Teachers and content area reading: Attitudes, beliefs and change ...

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Teaching and Teacher Education 21 (2005) 403–414 www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

Teachers and content area reading: Attitudes, beliefs and change Leigh A. Hall Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA Received in revised form 8 June 2004

Abstract

‘‘Sometimes the teacher will say, ‘Read to the bottom of the page,’ and I try but I fall behind. Then she asks questions and a whole bunch of kids can answer the questions but I can’t. I try to keep up with everything but it’s really hard. Sarah; 6th grade social studies student’’. This paper presents the results of a review of the research into content area teachers’ attitudes and beliefs about the teaching of reading within their subject area(s). As exemplified in the quote above, the ability to read and learn from text written to provide information can be difficult and frustrating for students who lack the skills. Content area teachers have been encouraged for decades to incorporate reading into their area of instruction, but have often chosen not to do this for a variety of reasons. In addition, teacher educators have attempted to work with content area teachers to help them consider how to incorporate reading instruction into their classroom. This paper takes a closer look at the reasons that motivate pre- and in-service content area teachers in grades 6–12 to either teach or not teach reading. It also examines the ways in which teacher educators have worked to help content area teachers learn how to teach reading and the degree to which these interventions have been successful. In doing so I argue that (a) our approaches to working with content area teachers on this topic have been limited and (b) simply creating positive attitudes towards teaching reading is not necessarily enough. This paper begins with a brief discussion of what it means to teach reading in the content areas. Next I present a general introduction to teacher beliefs and how they may influence the instructional decisions teachers make. Then I discuss the methodology for my review. This is followed by the results of my review with implications for how teacher educators might consider addressing this issue in the future. r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Tel.: +1 517 290 0545.

E-mail address: [email protected]. 0742-051X/$ - see front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2005.01.009

ARTICLE IN PRESS 404

L.A. Hall / Teaching and Teacher Education 21 (2005) 403–414

1. Teaching reading in the content areas For over a century now researchers have agreed that students can benefit by having reading instruction incorporated into their content area classes (Anders & Guizzetti, 1996; Bond & Bond, 1941; Herber, 1970; Huey, 1968; McAllister, 1936; Moore, Readence, & Rickelman, 1983). Researchers and teacher educators have realized that middle and high school students will possess a wide range of reading abilities that could potentially affect how well they are able to read and make meaning from their content area texts (Anderson & Roit, 1993; Bryant, Ugel, & Thompson, 1999; Ivey, 1999). In addition, numerous studies have found that students of all abilities levels can improve their comprehension of content area texts when they are provided with reading instruction in the content areas (Bos, Anders, Filip, & Jaffe, 1989; Horton, Boone, & Lovitt, 1990; LeSourd, 1985; Lederer, 2000; Lyda & Duncan, 1967; Montali & Lewandowski, 1996; Weiss, 1983). Despite the benefits that such reading instruction can have, researchers and teacher educators have struggled to help content area teachers see the benefits of incorporating reading instruction into their classrooms (O’Brien & Stewart, 1990). Recent discussions on this topic provide us with some insight into this dilemma by suggesting that researchers and teacher educators may not be helping content area teachers to understand their role as teachers of reading. Wineburg (2001) and Muth (1993) have argued that teacher educators often treat reading in the content areas as a general task and not in ways specific to the subject(s) that their teachers teach. Teachers are not always provided opportunities to think about such things as how and why reading strategies can be applied to the texts they use and how these purposes may change across content areas. This generic treatment of reading and text could potentially lead to teachers not understanding the important nuances of the texts used within their subject matter or the different demands that such texts place on readers (Wineburg, 2001). While one obvious goal of reading, regardless of subject matter, is to gain meaning from text, the ways and

purposes for this can differ across content areas. For example, in science students may read texts in order to learn about specific scientific facts, laws, and principles. However, not everything written in a science text is intended to be taken as a fact or absolute. Therefore, students need to learn to identify and understand the difference between facts and theories and the role they play in the field of science (Norris & Phillips, 2003; Vansledright & Frankes, 1998). In history, students may read texts for purposes different than the ones in science. Here students may need to identify historical biases and to separate facts from persuasive arguments (Perfetti, Britt, & Georgi, 1995). For these things to occur, teachers need to be proficient in their subject matter as well as understand how to help their students develop the sophisticated skills needed to read texts in ways that are specific to their content area(s). If teachers are not given the opportunity to consider the wide range of reading skills students must apply to text and the purposes they must read for, then they may not realize and/or understand important differences between subject matter. Additionally, such generic treatment of text may influence how students learn or conceptualize what it means to read texts within the content areas. Therefore, we are potentially doing teachers a disservice if we present reading as a decontextualized process that contains a set of skills/strategies that can be generically applied across the content areas. Without this specialized understanding, content area teachers may not realize that their role is different from a reading specialist or an English teacher. They may also not realize that reading instruction could potentially help their students learn subject matter. Therefore, the ways in which teachers are taught how to think about and teach reading could potentially impact how they address this topic with their students.

