of preservice teachers witnessing the balanced literacy
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 8/21/2023 5:16 PM via WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY
AN: 2199129 ; Joy Egbert, Sherry Sanden.; Foundations of Education Research : Understanding Theoretical Components
Account: s8493583.main.ehost
100 FOUNDATIONS OF EDUCATION RESEARCH
practices that were privileged in university course work. Further, the tendency
was for pre-service teachers to adapt their practices to suit existing classroom
conditions rather than to engage in-service teachers in discussions regarding
discrepancies. Elements of activity theory4 were used to reveal implications for
efforts required to better support pre-service teacher learning in clinical settings.
The gulf between pedagogical instruction offered in teacher preparation

programs and the beliefs and practices enacted in school classrooms is
an acknowledged concern in eduction (e.g. Bullough, Hobbs, Kauchak,
Crow & Stokes, 1997; Zeichner, 2007). This disconnection is especially
problematic for preservice teachers, who must navigate both sites in the
process of developing their own pedagogical belief systems. Research
shows clinical experiences may provide opportunities for advancing
preservice teacher understanding about literacy learning and teach-
ing (Zeichner & Melnick, 1996; Darling- Hammond, Hammerness,
Grossman, Rust & Shulman, 2005). However, disconnect that forces
fledgling teachers to choose sides on an epistemological battlefield may
fail to provide experiences that prompt such growth. This study explored
discrepancies between the “discourses of literacy” (Phillips & Larson,
2009, p. 137) privileged in an undergraduate education course and the
literacy practices witnessed by preservice teachers in early childhood
classrooms. It was hoped to determine the extent to which preservice and
inservice teachers perceived these differences and how they negotiated
discrepancies as they co-taught in a clinical experience.3
PreService Teaching Experiences

Though the importance of continuity between university programs and
clinical experiences has been well-documented, the incidence of this
occurring varies (Collins, A., Brown, J.S., & Holum, A., 1991). There is
often a disconnect between what is learned in university education courses
and what preservice teachers observe enacted in classrooms (Bullough
et al., 1997; Zeichner, 2007, 2010). Moreover, cooperating teachers don’t
know what education majors learn in university classrooms, and univer-
sity faculty often have little awareness of the specific practices enacted in
P-12 schools. For preservice teachers, the result can be the antithesis of
opportunities to hone their teaching craft.
Bullough (1987) explained many teachers are unable to negotiate the
contradictions between ways they learn to teach in their university pro-
grams, and ways they feel compelled to provide instruction. Too often
they resort to methods that just get them by, even when those methods
EBSCOhost - printed on 8/21/2023 5:16 PM via WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
Appendix B 101
are inconsistent with their initial pedagogical beliefs. In a study examin-

ing the developing identities of preservice teachers, Alsup (2006) noted
new teachers most often conducted instruction consistent with the beliefs
of their former mentor teachers, even when those positions contradicted
knowledge acquired in their teacher education programs. In so doing, the
prospective teacher “sometimes sacrifices theories and ideologies associ-
ated with the university in order to become a functioning member of the
teaching community” (p. 42). Student teachers who remained consistent
with their university-based learning when it contradicted their mentor
teachers’ positions found themselves struggling to develop relationships
with their teacher colleagues.
Attempts by new teachers to survive contradictions in their academic
and practical contexts often result in mere imitation of practices observed
in their clinical settings, which does not appear to support their pedagog-
ical growth. Bauml (2011) investigated the instructional decision-making
of five first-year teachers. One preservice teacher had clinical experiences
with three experienced teachers whose practices she imitated. However,
the automaticity in the decision-making of the seasoned teachers ren-
dered it invisible to her; she could only mimic their practices without
understanding the goals or reasoning that founded their decisions. This
was a consistent finding among several of these participants, now new
teachers, who explained that in their clinical settings they had enacted
practices superficially without an understanding of why they were doing
what they did. Bauml explained that this led to a failure of the new teach-
ers to fully comprehend “critical aspects of instruction” (p. 236).
Given these dual concerns of the discrepancies between university and
classroom pedagogical understandings and the difficulties encountered
by pre-service teachers who face these circumstances, it is essential that
teacher preparation programs hold a better awareness of the situation.
The current study supports understanding in the area of literacy teacher
education in particular, which may prompt teacher educators to pursue
greater possibilities to support the learning of their teacher candidates
through increased consistency in their literacy learning settings and
additional opportunities for the preservice teachers to negotiate discrep-
ancies occurring in those contexts.2
Research Context
As an instructor in the early childhood program of a university in the
Midwest, I teach a course that introduces preservice teachers to concepts
of literacy learning and teaching, exploring a number of instructional
approaches but focusing on a framework of balanced literacy instruction.

