Preservice teachers' varied experiences in urban

Teaching and Teacher Education 71 (2018) 262e270

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

Preservice teachers’ varied experiences in urban literacy practica: A challenge for teacher educators Althier M. Lazar Department of Teacher Education, Saint Joseph's University, 5600 City Line Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19035, United States

h i g h l i g h t s ! Most preservice teachers (PSTs) observed research-based practices in urban practica. ! Variations existed between practicum sites in word study, writing, and talk/drama. ! Regular observers of research-based practices attributed growth to their mentor teachers. ! Infrequent observers of research-based practices attributed growth to course and students. ! Teacher educators need to address boundaries between courses and field experiences.

a r t i c l e i n f o Article history: Received 9 December 2017 Accepted 23 January 2018 Available online 5 February 2018

1. Introduction Literacy practicum experiences provide opportunities for preservice teachers (PSTs) to construct understandings about literacy teaching and envision themselves as future teachers. Practicum experiences in underserved schools that serve students of culturally nondominant backgrounds offer special opportunities and challenges for the largely white and monolingual population of PSTs that tend to enter the teaching profession. While practica help prepare PST's to teach in these settings, many of these sites employ standardized curricula which can impact the degree to which they are able to observe and enact a wide range of meaning-centered, equity-oriented literacy teaching practices. This presents an ongoing challenge for literacy educators like myself who seek to prepare PSTs to not just enact these practices in underserved schools, but to also help them advocate for students' literate and linguistic rights. It becomes necessary, then, to understand how PSTs make sense of the disjuncture between the teaching practices promoted within teacher education programs (TEPs) and those used in classrooms, and how these discrepant orientations toward literacy teaching shape their identities as future teachers.

E-mail address: [email protected]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.01.008 0742-051X/© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

In this study, I examine PSTs’ perceptions of literacy instruction at five different urban elementary schools and consider how these sites influenced their ability to see themselves as future literacy teachers in these schools. How teachers are educated for underserved communities is an important area of inquiry considering the gap between the “rhetoric about providing all students with fully qualified and effective teachers and the reality of only some students having access to these teachers” (pg. 1, Zeichner, 2009). Acknowledging that disparate teacher education reform agendas compete to influence how teachers are educated (Zeichner, 2009), this research aligns with a social justice agenda and focuses on the relationship between literacy education curricula and field-based experiences in urban schools. Findings from this study inform the design of literacy education curricula and the ways that teacher educators and mentor teachers can work together to create robust learning opportunities for teacher candidates. 2. Literature review 2.1. Accomplished literacy teaching in underserved schools Literacy educators are guided by a rich history of research on how accomplished teachers in culturally nondominant communities advance students' literacy abilities (Wharton-MacDonald, Pressley, & Hampston, 1998; Pressley, Rankin & Tokoi, 1996; Pressley, Allington, Wharton-McDonald, Block, & Morrow, 2001; Taylor, Pearson, Clark, & Walpole, 2000). Taylor et al. (2000) found that successful literacy teachers, as determined by their students' test gains in word recognition and comprehension, tended to group students for instruction, promote independent reading, engage students throughout the school day, communicate regularly and positively with students' caregivers, teach literacy skills and