2. Teacher beliefs and their influence on instruction The decisions that content area teachers make about what to teach and how to teach it may be largely influenced by their beliefs (Buchmann, 1987). While we would expect that content area

ARTICLE IN PRESS L.A. Hall / Teaching and Teacher Education 21 (2005) 403–414

teachers have knowledge about the subject(s) they teach, they may also hold a wide range of beliefs about what it means to be a teacher (Lortie, 1975; O’Brien & Stewart, 1990) and how students learn (Pajares, 1992). Teachers may also possess a wide range of pedagogical knowledge that could help them make decisions about how to approach the curriculum with their students (Shulman, 1987). Despite the types and amounts of knowledge that teachers may hold, it is their beliefs that are more likely to dictate their actions in the classroom (Ernest, 1989; Brown & Cooney, 1982). Teachers’ beliefs and their pedagogical knowledge about teaching and learning are closely connected (Beijaard & De Vries, 1997). To some extent, both pedagogical and subject matter knowledge can influence teachers’ beliefs. For example, some teachers may use their knowledge about subject matter, teaching methods, and student learning to guide what they believe students should learn and how they should best teach their subject matter. However, beliefs can influence and shape knowledge. Pajares (1992) concluded that teachers’ belief structures create a ‘‘filtering effect’’ through which new ideas/knowledge are processed and then interpreted. If the new information is aligned with their beliefs, it may be used to support their current stance(s). However, teachers may hold on to their old beliefs even when presented with contradictory information or shown that their beliefs are incomplete and/or incorrect (Munby, 1982). Rather than examine these inconsistencies, they may attempt to reconcile contradictory evidence by turning it into support for their beliefs (Nisbett & Ross, 1980). This suggests that teachers’ beliefs can be difficult to change. What makes it more challenging is the idea that it is more difficult to change beliefs that have been held for a long time as opposed to newly formed ones that are still developing (Pajares, 1992). Despite this, it is not necessarily impossible for teachers to change their beliefs. However, as teacher educators, we have to remember that pre and in-service teachers are influenced by their experiences as former students, teachers, and the contexts they have or are

405

currently experiencing (Lortie, 1975). If we want teachers to change their knowledge and belief systems, rather than try to rationalize why they should not, we must consider productive ways in which we can challenge them (Lasley, 1980). Given this, it is important for us to understand content area teachers’ beliefs about reading instruction and how they view their role as teachers of reading. While teachers’ beliefs can influence a wide range of areas, such as how and what gets taught, it can have a direct impact on content area reading. For example, some content area teachers may have knowledge about the reading process and how to teach reading (Yore, 1991). However, it is most likely their beliefs about if and/or how they should teach reading that will determine to what extent reading is taught. Content area teachers may make decisions about how to teach reading based on incomplete/ incorrect knowledge or how they have observed others teach it. These decisions are then a reflection of their beliefs, and not necessarily governed by pedagogical and subject matter knowledge.

3. Methodology 3.1. Research questions and data collection Three questions were used to guide this review: (a) what attitudes and beliefs do pre-service and inservice middle and high school content area teachers have about teaching reading to their students, (b) how have teacher educators attempted to work with pre-service and in-service middle and high school content area teachers on becoming teachers of reading, and (c) what effects did these attempts have on the teachers involved? To gather evidence that addressed these questions, I searched the ERIC database and examined references cited in published studies over the last 33 years. Studies used in this review were published in peer-reviewed journals between the years 1970 and 2003. The studies included focused on pre-service and in-service teachers who were



either teaching or being prepared to teach a content area in grades 6–12. Nineteen studies met these criteria and were included in this review. 3.2. Analysis procedures I began my analysis by creating a database. Each article that met the above criteria was entered into the database. The following information was recorded in the database on each article: (a) the title and author(s), (b) year of publication, (c) the research question(s) addressed by the study, (d) who participated in the study, (e) how the participants were selected, (f) how data was collected and analyzed, and (g) the conclusions to the research question(s). Specific information about the participants in each study was noted in the database. This section stated whether the participants were pre- or in-service teachers, what degree(s) they held, what degree(s) or certification(s) they were working towards, the number of years they had taught, and the content area(s) that they taught or were being prepared to teach. Once the database was created, I conducted searches to identify patterns/themes that may have existed across studies. This allowed me to determine if specific beliefs seemed to be held by only pre and/or in-service teachers. I also used the database to determine to what extent research studies had attempted to help pre- and in-service teachers understand how and why they should teach reading and the degree to which these studies appeared to be successful.