Bingham and Hall-Kenyon (2013) define balanced literacy as an approach
in which skill- and meaning-based aspects of reading receive equal atten-
tion and students are provided scaffolded supports in pursuit of devel-
opmentally appropriate literacy acquisition. I outline the pros and cons
of a number of instructional practices, but I advocate for those practices
that are consistent with balanced literacy learning. Phillips and Larson
(2009) label such a course framework a “discourse of literacy” (p. 137),
the structure within which instructor and students interact around a set
of literacy beliefs and practices.1
Providing an introduction to varied literacy theories and practices
helps prepare my students for the wide-ranging instructional methods
they might encounter in their initial teaching positions. Kosnik and Beck
(2008) assert that, “teachers should emerge from their preparation pro-
gram with an integrated set of pedagogical pursuits that, to the extent
possible for a new teacher, they can name, understand, own, and enact”
(p. 127). In their future positions, these new teachers will need to hold
solid understanding of the benefits, drawbacks, and implementation of a
range of literacy pedagogy and be able to select and implement tools and
concepts that will best fit their students’ diverse needs.
Preservice teachers in this program participate in semester-long
classroom clinical experiences three times before student teaching.
Clinical experiences occur in schools within an hour’s drive of the uni-
versity and include both rural, suburban, and small urban districts.
Each semester, classroom conversations demonstrate students’ confu-
sion around discrepancies between the literacy theories and practices
discussed in my course and the perspectives and practices they see mod-
eled in their clinical classrooms. Based on my concern for how students’
perceptions of these differences might impact their learning about lit-
eracy instruction, I initiated a study to explore these discrepancies. The
following questions guided this inquiry: 1) What perceived discrepan-
cies between university-privileged literacy instruction and classroom-
based literacy practices are articulated by preservice teachers and by the
in-service teachers with whom they are placed? and 2) How do preser-
vice teachers and in-service teachers negotiate those discrepancies in
the clinical experience? Such understanding may prompt ways to bet-
ter support preservice teachers in successfully navigating this discon-
nection in pursuit of professional growth.3 While this study focuses on
my local context, I believe that increased understanding regarding ways
to advantage issues of discrepancy between academic literacy knowl-
edge and practitioner-based literacy instruction has a broad scope and
Appendix B 103
may enrich the conversation across the wider field of preservice liter-
acy education.2
Theoretical Perspective
I approached this research study from a social constructivist perspec-
tive, convinced that the knowledge growth of preservice teachers in
clinical settings is in large part a result of interactions with their coop-
erating teachers. Within the social constructivist perspective, I relied on
a framework developed by Grossman, Smagorinsky, and Valencia (1999)
that utilizes activity theory to explore the professional learning of novice
teachers. These authors explain that activity theory emphasizes the set-
tings in which learning occurs, and an examination of settings in which
professional learning is expected “can reveal the kinds of social struc-
tures that promote the appropriation of pedagogical tools that, in turn,
result in particular kinds of teaching.” (p. 24).
To collect and analyze data, I relied on three related elements of activ-
ity theory (Grossman et al., 1999): 1) conceptual and practical tools, 2)
activity settings, and 3) identity development. Conceptual and practi-
cal tools, or beliefs and understandings and the means to enact them,
were explored in the current study through the literacy concepts and
practices to which the preservice teachers were exposed in their univer-
sity course and that they may or may not have witnessed in the clinical
setting. Activity settings refer to the “mediating contexts” (Grossman
et al., p. 6) within which learning takes place. In this study, I explored
the discontinuity of the university and clinical classroom contexts on
preservice teachers’ developing understandings about literacy teaching.
Identity development occurs as individuals begin to assume those hab-
its of thought and practice that will be most advantageous in addressing
the challenges of the setting. In the present study, I explored preservice
teachers’ literacy instructional beliefs and associated actions and how
they were influenced by the pressures of the clinical experience.5
Data Collection
I asked preservice teachers who had finished my course to complete an
online survey7 the following semester, after they had been at their clini-
cal sites for approximately 12 weeks. The survey contained yes-no ques-
tions7 about whether concepts and practices that had been addressed
in the course were evident in their clinical classrooms, and Likert-scale
questions7 asking them to rate how closely the concepts and practices
related to their university literacy instruction. The survey also contained