A.M. Lazar / Teaching and Teacher Education 71 (2018) 262e270

strategies within a variety of authentic reading, writing, and talking events (often referred to as a balanced approach to literacy instruction), use higher level questions when facilitating discussions about texts, ask students to write in response to reading, and provide supplemental instruction. Observations of exceptional teachers in underserved communities indicate that they also create warm and welcoming classrooms, individualize instruction, engage children in constructive conversations, employ “invisible” systems of classroom management that maximize student engagement, communicate to students that they are capable of learning, and organize instruction around themes (Cantrell, 1999; Hamre & Pianta, 2010; Wharton-McDonald et al., 1998). Individualized instruction targets learning within children's zones of development (Vygotsky, 1978; Templeton & Gehsmann, 2014) which demands systematic and authentic assessment of children's literacy abilities and using this information to customize instruction in ways that advance development. Research on culturally sustaining literacy instruction acknowledges that students bring particular knowledge traditions, literacies, and languages to school (Au, 1980; Gonz! alez, Moll & Amanti, 2005; Heath, 1983) and they invite and use this knowledge to make literacy teaching relevant and culturally sustaining (LadsonBillings, 1994; Paris, 2012). Teachers who work from this perspective design reading, writing, and talking experiences that build on students' rich and varied knowledge and discourse patterns (SoutoManning & Martell, 2016). In addition, successful literacy teaching involves raising students’ critical consciousness (Ladson-Billings, 1995). Critical literacy approaches invite students to scrutinize texts from the perspectives of power and social justice and to write and talk in ways that address important social problems (McDaniel, 2006; Vasquez, 2003). Some teachers find it difficult to enact a variety of literacy teaching practices in situations where scripted curricula and standardized testing are mandated (Diamond & Spillane, 2004; Dooley & Assaf, 2009; Valli & Buese, 2007). Low performing schools in disinvested communities are especially vulnerable to these mandates (Crocco & Costigan, 2007). As a result, literacy instruction is not informed by the available research or by students' cultural or linguistic capital (Cummins, Brown, & Sayers, 2006) but is instead focused on literacy instruction for test preparation (Allington, 2013). Within these contexts, teachers’ ability to deliver authentic and developmentally fit reading, writing, and talking experiences can be severely compromised. 2.2. Locating practicum sites in underserved communities Differences between literacy teaching practices addressed in university courses and actual school practices present a conundrum for teacher educators who seek to find schools where PSTs can grow in their understandings of equity-focused literacy instruction. Literacy internships in underserved communities play a vital role in helping PSTs recognize the literacy capacities of students from nondominant backgrounds and enhancing their understandings about how to teach students (Brock, Moore, & Parks, 2007; Fry & McKinney, 1997; Lazar, 2007, 2016; Mosley, Hoffman, Roach, & Russell, 2010; Walker-Dalhouse & Dalhouse, 2006). Direct work with students in schools has also been instrumental in helping PSTs experiment with critical literacy teaching practices (Leland & Harste, 2005; Mosley, 2010). Yet PSTs have also emerged from school internships in nondominant or culturally diverse communities with unfavorable impressions of students, their communities, and themselves as teachers (Brock et al., 2007; Cornbleth, 2010; Parks, 2008). Also, Magolis (2006) found that standardized teaching practices can constrain PST's opportunities to learn about students and teaching.

263

It is difficult to see how PSTs can learn about authentic, balanced, developmentally fit, and culturally sustaining literacy instruction when they intern in classrooms where standardized, test-driven teaching dominates. Some research indicates that these conditions can actually incentivize PSTs to find solutions that fit both curriculum goals and the learning needs of students (Castro, 2010; Lloyd, 2007). Castro (2010), for instance, described PSTs’ efforts to bring more cultural relevance and critical thinking to a standardized, test-focused social studies curriculum. While the PSTs in this study were not always successful, the internship provided a safe space for them to negotiate the curriculum. This research suggests that curriculum standardization may not limit PSTs learning as long they are supported in critically examining the curriculum and revising lessons to meet the needs of students. It is unclear how PSTs make sense of their experiences as they study literacy teaching practices in the context of a university course and transition to classrooms that may not privilege these practices. The concept of landscape of practice (Wenger-Trayner & Wenger-Trayner, 2015) is a useful lens for looking at how the different communities of literacy education shape candidates' understandings of students, literacy practice, and their own ability to advance students’ literacy growth. 2.3. Theoretical frame: literacy practica in a landscape of practice The concept of landscape of practice accounts for the multiple communities of practice associated with becoming knowledgeable about a given field (Wenger-Trayner & Wenger-Trayner, 2015). The primary communities for educating teachers are university courses and K-12 classrooms. Although they are aligned in many ways, practices that are supported in university classrooms may be different from those in elementary classrooms. In transitioning from one community to another, PSTs cross boundaries which can lead to both misunderstanding and unexpected learning. For example, boundaries between practices can be confusing when literacy teaching looks one way in the college classroom and another way in an elementary school. Yet boundaries are seen as “learning assets” where learners can inquire and reflect on what it takes to be competent in each community of practice and how these competencies are similar to or different from each other and why. According to the landscape of practice framework, being competent is narrowly focused on one set of practices within a specific community. For instance, modeling how to make predictions using stories in a second-grade classroom would be an example of a competence. One can become competent in this practice by reading about it, observing a mentor using it, and trying it out in the classroom. The Wenger-Trayners point out that competence (knowledge of and skill in a particular practice) is considered separate from knowledgeability (understanding how practices fit within the larger landscape). Knowledgeability involves understanding how a practice such as modeling predictions relates to metacognition and helping students become self-regulating, strategic readers. In this example, knowledgeability grows as a result of combining what is discussed and studied outside of the elementary classroom with what is enacted across many different classrooms with different books and a range of students. As stated by Wenger-Trayner & Wenger-Trayner: “A practitioner taking a university course can use theory as a critical stance toward practice; and then conversely use practice as a critical stance toward theory” (pg. 19). Engaging in different practices across a landscape (different communities of practice) not only allows us to become more knowledgeable, but the journey also shapes how we see ourselves. “Through our journey, the landscape shapes our experience of ourselves: practices, people, places, regimes of competence, communities, and