4. Results The results of this review are presented in two sections. The first section reviews the literature around attitudes and beliefs that pre-service and in-service content area teachers have about teaching reading to students in grades 6–12. The second section reviews literature that shows how researchers have attempted to address the issue of teaching reading with content area teachers at both the pre- and in-service levels and the effects that these attempts did or did not have on teachers’ beliefs.

4.1. Teaching reading isn’t up to me: attitudes and beliefs towards teaching reading in the content areas The studies included in this review show that pre- and in-service teachers hold a wide range of beliefs about teaching reading in the content areas. These beliefs may include: (a) content area teachers either cannot or should not teach reading (O’Brien & Stewart, 1990; Welle, 1981), (b) teaching reading is the responsibility of others (Bintz, 1997; Donahue, 2000), (c) teaching reading in the content areas is important (Crisuolo, Vacca, & LaVorgna, 1980; Jackson, 1979; Lipton & Liss, 1978; O’Brien & Stewart, 1990; Patburg, Dewitz, & Henning, 1984; Stieglitz, 1983; Vigil & Dick, 1987; Yore, 1991), and (d) content area teachers would like to teach reading but do not know how (Jackson & Cunningham, 1994; Crisuolo et al., 1980; Yore, 1991). Five out of 19 studies suggested that pre- and inservice teachers might believe that they are not qualified to teach reading to their students (Bintz, 1997; Donahue, 2000; O’Brien & Stewart, 1990; Vigil & Dick, 1987; Yore, 1991). Some pre-service teachers in the studies conducted by Donahue and O’Brien and Stewart indicated that either reading or English teachers should be responsible for providing reading instruction to students. Teachers who expressed this belief felt that the reading/English teachers would have more specialized knowledge in this area and would therefore be more qualified to teach reading. In-service teachers expressed that they had a limited understanding of the reading process and how to teach reading (Vigil & Dick; Yore). Others questioned their abilities to teach reading well (Bintz). Some pre-service teachers in these studies believed that their future students did not need reading instruction in order to be successful with the texts they would be expected to read. Approximately half of the pre-service science teachers in Donahue’s (2000) study believed that science class was a place where students did not have to focus on reading and writing. In fact, some of the participants stated they had decided to become science teachers because they believed it would not require a high level of ability to read and write on their part. Donahue reported that


these beliefs appeared to be based on the preservice teachers previous experiences as students of science and on what they believed was required of students in science classes. Similar beliefs were held by some of the pre-service teachers in O’Brien and Stewart’s (1990) study who believed that any difficulty students may encounter within a content area was primarily due to lack of pre-requisite knowledge. Though some in-service teachers may have felt ill prepared to teach reading, they still saw it as a vital part of their curriculum. Studies conducted by Bintz (1997), Vigil and Dick (1987), and Yore (1991) found that in-service teachers believed it was necessary to provide students with reading instruction. Participants in Yore’s study expressed that they did not think it was possible for students to master all of the necessary reading skills by the time they finished elementary school. Therefore, it was their responsibility to continue helping students learn how to use these skills and apply them to expository text. However, some teachers discovered that they had students who had poor reading abilities. These teachers learned that some students did not know how to apply the reading skills appropriate for their grade level. When faced with this situation, Bintz (1997) found that some teachers blamed others for their students’ lack of skills and abilities. For example, some teachers believed that elementary teachers had not done their jobs in teaching students how to read. In addition, there were teachers who blamed their colleagues for not supporting the teaching of reading across the curriculum at the middle and high school level. In some cases, teachers blamed the students themselves for being passive and/or reluctant to read. Finally, another set of teachers blamed students’ reading difficulties on textbooks that they considered too difficult. While we might consider some of these arguments to be valid reasons for creating frustration in middle/high school teachers, it is interesting to note that the teachers who participated in Bintz’s (1997) study did not address several things. First, though they might be able to acknowledge factors that were contributing to students’ reading difficulties (such as difficult textbooks and/or lack of

407

collegial support) they did not express the belief that they should work to change this and/or do their best to try to improve their students’ reading abilities despite these problems. Second, they did not appear to believe that any blame fell to them. The teachers who participated in this study seemed to feel that they did not contribute to this problem in any way even if they felt they did not know enough about how to teach reading. Both of these points are concerning. First, they suggest that some teachers may not know or realize how they contribute to the difficulties their students face with reading text. Second, these points also suggest that some teachers may be more comfortable blaming others rather than considering the role they play in helping their students develop as readers. Though this group of teachers in Bintz’s (1997) study may have felt that some of their students had reading difficulties, they did not appear to acknowledge that they could make changes in their own instruction that might improve this situation. We might hope that teachers with positive attitudes towards teaching reading would provide their students with at least adequate instruction in this area. However, Vigil and Dick (1987) found that positive attitudes towards teaching reading did not necessarily mean that the quality of reading instruction was better in these classrooms. Though some teachers in this study felt that a wide range of reading strategies were important, their instruction with students centered primarily on developing their study skills and vocabulary knowledge. Students received little help on learning such things as how to set purposes for reading and how to summarize text. 4.2. Summary Table 1 shows how many pre-and in-service teachers participated in the studies discussed above. From this table, we can see that more work has been done with in-service rather than pre-service teachers. While it appears that a high number of in-service teachers have been studied, Table 2 gives us more insight into the significance of these studies. This table shows that only one of these studies (O’Brien & Stewart, 1990) used three