open-ended questions7 regarding preservice teachers’ experiences nego-
tiating discrepancies between university literacy instruction and their
classroom experiences.
I emailed in-service teachers with whom the preservice teachers would
be working and invited them to participate. In-service teachers were
asked yes-no questions7 about their classroom use of the same literacy
concepts and practices, and Likert-scale questions7 asking them to rate
how closely the concepts and practices related to their observations of
the preservice teachers’ practices. Additional questions asked about any
discussions they had with preservice teachers regarding discrepancies.
I provided all participants with a list of the concepts and practices,
along with a brief description of each (Appendix A), in order to refresh
pre-service teachers’ memories regarding how the terms had been used
in the literacy course and to ensure consistency of understanding across
all participants. Among the 28 pre-service teachers and 13 in-service
teachers who participated in the study, there were 10 matched pairs; i.e.
each of these 10 pre-service teacher participants was in a classroom with
an in-service teacher participant. Comparing their responses to the sur-
vey questions seemed especially important since each of these pairs was
working in the same classroom.
Data Analysis
Following collection of the survey data, I compiled descriptive statis-
tics7 such as the frequency and the percentage of responses (Creswell &
Plano Clark, 2011) to each yes/ no and Likert-scale question from each
data set. For questions with narrative responses, analysis occurred in a
series of stages. In the first stage, I performed Initial Coding7 (Strauss
& Corbin, 1998) on the participants’ comments, reading and re-reading
them to capture how participants considered each literacy concept or
practice in relation to their own teaching, to their clinical counterpart’s
teaching, and, in the case of the preservice teachers, in relation to their
university course. Initial Coding7 was also used to analyze narrative
responses regarding ways preservice and in-service teachers negotiated
perceived discrepancies between their instructional beliefs and practices.
Consistent with a theoretical framework based on activity theory, I con-
ducted the beginning analysis with a focus on conceptual and practical
tools, activity settings, and identity development but I remained open to
other concepts that became apparent, and the 19 resulting codes reflected
this. In a second stage, I used Pattern Coding7 (Miles & Huberman, 1994)
Appendix B 105
to collapse the initial codes into categories according to similarities

among them, in relation to the research questions. Consequently, three
overarching themes emerged: 1) perceptions of similarities and dis-
crepancies, 2) attempts to negotiate discrepancies, and 3) perceptions of
impact on learning and practice.6
Results
Responses to the survey questions identified preservice and in-service
teachers’ often-disparate perceptions of the literacy instruction that
occurred in their clinical classrooms. Patterns of responses also provided
insight into the differing attempts by preservice and in-service teachers
to negotiate those discrepancies as they co-taught in the clinical setting.
Instructional Discrepancies
At the most basic level, preservice and in-service teachers were asked
whether each of the 16 literacy concepts and practices was applied in
their clinical classrooms. Results are shown in Table B1. Only the literacy
practice of classroom library was reported as observed by all of the pre-
service teachers. Fewer than half of the 16 literacy concepts and prac-
tices that comprised the balanced literacy curriculum in their university
course were witnessed by at least 80% of the pre-service teachers in their
clinical settings. The results indicate the discrepancy between the per-
ceptions of the pre- and in-service teachers; in almost every instance,
in-service teachers were more likely than preservice teachers to indicate
that the concept or practice was used in their classroom. The two groups
agreed on the inclusion of classroom libraries; only in the case of round-
robin/popcorn reading did fewer in-service teachers indicate that it was
an included practice. In the paired groups, there were a few more areas
of agreement but overall, the tendency was still greater for the in-service
teachers than for the preservice teachers to indicate that these concepts
and practices were in use in their classrooms.
Some preservice teachers expressed concern over their lack of experi-
ence with instructional practices that they had learned about and were
eager to try out in a classroom setting. One student, explaining why she
didn’t use writing workshop, stated, “I haven’t seen it modeled enough or
I haven’t been given the opportunity to teach it enough to or else I would.”
When discussing her inability to conduct interactive read- alouds, a stu-
dent explained, “I wish all of the books were more carefully chosen for
their content. Sometimes it seems that my CT just picks ones that she
likes, or needs me to read a book or two to pass time.” While some pre-
service teachers noted the use of some elements of balanced literacy, the
overall pattern evident in their comments reflected an absence of bal-
anced literacy practices as they had come to understand them.
Perceptions of instruction
When in-service teachers were asked about the overall consistency
between the preservice teachers’ literacy instruction and their own, 92%
of the in-service teachers indicated that they were mostly or completely
the same. Preservice teachers, on the other hand, were less likely to rec-
ognize such similarities. When asked to rate the level of consistency
between the in-service teachers’ overall literacy instructional practices
and those discussed in their university course, 65% of preservice teachers
indicated that the practices were mostly or completely the same.
Table B1 Perceived inclusion of classroom literacy concepts and practices
Literacy Concept or Practice In-Service Pre-Service Paired Paired