264


boundaries become part of who we are” (p. 19-20). Identification with a given community of practice is based on apprentices' ability to engage in practices associated with that community, imagine one's place in the community, and the degree of alignment between communities of practice. In the context of literacy practica, PSTs are most likely to identify with a practice if they have many opportunities to teach, if conditions are such that they can imagine themselves as teachers in the school, and if their expectations about lesson planning, adhering to standards, enacting literacy teaching practices, etc., align with what is really needed to be done in a classroom. This matter of alignment has not been studied in relation to literacy practicum experiences. It is unclear, for instance, how PSTs respond when they engage in communities that support different conceptions of literacy teaching. This study addresses how PSTs make sense of their literacy internship experiences in literacy practica that are located in several schools that serve culturally diverse populations of students in a large urban school district. The following questions guide the study: How do PSTs assess literacy teaching practices in their practicum placements? How do PSTs assess the literacy teaching practices in their field placement classrooms in relation to those taught in the course? How do these different placements shape candidates’ attitudes and understandings about equity-minded literacy teaching? How can the landscape of practice framework inform the design of literacy education courses to create the most robust learning opportunities for PSTs? 3. Method 3.1. Context & participants This study took place at a large, urban-based university in the mid-Atlantic region of the United States. The University promotes social justice through its mission and vision statements, a strong and vibrant campus ministry, and a core curriculum that addresses ethics and social justice concepts. In addition, the Department of Education has been committed to preparing future teachers for all students through foundational courses that address social and educational equity and by forming partnerships with several rural and urban underserved schools. PSTs in the early childhood/elementary education (PreK-4) program were required to take three literacy education courses in the teacher education program. The first course addressed intersections between literacy, language, class, race, inequality, and teaching. Course concepts included culturally situated nature of literacy, culturally relevant/sustaining literacy teaching, divergent literacies and languages, funds of knowledge, and theories and practices related to second language learning. The major thrust of this course was to address PSTs' conceptions of students' literacy and language abilities and help them see the cultural assets that students of nondominant backgrounds bring to school. The two literacy pedagogy courses that followed address literacy assessment and instruction in two developmental phases, emergent and early literacies were addressed in the first course and elementary/ early intermediate literacies were addressed in the second. Children's literature, reflective practice, and culturally sustaining instruction were addressed in both courses. The study took place in conjunction with the final literacy course: Literacy and Literature in the Elementary/Intermediate Grades (LLEI). As the course professor, I designed LLEI around three strands: 1) assessment and instruction in literacy, 2) children's literature and critical transactions with literature, and 3) culturally sustaining teaching. The primary textbook for the course was Teaching Reading and Writing: The Developmental Approach (Templeton & Gehsmann, 2014). The book addresses developmentally and culturally

responsive approaches to literacy instruction, with a chapter devoted to the literacy needs of emergent bilinguals. PSTs used the instruments discussed in this book to assess students in areas of reading, writing, and orthographic knowledge. In addition, PSTs were asked to read an article that addressed critical literacy (Labadie, Wetzel, & Rogers, 2012). They also read and designed culturally responsive and critical curricula around several traditional and contemporary picture books and one novel. Fifty-two preservice teachers who were enrolled in the course participated in the study (all but two were women). The majority were white and were raised in middle-class suburban communities. They were required to intern in a school for 6 hours per week for ten weeks to satisfy practicum requirements for the LLEI course and a mathematics pedagogy course. Forty-three PSTs attended literacy practica in five schools located in the urban district adjacent to campus. These schools served racially diverse students, most of whom receive subsidized or reduced-price meals. Table 1 contains demographic information for each of the five elementary schools. Within the last ten years, charter schools have proliferated in the urban district and practicum placements have included both public and charter schools. Department faculty who taught the pedagogy courses have worked to establish partnerships with these schools. This effort has involved several visits to schools to meet with school leaders and teachers to discuss the nature of instruction and how the interns can meet the needs of teachers while also learn about students and the craft of teaching. Practicum work consisted of assisting the mentor teacher and working individually or in small groups with students to complete assessment and instruction tasks assigned by the course professor. In addition, PSTs were encouraged to attend all meetings with caregivers, including individual education program (IEP) meetings. Mentor teachers worked closely with PSTs and evaluated their performance at the end of the semester across a number of categories including planning, communication, engaging students, knowledge of literacy practice, and professionalism. 3.2. Data collection Observation Forms. At the end of the course, participants were invited to fill out observation forms that listed the concepts and practices addressed in the course (vertical axis) and the number of Table 1 Urban-Based Literacy Practicum Placements (pseudonyms used for school names).