408

Table 1 Number of content area teachers studied Author

Pre-service teachers In-service teachers

Bintz 0 Donahue 10 O’Brien and Stewart 238 Vigil and Dick 0 Yore 0

131 0 12 344 215

Total

702

248

Table 2 Research methods used to determine pre- and in-service teachers’ beliefs Author

Survey

Interview

Journals

Class assignments

Bintz Donahue O’Brien and Stewart Vigil and Dick Yore

Yes No Yes

No No Yes

No Yes No

No Yes Yes

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

different data sources to triangulate their findings. Three of the studies (Bintz, 1997; Vigil & Dick, 1987; Yore, 1991) relied on a single survey to draw their conclusions. Follow-up interviews or observations, even with a limited number or participants, were not included in these three studies. This raises questions about the reliability of the results found in the majority of these studies. Therefore, it is not possible to make generalized statements about how either pre- or in-service content area teachers feel about teaching reading based on the grade and the content area they will or do teach. Despite this lack of information we can draw some tentative conclusions about this topic. Though they are at different stages in their career, pre- and in-service teachers appear to show some initial similarities in how they think about teaching reading in the content areas. For example, some members of both groups appear to not take responsibility for students who cannot read the text(s) used in their classrooms. Other members

from both groups appear to believe that teaching reading could be worthwhile, though this does not mean that they teach reading skills in their classrooms. Despite these similarities, there does appear to be at least one difference in the attitudes and beliefs of both groups of teachers. Some preservice teachers seem to feel that they do not know how to teach reading and that they should not have to teach it. In-service teachers also feel that they do not know how to teach reading but that they would like to learn how. This is an interesting difference and appears to indicate that content area teachers’ beliefs about their role as teachers of reading may shift after they enter the classroom. Why this happens or what may influence this change as teachers move from pre-service to inservice is beyond the scope of this article. Even though teachers from both groups appeared to support reading instruction to some extent, members from both groups also believed that they should focus on course content and not on the teaching of reading. It seems that teachers with these opinions felt that learning content and reading could be separated. In this case, the belief appears to be that learning content does not always require someone to be a good reader or even to read text on a regular basis. Pre-service teachers who felt this way stated that they expected to use more traditional methods, such as lecturing, in order to help students learn the required content. These same teachers saw content area reading instruction as a non-traditional teaching method that might not be accepted as a legitimate practice. This continues to support the theory that teacher beliefs, rather than pedagogical knowledge, drives instructional decisions in the classroom.

5. Changing attitudes: what has been done? Some researchers and teacher educators feel that content area teachers should provide their students with reading instruction. They have also recognized the wide range of beliefs that pre- and inservice teachers may hold about this topic. To address these issues, they have designed different methods to try to help teachers understand how


and why they should teach reading in their content areas. The studies in this section report how effective, or ineffective, these different methods are with changing the attitudes pre-service and inservice teachers have towards teaching reading in the content areas. 5.1. Pre-service teachers One way to help pre-service, content area teachers learn about reading is through coursework. Many universities require a one-semester, content area reading course intended to help preservice teachers think about how they can teach reading in their content areas. Review of the research on the effectiveness of these courses reveals that they can help pre-service teachers develop positive attitudes and beliefs towards teaching reading in their content area. However, the research also shows that these courses may not be effective in getting teachers to teach reading once they enter their classrooms. Lloyd (1990) and Welle (1981) found that preservice teachers were more likely to understand the benefits associated with teaching reading in their content areas after having completed a required course on this topic. Prior to taking the course, these teachers were more likely to think that reading instruction at the secondary level was a waste of time and that reading teachers should be solely responsible for providing reading instruction. However, neither study examined if or how these attitudes carried over into the teachers’ future classrooms. Donahue (2000) concluded that having a required course in content area reading could potentially produce more than just a positive change in attitudes. Donahue’s course allowed pre-service, secondary science teachers to read a wide range of texts that included novels, research articles, biographies, and mysteries. Each of these texts was connected to the discipline of science in some way. Many of these teachers ended the course with a belief that teaching reading in science was important. However, they did not value the type of reading demanded by school textbooks. Their exposure to a variety of literacy materials during the course left them with a desire