Teachers Teachers In-Service Pre-Service
(n=13): Yes (n=28): Yes Teachers Teachers
(n=10): Yes (n=10): Yes
balanced literacy 92% 82% 100% 90%

motivation for reading 92% 82% 100% 80%
student choice 92% 86% 90% 80%
reading workshop 77% 71% 100% 90%
interactive read-alouds 100% 86% 100% 100%
reciprocal conversations 77% 43% 80% 40%
teacher think-alouds 92% 57% 90% 60%
round-robin/popcorn reading 31% 36% 10% 30%
literacy-rich environment 100% 96% 100% 100%
writing being taught, not just 100% 68% 100% 70%
asssigned
gradual release of 85% 79% 90% 60%
responsibility model
writing workshop 85% 54% 90% 70%
classroom library 100% 100% 100% 100%
independent reading 100% 93% 100% 90%
guided reading 92% 79% 80% 80%
core/basal reading programs 62% 61% 50% 40%
Appendix B 107
These contrasting views were similarly evident in patterns of preservice

and in-service teachers’ narrative responses. When in-service teachers
were asked to comment on their preservice teachers’ practices in compar-
ison to their own, it appeared that as a group, in-service teachers did not
recognize many discrepancies between the literacy instruction provided
by the preservice teachers placed in their rooms and their own literacy
practices. An analysis of collected data revealed numerous comments
from in-service teachers praising their pre-service teachers’ abilities and
emphasizing the ways that preservice teachers’ practices easily melded
into the existing programs. For example, one in-service teacher stated,
“My preservice teacher tried to do things the same way I was doing them.
The only differences would have been through personalities.” Another
said, “My clinical student is very open to doing what is asked and chang-
ing what needs to be changed.” These representative comments pointed
out the efforts made by the preservice teachers to adapt their practices to
those of the in-service teachers. The evidence indicates that preservice
teachers’ performance was commended by the in-service teachers when
it most closely resembled the teachers’ existing practices.
Patterns in the comments of the preservice teachers painted a less rosy
picture. Preservice teachers stated numerous ways in which classroom
practices differed from the understandings they gained in their univer-
sity course. For example, when describing her classroom’s library, one
preservice teacher said,
There is a great library, but the books aren’t organized in a way for students to
pick books based off of their reading level. They are only categorized by topic.
The students also don’t get as many opportunities to pick their own books as we
talked about allowing in [the university course].
Commenting on round-robin reading in her clinical classroom, another