Kentwell

General Field

World Academy Shawbridge

Greentree

% Race/Ethnicity

% Free/Reduced Lunch

School Type

22 Black 4 Latino 7 Asian 59 White 8 other 22 Black 4 Latino 10 Asian 51 White 13 other 98 Black 2 other 39 Black 6 Latino 10 Asian 42 White 6 other 16 Black 4 Latino 77 White 3 Asian

46

Charter

27

Public

77

Charter

45

Public

16

Charter


observations of the concept or practice (horizontal axis). They were asked to check one of the following boxes to indicate the number of times they observed a concept or practice and each rating was given a corresponding point value: Never (0 times/0 points), Infrequently (1 time/1point), Sometimes (2-3 times/2 points), and Often (4 times/3 points). The concepts/practices were grouped according to major concepts, assessment, word study, reading, writing, and literature. Practices involving talking were embedded within these categories (e.g. conferencing about writing, talking about literature in discussion circles/groups, and participating in drama activities). Culturally responsive teaching concepts and practices were also included in these categories. PSTs were asked to indicate the extent to which they observed students reading, writing, and talking about issues related to their life experiences and/or cultural heritage and specific accommodations for emergent bilingual students (inviting home language, building background knowledge, teaching academic language). Essays. At the end of the course, participants were invited to answer questions in writing about their experiences in the practicum. The following questions guided the essays and participants were prompted to explain their answers: Do you think the instruction in this classroom advances or hinders students’ literacy development? Do you think you have grown professionally from being in the practicum? If there are major constraints to literacy teaching in this setting, what factors underlie these constraints? Describe the children in this classroom and their literacy abilities. What kind of teacher do you think they need to advance their literacy abilities? Do you think you could someday be the type of teacher that students need? Most participants took about a half hour to respond to the questions and a few who needed more time were allowed to remain in the classroom to complete their responses. Field Experience Logs. All participants were asked to keep a log of observations and activities in the practicum. PSTs were invited to submit logs into the data corpus and those who did so provided them after course grades were submitted. The logs offered confirming/disconfirming evidence for the ratings forms. 3.3. Data analysis For each observation form, points were tallied and divided by the total number of items to arrive at a percentage of courseaddressed literacy teaching practices (CALTPs) per practicum setting. CALTPs represents a variety of literacy teaching practices that were addressed in the course and many were previously described in this paper as supporting students' literacy growth. The total percentages of CALTPs for each observational record ranged from a low of 20 to a high of 93. Higher percentages reflect relatively more observations of CALTPs than lower scores. This does not mean these practices were consistently used in classrooms with high scores or that lower scoring classrooms did not include these practices. The percentage simply reflects PSTs’ observations of these practices over the course of 10 weeks. The “never/infrequently” and “sometimes/often” columns were collapsed and percentages for each practice were calculated and placed in a chart. This helped to distinguish between rarely observed practices and those that were observed at least two or more times during the semester, which suggests some degree of regularity. To examine differences between the highest and lowest ranked practicum sites, twenty of the outlier classrooms, including 10 of classrooms that had the highest CALTPs (83e93) and ten of the lowest-ranked CALTP classrooms (20e52), were extracted from the pile and compared on the basis of whether a practice was observed two or more times. For instance, if independent reading was observed two or more times across all ten of the “high CALTP”