409

to locate more engaging texts that placed higher demands on students’ reading abilities. While not wanting to throw out textbooks completely, these teachers felt it was important to help their future students develop a wide range of reading skills and purposes that they believed could only be addressed by using multiple texts. Thus, Donahue’s study suggests that content area reading courses may have the potential to cause pre-service teachers to act on their newfound beliefs once they are in classrooms. It may be possible that Donahue’s (2000) findings are the exception rather than the norm. In a study done by O’Brien and Stewart (1990), it is suggested that content area reading courses may not change the ways in which pre-service teachers conduct reading instruction. Voluntary interviews from ten participants showed that some teachers might choose not to implement reading instruction in their future classrooms even though they now believed it would be useful to their students. The rationales for not teaching reading centered primarily on the teachers’ beliefs about how schools and classrooms work. Many of these teachers expressed the belief that their colleagues and administrators would not welcome reading instruction. Those who held this belief felt it was more important to conform to what they saw as the norm for teaching and to not rock the boat. In addition, O’Brien and Stewart (1990) also found that courses in content area reading did not always effect change in a positive way. Of the 250 participants in their study, half left the course feeling that teaching reading was still not their responsibility. One possible way to help pre-service teachers see the benefits of teaching reading was discussed by Memory (1983). Memory required pre-service teachers enrolled in his content area reading course to tutor middle and high school students in a oneon-one setting for 1 h a week over a 10-week period. The students and teachers were matched so that each teacher was working with a student in the content area they planned to teach. The teachers who participated in this study increased their confidence about their abilities to teach reading. However, Memory’s study did not address the issues raised by O’Brien and Stewart



(1990). Though these teachers may have felt more confident, we do not know if they believed that their future jobs would not want or allow them to teach reading. In addition, we do not know if these teachers also believed that they would or should incorporate reading instruction into their content area(s).

5.2. In-service teachers Several studies have shown that graduate level courses and extended in-services in content area reading can help teachers understand the benefits of teaching reading and, in some cases, feel better prepared to teach reading in their subject area(s) (Dupuis, Askov, & Lee, 1979; Stieglitz, 1983; Wedman & Robinson, 1988). Stieglitz found that content area teachers who had participated in a graduate level, content area reading course were more likely to: (a) leave with a positive attitude towards teaching reading than teachers who did not take such a course and (b) maintain this positive attitude four years after they had completed the course. Stieglitz cautioned though that teachers did not necessarily implement reading practices in their classrooms even though they held a positive attitude towards teaching it. Surveys given to the participants indicated that though they taught reading, vocabulary instruction appeared to dominate the lessons. However, we do not know if vocabulary or other types of reading instruction increased or decreased as a result of the course. Stieglitz’s study did not address what reading instruction looked like prior to the teachers taking a course in content area reading. Stieglitz’s work suggests that we need to move beyond helping teachers develop long-term positive attitudes towards teaching reading. While this may be an important step, we also need to consider how we will help teachers learn how to implement reading instruction in their content area classrooms. One way to do this is by providing extended in-services to teachers that give them guidance and opportunities for implementing reading instruction in their classrooms (Dupuis et al., 1979; Wedman & Robinson, 1988).

Dupuis et al. and Wedman and Robinson (1988) provided in-service programs designed to help teachers integrate reading instruction into their content area(s). In each study, participants met regularly and were instructed on how to teach specific things such as vocabulary and comprehension. Teachers were given the opportunity to implement these techniques in their classrooms and were able to discuss the outcomes at in-service meetings. Though teachers were given instruction on how to teach vocabulary and comprehension, neither study indicated that they were taught to think about reading and reading instruction in ways that were specific to the content area(s) that they taught. Both studies treated the teaching of reading in the content areas as a generic task. However, teachers’ attitudes towards teaching reading become more positive. Unlike the results found by Stieglitz (1983) teachers in these studies were more likely to incorporate reading instruction into their practice. Teachers reported that they were teaching reading frequently and were no longer concerned about what or how to teach reading (Wedman & Robinson, 1988). These findings suggest that teachers may be more successful at implementing reading instruction if they are provided with more than a one-shot course. However, both the courses and the in-services appear to be limited since they do not help teachers develop the ability to think about what it means to read within a specific content area. Not considering this aspect of reading may have some drawbacks for teachers. Muth (1993) identified one of these drawbacks. Muth asked 99 mathematics teachers to complete a questionnaire about their attitudes and beliefs towards teaching reading. The teachers involved in the study explained that they felt many of their students had difficulty comprehending word problems. However, the teachers pointed out that the subject of mathematics was not discussed in any reading course they had ever taken. Though they felt that previous coursework in content area reading had provided them with general ways for teaching reading, they also felt that these courses ignored the subject area of mathematics. Participants believed that this led to them not learning


techniques for improving their students’ reading comprehension in this area.

411

by these courses influence the way they pre-service teachers approach reading instruction in their classrooms.