preservice teacher stated, “The way we described round-robin in class is
how my teacher uses it. It is different than what we discussed because she
uses it a lot and we talked about how this type of reading isn’t so great.”
These examples evidence patterns in preservice teachers’ responses, as they
described perceived differences between their understandings of literacy
instruction and the instruction they observed in the clinical classrooms.
Addressing Discrepancies
When asked how comfortable they felt discussing discrepancies with
their clinical counterparts, the data shows great inconsistency between
the comfort levels of the preservice and in-service teachers. For the
in-service teachers, 85% reported that they felt completely or mostly
comfortable discussing discrepancies between their instructional prac-
tices and those of the preservice teachers, though only 38% reported hav-
ing done so. On the other hand, only 46% of the preservice teachers stated
that they felt completely or mostly comfortable, and only 32% reported
having held discussions with the in-service teachers regarding literacy
instruction discrepancies.
Preservice teachers’ discomfort with engaging the in-service teach-
ers in dialogue about instructional discrepancies was equally evident
in their narrative responses. Preservice teachers appeared to be fully
aware of differences between their own beliefs regarding literacy peda-
gogy and the instruction they observed in their clinical classrooms but
they felt powerless to address them in a constructive way. In a response
typifying this pattern, a preservice teacher stated, “My teacher has
made it known that she does not approve of or like readers and writ-
ers workshop. She also has a masters in reading instruction and I do
not want to upset her with my opinions.” Another preservice teacher
explained her own instructional decisions by saying, “I base the literacy
on the way my teacher does it because that is how she wants her stu-
dents to be taught.” The data evidences clear struggles for preservice
teachers to conduct literacy instruction that conflicts with that of the
classroom teacher.
Discussion
The results of this study uncovered differences between what the preser-
vice teachers learned about balanced literacy in their university classes
and what they witnessed in their classroom settings. While some preser-
vice teachers reported observing instructional practices to which they
were exposed in their university course, many more did not. Further,
the tendency was for preservice teachers to adapt their instructional
practices to suit classroom conditions rather than to engage in-service
teachers in discussions regarding discrepancies. This was further com-
plicated by differing perceptions of the preservice and in-service teach-
ers regarding the types of instructional practices that were used, even
by those working in the same classrooms. In the following section I
explore these results through the lens of a theoretical framework that
aligns with three elements of activity theory (Grossman et al., 1999) in
order to reveal implications for pre-service teacher learning in clini-
cal settings. 5
Appendix B 109
Appropriation of conceptual and practical tools

Two important components in the learning of preservice teachers are the
development of conceptual tools, or belief systems to guide instructional
decision-making; and the knowledge of practical tools, or methods with
which to implement those beliefs (Grossman et al., 1999). Appropriation
(Wertsch, 1990) of pedagogical tools is based, to varying degrees, on
learners’ own beliefs, on the social mores in place in an activity setting,
and on the distance between those two perspectives (Grossman et al.).
Two activity settings that influence the learning of preservice teachers,
the university classroom and the clinical classroom, are intended to sup-
port students’ burgeoning understanding of conceptual and practical
tools and to prompt their enactment in real practice. However, preser-
vice teachers moving between these venues often face confusing dis-
crepancies in the way these tools are represented and used, right at the
time in their professional lives when their own pedagogical beliefs are
under construction.
Preservice teacher participants in the current study were exposed in
the university classroom to a variety of conceptual and practical tools
within a balanced literacy framework. While some witnessed the imple-
mentation of those tools and had opportunities to practice them in class-
rooms, many observed slightly or vastly different practices from those to
which they had been exposed at the university, at least in the ways that
they perceived them. Preservice teachers were encouraged to model their
literacy instruction after that of their in-service mentors, whether or not
it coincided with their own pedagogical beliefs or the literacy instruction
espoused at the university. Consistent with previous studies (Bullough,
1987; Alsup, 2006), it appears that these preservice teachers followed the
instructional expectations of the clinical settings rather than appropriat-
ing conceptual and practical tools in the ways they had begun to under-
stand them in their academic setting.
Motives in the activity settings

In an ideal world, contexts in which preservice teachers come to know
about teaching, including their university courses and their field experi-
ences, would operate with shared purposes and belief systems. Instead,
the pedagogical beliefs espoused in teacher education often look very dif-
ferent from the practices enacted in school classrooms (Zeichner, 2010).
These differing constructs regarding literacy instruction may be explained
by the motives, or sought after outcomes, inherent in these settings.
Wertsch (1985) explains that “the motive that is involved in a particular