265

classrooms, 100% was recorded on a t-chart. If this type of instruction was only observed in 5 of these schools, a score of 50% was recorded on the chart. Percentages were calculated for each practice for both outlier groups, revealing either discrepancies or consistencies between the groups in relation to a particular practice. Essays of the participants for each of these groupings were also examined. Grounded analysis focused on finding consistent themes and patterns in participants' thoughts about 1) whether the instruction they observed hindered or advanced students' literacy learning, 2) their own growth in the course, 3) the constraints to course-promoted literacy teaching practices, 4) descriptions of students, and 5) impressions of themselves as future literacy teachers. Participants’ responses were summarized using sample words/phrases and similar responses were grouped into categories. These were captured on the same t-chart as described above to allow for comparison of patterns between the two groups. The Field Experience Logs were read and coded for themes. These data were used primarily to confirm or question participants’ ratings and essays. Statements that were consistent or inconsistent with the observational forms were noted. 4. Findings 4.1. Preservice teachers’ observations of literacy teaching practice Most participants indicated that they observed several courseaddressed literacy teaching practices (CALTPs) two or more times while attending their literacy practicum. These included: differentiated instruction (95%), gradual release of responsibility (93%), using assessments to inform instruction (88%), student engagement (91%), and higher-order thinking (91%). Observations of culturally responsive teaching (CRT) were not as frequent; 65% observed CRT experiences at least two or more times and 21% of PSTs indicated that they did not observe CRT at all. In the area of assessment practices, the majority saw their mentor teachers use student artifacts (90%) and student observations (88%) to inform their instruction. To a lesser extent, PSTs reported observing the use of individualized reading assessments (DRAs, Running Records) (71%) and spelling inventories (55%). Seventy-two percent of PSTs observed differentiated word study, but only about half reported observing word sorting activities based on students’ development. In the area of reading instruction, most PSTs observed: independent reading (88%), use of different text genres (95%), strategy instruction (84%), higher-order thinking/questioning activities (84%), close reading instruction (precise analysis that involves attending to particular details and patterns of texts) (84%), instruction in literary elements (88%) and use of books that fit students' abilities (88%). Fewer numbers of PSTs reported seeing literature dramatizations (reader's theater, skits) (36%), student-led literature discussions (60%), and only about half reported observations of explicit instruction in how to talk about texts. Overall, there were proportionately fewer reports of writing process pedagogy observed in these classrooms. Only 60% reported seeing teachers use literature or their own writing to demonstrate writing processes, 70% indicated that they saw students being helped to choose their own writing topics, and 68% observed writing conferences at least twice during the semester. Observations of personal narrative writing (69%), expository/argument writing (60%), and fictional/poetry writing (45%) suggest that writing across different genres occurred less frequently than writing in response to literature, which was observed at least two or more times by 81% of the PSTs. From these data, a picture emerges of the types of literacy experiences that PSTs observed in their literacy practicum settings. Most claimed to see several variations of reading instruction, but

266


fewer reported seeing differentiated word study instruction, spelling inventories to determine orthographic development, talking and dramatic activities in response literature, most elements of writing process pedagogy, and culturally responsive instruction. The twenty outlier reports (schools receiving the top ten and bottom ten scores for observed course-addressed literacy teaching practices (CALTPs)), indicate major differences between these two groups’ exposure to these practices. Table 2 shows the numbers of classrooms ranked the highest or lowest in CALTPs for each of the schools (pseudonyms were used to identify schools). Table 2 indicates that PSTs who interned at Greentree reported regularly observing many varieties of CALTPs. This contrasts with the observational reports of Kentwell; 7 out the 8 PSTs at this school observed the fewest CALTPs of all five schools. Consistencies across the reports suggest a school-wide effect on the nature of literacy instruction in these schools. These reports contrast with those from General Field and Shawbridge Elementary Schools where PSTs reported varied literacy instruction across classrooms within each of these schools. The outlier reports show that ninety percent of PSTs who interned in schools with the highest CALTP scores regularly observed culturally responsive literacy teaching practices compared with only fifty percent of PSTs who interned in the lowest CALTP practicum sites. Table 3 summarizes the percentage of PSTs who regularly observed particular elements of CALTPs in the two different groups. Table 3 shows major differences in PSTs’ observations of reading instruction. PSTs in the highest scoring schools indicated that they were in classrooms where several practices were regularly observed: balanced literacy instruction, reading for different purposes, strategy modeling, interactive reading, text discussions, and development-based word study instruction. In Table 3, the practice of “literature discussions” is distinguished from “instruction in talking about texts” which refers to how teachers model and scaffold thoughtful conversations about texts. It includes showing students how to listen, respectfully disagree, and how to support an assertion with evidence. Students often need guidance to carry out these conversations and so “instruction in talking about texts” is necessary. Literature discussions refers to the practice of arranging peer-led discussions of texts. Many or most of the PSTs in these schools also indicated that they observed dramatic activities involving literature, guided reading instruction, and explicit instruction about how to discuss literature. In contrast, half and in most cases, less than half of the PSTs in the lower ranked schools indicated that they observed these elements. Discrepancies in observing writing process instruction were also observed, as summarized in Table 4. Table 4 shows that all or most of the PSTs in the highest ranked CALTP placements reported seeing their mentor teachers demonstrate various elements of writing process pedagogy, including the use of literature or other texts to demonstrate various writing processes including revision, showing students how to select their

Table 2 Outlier schools based on PSTs’ reports of CALTPs.