5.3. Summary Pre-service teachers may be required to take a course in content area reading. These courses typically blend all students together regardless of what they plan to teach. In some cases these courses may result in pre-service teachers having a more positive attitude about teaching reading. This attitude though may fail to transfer to the classroom. Some pre-service teachers have expressed that they would be unable to teach reading in their content area because of the belief that the school they would someday work in would not accept it. Providing pre-service teachers with a way to practice teaching reading in their content area may help them see the benefits of such instruction and might convince them that it can be done. In-service teachers’ attitudes have changed and grown more positive when they are given time and support to learn how to teach reading. While some of these positive attitudes have translated into practice, creating positives attitudes with in-service teachers does not guarantee that reading will be taught in their content area classrooms. One possible caution here is that much of what these teachers learn appears to be generic strategies that some researchers and teacher educators believe can be applied to any or most content areas. This could lead to teachers feeling that what they are learning does not apply to their specific area. While both pre- and in-service teachers appear to benefit when they are given support for implementing reading skills, neither group appears to be receiving specific instruction regarding effective strategies for increasing comprehension within their own subject area. In addition, studies that worked with in-service teachers lasted longer (two years or more) while studies that worked with pre-service teachers lasted only one semester. Therefore, it is possible that a one semester course in content area reading for pre-service teachers may not be enough. It is also not surprising that teachers who have been prepared this way doubt their abilities to teach reading. In addition, we do not know to what degree the experiences provided

6. Moving beyond the box: the role of social and institutional factors in content area instruction The studies discussed in this paper have shown that pre- and in-service teachers appear to hold a wide range of beliefs about their role as teachers of reading. However, these beliefs also appear to be very different across the two groups. Pre-service teachers’ beliefs seem to be grounded in their prior experiences as students. Their notions about what their future jobs should look like seem to be strongly influenced by their previous experiences. In addition, their concepts about what it means to teach their content area(s) seems to be based on their definitions of what it means to learn, and what should be taught, within that area. These rationales rarely appear to acknowledge the variety of social and institutional factors that are present in schools and may influence content area instruction. In addition, it is not clear if the studies in this review helped teachers to consider how such factors as the socio-economic backgrounds of their students, differing student abilities, and state/district policies could potentially impact how reading instruction looks in their classrooms. This section examines the ways in which pre- and in-service teachers appear to think about these issues and the extent to which they see these things influencing their practice. 6.1. Understanding the needs of diverse learners The studies in this review suggested that inservice teachers were more likely than pre-service teachers to recognize that they would have to teach subject matter to students with a wide range of reading abilities. In-service teachers were also more likely to recognize that some of their students would have regular difficulties being able to read and comprehend texts used in their classroom. However, none of the interventions with either pre- or in-service teachers appeared to address this issue. If this topic is not discussed with



teachers, how can we expect them to help all their students become better readers of content area text? In addition, if teachers are not prepared to address this issue they may become frustrated with their attempts to provide reading instruction. Both coursework and in-services can work with teachers on this issue. Many studies exist that examine how to effectively increase reading comprehension in science, mathematics, and social studies for students with a wide range of reading abilities (Bakken et al; Bos et al., 1989; Montali & Lewandowski, 1996). Students who have a learning disability in reading or are considered to have remedial, average, or gifted abilities in reading have all been examined, to some extent, by the studies done in this area (Cohen & Stover, 1981; Griffin, Malone, & Kammeenui, 1995; Klingner, Vaughn, & Schumm, 1998; Montali & Lewandowski, 1996; Spence, Yore, & Williams, 1999; Stahl, Jacobson, Davis, & Davis, 1989). This research could provide extensive benefits to all teachers. First, these studies suggest that not all reading methods are particularly effective for all students. Exposing teachers to these findings could afford them the opportunity to learn about effective reading practices for their content area and allow them the chance to think about who these practices are effective for. However, if teachers do not have this knowledge then they may not be able to provide reading instruction that is appropriate for their students. If we continue to involve teachers in content area reading courses and in-services, then we need to consider the benefits of helping them learn how to teach reading in a way that is both specific to the subject and the students being taught. Utilizing this research is a first step in that direction.

ing of school policy did not appear to have evidence that supported it. In addition, the courses taken by the pre-service teachers did not appear to address policy and its influence on content area instruction. In-service teachers did not explicitly suggest that their instructional decisions were influenced by policy. They did not seem to hold the belief that teaching reading would be looked down on or forbidden by their administration. Rather, they saw an immediate need for such instruction. They also recognized that the texts they were required to use were too difficult for some of their students and thus a potential hindrance in their ability to learn. In addition, it is interesting to note that neither group discussed the influence that state tests had on their decisions to teach or not teach reading. Given that some content tests are actually reading tests more than tests of specific content knowledge (Author, 2002), it is important that teachers recognize that their students’ reading abilities may play a significant role in their performance on these tests. However, it is possible that content area teachers do not understand the reading demands that these tests may place on their students. In thinking about how we work with teachers, more attention needs to be given to how educational policies can shape their lives and potentially influence their instructional decisions. With preservice teachers this is particularly important since some in this group see these policies as preventing them from providing reading instruction. However, both groups of teachers could benefit from knowledge on this topic. 6.3. Continuing down the road: what do we do next?