activity setting specifies what is to be maximized in that setting” (p. 212).
Motives are determined by those who interact within the settings and
are often socially or historically defined. In my university course, literacy
instruction privileged student-centered, constructivist methodologies
that are common in teacher education programs (Smagorinsky, Sanford
& Konopak, 2006). Therefore, motives in the university setting tend to
advantage those progressive approaches, to the exclusion of teacher-
centered authoritarian instruction more common in school classrooms.
Preservice teachers encounter motives in the university and class-
room settings that are often pre-determined and that may not coalesce
with their goals as teacher candidates. Grossman et al. (1999) explains
that the clinical experience is an opportunity for preservice teachers to
both experiment with various teaching methods and to try on the role of
teacher. Responses of the preservice teachers in this study displayed these
dual motives, exhibiting their eagerness to try out the literacy instruction
from their university coursework alongside their interest in impressing
the in-service teachers with their expanding skills. Those motives often
appeared to work at cross purposes since the in-service teachers, reflect-
ing the socially accepted motives of the school setting, appeared most
complimentary with preservice teachers’ performances that mirrored
their own. This appeared to prompt the preservice teachers to model their
instruction after that of their mentors rather than to try out alternative
methods learned in their university course. The motive of the preservice
teachers to use the clinical setting as an experimental test site for bal-
anced literacy instruction appeared to be overridden by the motive of the
in-service teachers to maintain the status quo in their classrooms and by
the preservice teachers’ own motive to impress their mentors with the
type of teaching that they believed the in-service teachers would approve.
Identity development
The development of teacher identity is a perpetual, multi- faceted, and
complex process that occurs across numerous contexts (Larson, 2008;
Beauchamp & Thomas, 2009). Sachs (2005) explained that the combi-
nation of actual experiences and the perceptions of those experiences
contributes to the formation of one’s professional identity, noting that
teacher professional identity “provides a framework for teachers to con-
struct their own ideas of ‘how to be’, ‘how to act’ and ‘how to understand’
their work and their place in society” (p. 15). Activity theory looks at
how individuals in various contexts go about defining and addressing the
Appendix B 111
challenges they face; those sets of experiences contribute to the forma-

tion of professional identity (Grossman et al., 1999). Not the least of these
settings, for preservice teachers, are their university and school environ-
ments.4 Identity formation in these settings can be especially challeng-
ing since the embedded motives and beliefs may be at odds with each
other and with the development of future teachers. In addition, power
dynamics at play in field experiences frequently place preservice teach-
ers in powerless positions where problems are pre-defined and solution
options may or may not be consistent with teacher candidates’ developing
pedagogical understandings. Thus, the experiences available to preser-
vice teachers in clinical settings may limit possibilities for professional
identity formation.
Responses indicated that these preservice teachers were often stymied
in attempts to experiment in their clinical classrooms with the instruc-
tion methods they had encountered in their university course, which is
a common frustration for teacher preparation programs (Bullough et al.,
1997; Zeichner, 2007). Rather than identifying instructional dilemmas
and using their own teaching skills to address them, preservice teachers
were encouraged or required to conduct literacy instruction that mir-
rored that of the classroom teachers. In addition, they did not feel entitled
or empowered to discuss with the in-service teachers the instructional
discrepancies they perceived. They were united in the perception of
themselves as students of teaching who followed the lead of others rather
than as classroom decision makers.
Implications
In the learning settings of the university classroom and the clinical class-
room, preservice teachers are expected to negotiate the often discrep-
ant beliefs and practices inherent in each context as they begin to form
their pedagogical understandings. Exploring these differences and their
responses in addressing the discrepancies presents some important themes
in supporting teacher candidates’ successful progress. For example:
•• How can preservice teachers be provided with more opportunities to

experiment with conceptual and practical tools they encounter across
their activity settings? Darling-Hammond, Hammerness, Grossman,
Rust, and Shulman (2005) explain that teachers need to do more than
simply implement techniques. They also “need to be able to think
pedagogically, reason through dilemmas, investigate problems, and
analyze student learning to develop appropriate curriculum for a
diverse group of learners” (p. 392). This requires preservice teachers

to have opportunities to try out, under the watchful eye of an experi-
enced mentor, practices that have been described in their university
education programs. Given multiple, often conflicting, mitigating
factors in their clinical settings, preservice teachers may have limited
opportunities to experiment with these new ideas.
•• How can disparities be reduced between academic constructs of lit-
eracy instruction and practical applications of classroom teaching?
Darling-Hammond et al. (2005) explained that exemplary teacher
education programs are characterized by coherence between clinical
work and coursework, reflecting commonality in key ideas, stand-
ards of practice, and common beliefs about teaching. Unfortunately,
there is a well-documented disconnect between cooperating teach-
ers and university instructors about the specifics of the school and
the campus instruction preservice teachers receive (Zeichner, 2010).
Preservice teachers who face contradictory models of literacy instruc-
tion in clinical settings and in their university coursework may reject
those learned in their teacher education programs because they fail
to see them enacted in any practical way (Alsup, 2006).
•• How can interactions in these activity settings support preservice
teachers’ acquisition of a professional teacher identity? Larson (2008)
states that the authoritative discourses that preservice teachers must
negotiate in the development of their teacher selves, including prac-
tices of teacher education programs and perspectives of cooperating
teachers, define preservice teachers’ approved pedagogical options as
they participate in classrooms. The inherent power structures built
into their practice teaching experiences may result in a lack of oppor-
tunities for them to try on the mantle of teacher, creating a context
that fails to support a burgeoning teacher identity.
•• The results of this study point to the need for continued efforts to
enable university students to deal with varied curricular demands
in their field experiences and along their early career paths, and to
improved planning between university and school sites. These efforts
are ongoing; for example, Darling-Hammond and colleagues (2005)
have studied elements of exemplary teacher education programs and
specifically, ways that field experiences can contribute to those objec-
tives. A strong finding of this work is the essential nature of align-
ment in philosophy and practice between the teacher preparation
program and the school placement. They mention the advantages for
building a greater degree of coherence, such as: 1) more extensive
periods of time in the schools for preservice teachers, coupled with
Appendix B 113
well-designed supervision and feedback; 2) more collaborative plan-