Kentwell General Field World Academy Shawbridge Greentree

Top 10 Ranked Classrooms

Bottom 10 Ranked Classrooms

1 3 1 2 3

7 2 0 1 0

own topics, writing conferences, and publishing student writing to audiences beyond the classroom. Far fewer of PSTs in the lowest ranked CALTP placements indicated that they observed these elements. Only 10% of PSTs observed the use of literature or other texts to demonstrate certain elements of writing. There were also noteworthy discrepancies in observations of writing across different genres, with only 10% of PSTs in the bottom ranked CALTP placements observing writing instruction in areas of expository/argument writing and fiction/poetry writing and only 40% of the PSTs in these schools reporting that they observed students engaged in personal narrative writing. Major discrepancies also surfaced in PST's observations of some types of literacy assessments, as indicated in Table 5. All or most who were placed in the highest ranked CALTP placements reported that they observed the use of individualized reading assessments such as the Developmental Reading Assessment or running records, the use of spelling inventories that provided information about students' orthographic development, and the use of writing assessments that included rubrics or checklists that identified specific writing qualities. In contrast, 40% or less indicated that they observed these elements. Instead of these assessments, many PSTs indicated that teachers used benchmark tests from their reading programs to assess students’ reading abilities. These data indicate variation in PSTs literacy practicum experiences, with some having much less exposure to course-addressed literacy instruction than others. How PSTs’ responded to these experiences is considered next. 4.2. Views about students and literacy teaching PSTs' descriptions of students' literacy abilities were consistent regardless of where they interned and how often they observed literacy teaching practices addressed in the course. Most described students' varied reading abilities, with many descriptions focused on students being above, on, or below grade-level in reading. Very few PSTs described students’ writing or talking abilities, and none of them described alternative, popular, or technology-related literacies that their students may have been engaging in outside or inside of school. Most of the PSTs indicated that instruction in their literacy practicum sites advanced students' literacy abilities, although there were discrepancies between the two outlier groups. PSTs who regularly observed CALTPs all believed that their practicum placements advanced students' literacy development. In schools where PSTs observed relatively fewer CALTPs, six out of ten indicated that they believed instruction hindered students' development and the rest felt instruction both hindered and advanced students' development. The majority of these PSTs indicated that the lack of differentiated instruction in their placement classrooms would delay students' development. Three PSTs noted that instruction seemed to be directed to students who had the most difficulty with reading and that students who were more advanced were being neglected. A few PSTs commented that students were not being motivated to read and suggested that they be provided with opportunities to discuss texts with peers and be given highly engaging texts to read. One PST believed the students in her placement classroom were given too much free rein to read and write whatever they wanted with little explicit instruction about how to develop in literacy. These critical comments and suggestions reflected PSTs appropriation of various practices promoted in the course, including differentiated instruction, peer discussion, the use of engaging texts, and explicit modeling. These comments also show PSTs’ capacities to critically examine literacy teaching practices through a variety of lenses.

267

A.M. Lazar / Teaching and Teacher Education 71 (2018) 262e270 Table 3 Percentage of PSTs regularly observing CALTPs practices. Elements of Course-Addressed Literacy Teaching Practices (CALTPs)

Top CALTP Sites

Bottom CALTP Sites

Balanced literacy instruction (Skill/strategy teaching within authentic reading, writing, and talking events) Reading for different purposes (Efferent and aesthetic reading) Modeling reading strategies (Explicit demonstrations of predicting, summarizing, questioning, connecting, etc) Dramatizing literature (The use of Reader's Theater, monologues, skits) Guided reading (Ability-based, teacher-led small group coaching/instruction) Interactive reading (Teacher read-alouds with stopping points for questions and explanations) Literature discussions (Peer-led discussions of texts) Instruction in talking about texts (Explicit instruction in turn-taking, listening, supporting assertions, disagreeing) Development-based word study (The use of word sorts and other activities based on students' orthographic knowledge)