6.2. Policies and their influence on instruction Pre-service teachers have expressed the belief that policies, particularly at the school level, will prevent them for teaching reading. Though they may view reading instruction as beneficial and necessary, these teachers also believed that this type of instruction was non-traditional and may be frowned upon by their administrators and other teachers. However, this understand-

Pre- and in-service teachers are at different stages in their careers and will no doubt have different educational needs. Pre-service teachers have not had the same experiences that in-services teachers have had, and thus may not have an understanding of what teaching in their content area(s) will actually be like. If we continue to provide pre-service teachers with a course on content area reading then there are several things


that we need to consider as both researchers and teacher educators. First, to what extent does a course in content area reading influence pre-service teachers’ practice? At this time we do not know if such courses, as currently designed, are worthwhile. How many teachers who take such a course actually attempt to provide reading instruction to their students? What is the quality of this instruction? How effective is it in helping the students become better readers within a particular content area? These are questions that future research needs to consider. Second, we might wish to consider making modifications to these courses. One potential weakness of this course is that it lasts one semester. In-service teachers who showed changes in their practice were given systematic help over a 1–2 year time frame. Why would we expect pre-service teachers, with potentially no way to try out and receive feedback on their reading instruction, to feel that they could successfully incorporate reading instruction after only one semester? Given that pre-service teachers do not have their own classrooms, it may become necessary to ensure that they are given the opportunity to teach reading in a tutoring situation (Memory, 1983) or in classroom environment. It may also be worthwhile to provide pre-service teachers the chance to observe in-service teachers teaching reading. Pre-service teachers may also benefit by speaking with inservice teachers about how they approach providing such instruction. Though little research has been done that addresses helping in-service teachers teach reading, what has been done appears promising. The research seems to suggest that the attitudes of inservice content area teachers can be changed and that teachers can learn how to incorporate reading instruction into their content areas. This change though does not happen quickly, and having extensive amounts of time and support to learn how to teach reading appears to be important. Future research in this area might include examining how teachers who have been through inservices like the ones provided by Dupuis et al. (1979), and Wedman and Robinson (1988) can then work with other content area teachers in their buildings or districts to help them learn how to

413

effectively incorporate reading instruction into their own classrooms.

References Anders, P., & Guizzetti, B. (1996). Literacy instruction in the content areas. Harcourt Brace & Company. Anderson, V., & Roit, M. (1993). Planning and implementing collaborative strategy instruction for delayed readers in grades 6–10. The Elementary School Journal, 94(2), 121–137. Author, A. (2002). Social studies standards, benchmarks, and assessments: An analysis of an eighth-grade exam. The Social Studies, 93(5), 213–217. Beijaard, D., & De Vries, Y. (1997). Building expertise: A process perspective on the development or change of teachers’ beliefs. European Journal of Teacher Education, 20(3), 243–255. Bintz, W. (1997). Exploring reading nightmares of middle and secondary school teachers. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 41(1), 12–24. Bond, G. L., & Bond, E. (1941). Developing reading in high school. New York: Macmillan. Bos, C., Anders, P., Filip, D., & Jaffe, L. (1989). The effects of an interactive instructional strategy for enhancing reading comprehension and content area learning for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22(6), 384–390. Brown, C. A., & Cooney, T. J. (1982). Research on teacher education: A philosophical orientation. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 15(4), 13–18. Bryant, D., Ugel, N., & Thompson, S. (1999). Instructional strategies for content-area reading instruction. Intervention in School and Clinic, 34(5), 293–302. Buchmann, M. (1987). Teaching knowledge: The lights that teachers live by. Oxford Review of Education, 13, 151–164. Cohen, S. A., & Stover, G. (1981). Effects of teaching sixthgrade students to modify format variables of math word problems. Reading Research Quarterly, 16(2), 175–200. Crisuolo, N., Vacca, R., & LaVorgna, J. (1980). What reading strategies make sense to content area teachers? Reading World, 19(3), 265–271. Donahue, D. (2000). Experimenting with texts: New science teachers’ experience and practice as readers and teachers of reading. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 43(8), 728–739. Dupuis, M., Askov, E., & Lee, J. (1979). Changing attitudes toward content area reading: The content area reading project. The Journal of Educational Research, 73(2), 66–74. Ernest, P. (1989). The knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes of the mathematics teacher: A model. Journal of Education for Teaching, 15, 13–34. Griffin, C. G., Malone, L., & Kammeenui, E. J. (1995). Effects of graphic organizer instruction on fifth-grade students. The Journal of Educational Research, 89(2), 98–107.