ning and decision-making efforts between the school and university
partners; and 3) greater participation in inquiry and research efforts
among all the clinical stakeholders. However, as evidenced by the
experiences of the preservice teacher participants of this study, cur-
rently involved in the very important task of constructing knowledge
about their future teaching lives, consistent implementation of these
important ideas cannot come too soon.
LITERACY CONCEPTS AND PRACTICES DESCRIPTIONS

•• balanced literacy: An approach that integrates the best practices of a
skill-based and a whole language curriculum
•• literacy-rich environment: A classroom that is diverse and print-rich,
schedules blocks of time devoted to literacy experiences, and includes
supportive & respectful person-to-person literacy interactions
•• motivation for reading: A classroom atmosphere that encourages
students to be interested and self-directed readers, participating in
reading activities not just because they are required to but because
they want to
•• writing being taught, not just assigned: Classroom writing time
that goes beyond merely providing or requiring students to write, to
include regularly scheduled instruction on writing topics
•• student choice: Students are provided many opportunities to make
their own decisions on aspects of classroom literacy such as book
selection and writing topics
•• gradual release of responsibility model: An instructional strat-
egy for scaffolding learning, including extensive teacher support at
the beginning of the sequence followed by increasingly less teacher
support as students begin to assume independent responsibility for
the learning
•• reading workshop: An instructional model that maintains a focus on
student reading as the primary activity; the typical format includes
a teacher-led mini lesson followed by student independent reading
time and then group sharing
•• writing workshop: An instructional model that maintains a focus on
student writing as the primary activity; the typical format includes
a teacher-led mini lesson followed by student independent writing
time and then group sharing
•• interactive read-alouds: Animated fluent oral reading by the teacher
with an emphasis on eliciting student interactions during reading
•• classroom library: An inviting and accessible classroom area with