100 100

50 40

100

50

80

20

90

50

100

50

100

30

90

0

100

20

Table 4 Percentage of PSTs regularly observing writing process practices. Elements of Course-Addressed Literacy Teaching Practices (CALTPs)

Top CALTP Sites

Bottom CALTP Sites

Demonstrating writing using models Demonstrating how to pick topics Demonstrating how to revise Conferencing Publishing beyond the classroom Writing personal narrative/memoir Writing expository/argument Writing fiction/poetry

100 100 100 100 90 80 70 80

10 40 40 40 30 40 10 10

Elements of Course-Addressed Literacy Teaching Practices (CALTPs)

Top CALTP Classrooms

Bottom CALTP Classrooms

Individualized reading assessments (DRAs, running records) Use of spelling inventories Use of writing rubrics/checklists

100 90 90

40 20 10

Table 5 Percentage of PSTs regularly observing CALTPs.

As previously discussed, seven out of the ten PSTs who reported observing CALTPs less frequently interned at Kentwell. Many PSTs reported that teachers’ decision-making in this school was constrained because the school had just adopted a reading program that did not allow for much differentiated instruction. According to one preservice teacher, Emily, the instruction she observed was not tailored to the varied literacy needs of students, although she felt they seemed to be learning reading strategies: I believe their reading instruction is strong, but I wonder about students who are above and below grade level. Sometimes, they have more trouble and I do not believe the advanced student is adequately challenged. In essence, I believe in general they are gaining reading strategies as I have seen them improve. Emily's observation was supported by several of the other PSTs, including Dori, who wrote, “I do not see any differentiated instruction or group work based on development. The instruction may work for some kids but not for others because they are all taught the same way.” When looking more closely at these PSTs' ratings of how frequently they observed CALTPs, five out of seven observed

students reading developmentally fit books, but only three out of seven observed developmentally fit word study instruction. These PSTs claimed that all students received the same vocabulary and spelling words each week and none of these interns saw word sorts or word games based on student's specific orthographic knowledge. There were some inconsistencies in other areas of reading instruction as well, as half of the interns in this school revealed that they regularly observed higher-order thinking around texts, but three reported that they did not observe such activity. Several PSTs who interned at Kentwell believed that their mentor teachers were challenged to meet the needs of students with diverse literacy abilities, and a few felt that their mentor teachers lacked sufficient knowledge to differentiate instruction. Despite differences between the practices promoted in the university course and those used in some of the classrooms, most of this group of PSTs felt they gained from the practicum experience. Emily, for instance, believed she grew professionally by observing her mentor teacher, Marie. She wrote: “The main thing I have grown in is teaching close reading. My teacher modelled it very well and very frequently, so I have gotten much better at that.” The emphasis on reading performance in this school allowed interns to see a variety of instructional strategies in reading, although this

268


emphasis constrained their opportunities to observe and engage in other CALTPs, such as writing process instruction and book discussions. Based on PSTs’ observational reports, writing instruction at Kentwell and was considerably different from the writing process pedagogy orientation addressed in the course. These reports suggested that PSTs did not observe their mentor teachers model writing using published literature or other kinds of texts. The students in these classrooms were not helped to choose topics that are meaningful to them, but rather wrote in response to prompts. Further, relatively few PSTs observed writing conferences, and all but one PST indicated that students did not publish their pieces for audiences beyond the classroom. Emily wrote: “I have not seen much writing instruction in general.” Similarly, Dori claimed she did not see any writing instruction while during her literacy practicum experience: “Writing was not taught during my visits.” PSTs indicated that students wrote primarily for the purposes of test preparation. Students were asked to write to compare two texts or answer questions in response to reading passages. At General Field Elementary where three PSTs observed considerably more CALTPs than two other PSTs, commentary was focused on the abilities of the mentor teacher. For instance, Sarah, who reported seeing many CALTPs wrote: “There are so many opportunities for reading and writing in all contexts (independent, group, journal writing, nonfiction reading and writing, creative writing). The students are truly excited about reading and writing.” Another intern, Julia, wrote: “The teacher provides a wide variety of literature examples as well as different writing opportunities to help students grow. In contrast, Mia, who indicated that she did not observe as many CALTPs in her classroom at General Field, wrote that her mentor teacher provided little in the way of direct instruction: I think the option for reading and writing is too broad and so it limits learning. Students read what they want and write in their journals in any way. They are free to write, but it seems like the children have too much freedom compared to learning. Similarly, Amy wrote: “I think there is very minimal individual or small group instruction so a lot of students get lost and can't improve in literacy.” PSTs’ views of their varied literacy practicum experiences suggest that some practicum sites offered more tangible modeling of CALTPs than others. What PSTs extracted from the course and these divergent practicum experiences in terms of their own visions of themselves as literacy teachers is described next. 4.3. The role of the literacy teacher Regardless of how much PSTs observed CALTPs, most wrote that the practicum experience was beneficial to their growth as educators. Almost all of the PSTs from both groups indicated that they could someday be the types of teachers that students in their field placements needed. A few of the PSTs in both groups felt they needed additional practice and mentoring to advance as literacy teachers, but all felt they could grow professionally toward this goal. What differentiated these two groups most was how they constructed such positive views about themselves as professionals who could teach successfully in underserved schools. Four out of the ten PSTs who regularly observed CALTPs said they benefited from the mentor teacher's modeling and personal assistance and three out of ten indicated that they benefited from being able to see a variety of literacy teaching methods in practice. Among those who regularly observed CALTPs, nine out of ten attributed their