Herber, H. (1970). Teaching reading in content areas. Syracuse, NY: Syracue University. Horton, S. V., Boone, R. A., & Lovitt, T. C. (1990). Teaching social studies to learning disabled high school students: Effects of a hypertext study guide. British Journal of Educational Technology, 21(2), 118–131. Huey, E. B. (1968). The psychology and pedagogy of reading. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Ivey, G. (1999). A multicase study in middle school: Complexities among young adolescent readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 34(2), 172–192. Jackson, J. (1979). Reading in the secondary school: A survey of teachers. Journal of Reading, 23(3), 229–232. Jackson, F., & Cunningham, J. (1994). Investigating secondary content teachers’ and preservice teachers’ conceptions of study strategy instruction. Reading Research and Instruction, 34(2), 111–135. Klingner, J., Vaughn, S., & Schumm, J. (1998). Collaborative strategic reading during social studies in heterogeneous fourth-grade classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 99(1), 3–22. Lasley, T. J. (1980). Preservice teacher beliefs about teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 31(4), 38–41. Lederer, J. M. (2000). Reciprocal teaching of social studies in inclusive elementary classrooms. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(1), 91–106. LeSourd, S. J. (1985). Using text structure to improve social science concept attainment. Journal of Social Studies Research, 9(2), 1–14. Lipton, J., & Liss, J. (1978). Attitudes of content area teachers towards teaching reading. Reading Improvement, 15(4), 294–300. Lloyd, B. (1990). Effects of a secondary reading methods course on students’ attitudes toward teaching content reading. Reading Horizons, 30(4), 288–292. Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Lyda, W. J., & Duncan, F. M. (1967). Quantitative vocabulary and problem solving. The Arithmetic Teacher, 14(4), 289–291. McAllister, J. M. (1936). Remedial and corrective instruction in reading: A program for the upper grades and high school. New York: Appleton-Century. Memory, D. M. (1983). Implementing a practicum in a required content area reading course. Reading World, 23(2), 116–123. Montali, J., & Lewandowski, L. (1996). Bimodal reading: Benefits of a talking computer for average and less skilled readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29(3), 271–279. Moore, D., Readence, J. E., & Rickelman, R. J. (1983). An historical exploration of content area reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 18, 419–438. Munby, H. (1982). The place of teachers’ beliefs in research on teacher thinking and decision making and an alternative methodology. Instructional Science, 11, 201–225. Muth, K. (1993). Reading in mathematics: Middle school mathematics teachers’ beliefs and practices. Reading Research and Instruction, 32(2), 76–83.

Nisbett, R., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategues and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87(2), 224–240. O’Brien, D., & Stewart, R. (1990). Preservice teachers’ perspectives on why every teacher is not a teacher of reading: A qualitative analysis. Journal of Reading Behavior, 22(2), 101–129. Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332. Patburg, J., Dewitz, P., & Henning, M. (1984). The impact of content area reading instruction on secondary teachers. Journal of Reading, 27(6), 500–507. Perfetti, C. A., Britt, M. A., & Georgi, M. C. (1995). Text-based learning and reasoning: Studies in history. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–23. Spence, D., Yore, L., & Williams, R. (1999). The effects of explicit science reading instruction on selected grade seven students; metacognition and comprehension of specific science text. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 11(2), 15–30. Stahl, S. S., Jacobson, M. G., Davis, C. E., & Davis, R. L. (1989). Prior knowledge and difficult vocabulary in the comprehension of unfamiliar text. Reading Research Quarterly, 24(1), 27–43. Stieglitz, E. (1983). Effects of a content area reading course on teacher attitudes and practices: A four year study. Journal of Reading, 26(8), 690–696. Vansledright, B., & Frankes, L. (1998). Literature’s place in learning history and science. In C. R. Hynd (Ed.), Learning from text across conceptual domains (pp. 117–138). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Vigil, Y., & Dick, J. (1987). Attitudes toward and perceived use of textbook reading strategies among junior and senior high school social studies teachers. Theory and Research in Social Education, 15(1), 51–59. Wedman, J., & Robinson, R. (1988). Effects of extended inservice on secondary teachers’ use of content reading instructional strategies. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 21(3), 65–70. Weiss, D. (1983). The effects of text segmentation on children’s reading comprehension. Discourse Processes, 6(1), 77–89. Welle, D. (1981). Effects of a required reading methods course on attitudes of secondary education majors: A three year study. Journal of Reading, 23(3), 134–136. Wineburg, S. (2001). Historical thinking and other unnatural acts. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Yore, L. (1991). Secondary science teachers’ attitudes toward and beliefs about science reading and science textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(1), 55–72.