an extensive, appealing, and diverse book collection
•• reciprocal conversations: Respectful episodes of verbal give-and-
take between all members of the classroom community, not primar-
ily dominated by teacher control of conversations
•• independent reading: Scheduled time for students to read self-
selected materials for their own purposes, with teacher support
as needed
•• teacher think-alouds: Teachers verbalize to students the thinking
going on in their heads as they engage in literacy tasks
•• guided reading: An instructional episode in which the teacher
works with small groups of similarly skilled children; a typical lesson
includes introduction and reading of a text, presentation of a teach-
ing point, and an extension activity or follow-up discussion
•• round-robin/popcorn reading: An activity in which students read
aloud, one after another, from text selected by the teacher; students
are expected to follow along silently when they are not reading
•• core reading programs/basal reading programs: Reading instruc-
tion conducted using a published curriculum that includes text
selections in student anthologies, accompanying teacher manuals,
workbooks, assessments, & supplementary materials.
References
Alsup, J. (2006). Teacher identity discourses: Negotiating personal and professional spaces.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bauml, M. (2011). “We learned all about that in college”: The role of teacher preparation
in novice kindergarten/primary teachers’ practice. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher
Education, 32, 225–239.
Beauchamp, C., & Thomas, L. (2009). Understanding teacher identity: An overview of issues
in the literature and implications for teacher education. Cambridge Journal of Education,
39(2), 175–189.
Bingham, G. E., & Hall-Kenyon, K. M. (2013). Examining teachers’ beliefs about and
implementation of a balanced literacy framework. Journal of Research in Reading, 36(1),
14–28.
Buck, G., Morsink, C., Griffin, C., Hines, T., & Lenk, L. (1992). Preservice training: The
role of field-based experiences in the preparation of effective special educators. Teacher
Education and Special Education, 15, 108–123.
Bullough, R. V. (1987). First year teaching: A case study. Teachers College Record, 89(2), 39–46.
Bullough, R., Hobbs, S., Kauchak, D., Crow, N., & Stokes, D. (1997). Long-term PDS
development in research universities and the clinicalization of teacher education. Journal
of Teacher Education, 48, 85–93.
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making things visible.
American Educator, 15(3), 6–11, 38–46.
Appendix B 115
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Darling-Hammond, L., Hammerness, K., Grossman, P., Rust, F., & Shulman, L. (2005). The
design of teacher education programs. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.),
Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp.
390–441). San Fran- cisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Grossman, P. L., Smagorinsky, P., & Valencia, S. (1999). Appropriating tools for teaching
English: A theoretical framework for research on learning to teach. American Journal of
Education, 108(1), 1–29.
Kosnik, C., & Beck, C. (2008). We taught them about literacy but what did they learn? The
impact of a preservice teacher education program on the practices of beginning teachers.
Studying Teacher Education, 4(2), 115–128.
Larson, M. L. (2008). Preservice literacy teachers in transition: Identity as subjectivity. The
International Journal of Learning, 15(6), 203–210.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Phillips, D. K., & Larson, M. L. (2009). Embodied discourses of literacy in the lives of two
preservice teachers. Teacher Development, 13(2), 135–146.
Sachs, J. (2005). Teacher education and the development of professional identity: Learning to
be a teacher. In P. Denicolo & M. Kompf (Eds.), Connecting policy and practice: Challenges
for teaching and learning in schools and universities (pp. 5–21). Oxford: Routledge.
Smagorinsky, P., Sanford, A. D., & Konopak, B. (2006). Functional literacy in a constructivist
key: A nontraditional student teacher’s apprenticeship in a rural elementary school.
Teacher Education Quarterly, 33(4), 93–109.
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Wertsch, J. V. (1990). The voice of rationality in a sociocultural approach to mind. In L.
C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of
sociohistorical psychology (pp. 111–126). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Whitney, L., Golez, F., Nagel, G., & Nieto, C. (2002). Listening to the voices of practicing
teachers to examine the effectiveness of a teacher education program. Action in Teacher
Education, 23(4), 69–76.
Zeichner, K. (2007). Professional development schools in a culture of evidence and account
ability. School-University Partnerships, 1(1), 9–17.
Zeichner, K. (2010). Rethinking the connections between campus courses and field experi
ences in college- and university-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education,
61(1–2), 89–99.
Zeichner, K., & Melnick, S. (1996). The role of community field experiences in preparing
teachers for cultural diversity. In K. Zeichner, S. Melnick, & M. L. Gomez (Eds.), Currents
of reform in preservice teacher education (pp. 176–198). New York: Teachers College Press.

12 Appendix B

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

12 Appendix B

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Appendix B

ANNOTATED ARTICLE: NEGOTIATING

IN THE UNIVERSITY CLASSROOM

Author: Sherry Sanden

revealed a limited number of preservice teachers witnessing the balanced literacy

The gulf between pedagogical instruction offered in teacher preparation

PreService Teaching Experiences

are inconsistent with their initial pedagogical beliefs. In a study examin-

approaches but focusing on a framework of balanced literacy instruction.

related to their university literacy instruction. The survey also contained

to collapse the initial codes into categories according to similarities

Table B1 Perceived inclusion of classroom literacy concepts and practices

Literacy Concept or Practice In-Service Pre-Service Paired Paired

balanced literacy 92% 82% 100% 90%

These contrasting views were similarly evident in patterns of preservice

Commenting on round-robin reading in her clinical classroom, another

Appropriation of conceptual and practical tools

Motives in the activity settings

Wertsch (1985) explains that “the motive that is involved in a particular

challenges they face; those sets of experiences contribute to the forma-

•• How can preservice teachers be provided with more opportunities to

diverse group of learners” (p. 392). This requires preservice teachers

well-designed supervision and feedback; 2) more collaborative plan-

LITERACY CONCEPTS AND PRACTICES DESCRIPTIONS

•• classroom library: An inviting and accessible classroom area with

You might also like