professional development to the demonstrations provided by their mentor teachers. For example, Liz wrote: “I could definitely and would like to be this type of teacher. She is able to balance strict standards and guidelines and create meaningful reading and writing opportunities for students.” These perceptions differ from those who observed CALTPs less frequently. Only two of the ten PSTs from this group indicated that they learned from the mentor teacher. Most reported they learned by being able to work directly with children and two indicated they learned by analyzing teaching based on information learned in the course. As Dori indicated: “What I am learning in my classes I could use to help these students.” Two of the PSTs in this group felt they needed more direct practice with children and scaffolding from a mentor before they could be the kind of literacy teacher that students needed. Emily, for instance, wrote: I believe right now I am not the teacher they need. I have learned the skills I need to be a good teacher to the different levels of students, but I know I do not have the practice. In time, I believe I could be these teachers because I have the knowledge and just need the practice. Related to the landscape of teaching concept (Wenger-Trayner & Wenger-Trayner, 2015), this finding suggests that apprenticing with respected mentor teachers was pivotal to PSTs’ ability to imagine themselves as successful future teachers in these settings. In both situations (high and low CALTP classrooms) PSTs constructed positive professional identities for teaching in underserved urban schools, but those who indicated they were more closely mentored in CALTPs practices were better able to identify specific instructional techniques and or approaches that they would employ as future teachers. PSTs from these two groups also expressed contrasting views about the dispositional qualities needed to advance literacy instruction in these schools. Seven out of the ten PSTs who regularly observed CALTPs believed that students needed teachers who were knowledgeable about literacy teaching practices but who were also enthusiastic about learning and were able to motivate students. Some PSTs in this group also believed good teaching required a balance between “friendliness and firmness” and a need to be “patient” and “flexible.” PSTs who observed these practices less frequently did not discuss these dispositions when asked to describe the type of teacher students needed to advance in literacy. Instead, they indicated that students needed teachers who could individualize instruction, teach strategies explicitly, and provide guidance and scaffolding e in other words, the practices that they believed were lacking in these classrooms. This finding affirms the significance of expert teachers modeling the desired dispositional characteristics of their profession within a landscape of practice. 5. Discussion and implications This study found varying degrees of alignment between the teaching practices promoted in the literacy course and those within schools that serve high populations of students of culturally nondominant backgrounds. These findings support the need for teacher educators to be aware of and mediate between these different communities of practice to foster PSTs' development and their vision of themselves as literacy teachers for all students. PSTs who were able to observe mentor teachers regularly enacting CALTPs were able to construct understandings about these practices as well as the dispositional characteristics that their mentor teachers brought to the classroom, including enthusiasm, warmth, and firmness. Most significantly, these attributes are associated with culturally responsive teaching (Ladson-Billings, 1994).


Successful African American teachers have been identified in the research as warm demanders e educators who are both caring and demanding (Irvine & Fraser, 1998; Kleinfeld, 1975). These teachers combine high academic and behavioral expectations for their students (Bondy, Ross, Hambacher, & Acosta, 2013). They take full responsibility for their students’ learning, and they pursue the goal of student achievement with a sense of urgency. PSTs who apprenticed with teachers who exhibited these qualities were able to construct a fuller set of attributes for their imagined selves as future literacy teachers than those teachers who did not. Teacher educators are challenged to create this kind of outcome for all apprentice teachers. PSTs who did not regularly observe CALTPs focused on what students needed instructionally that they did not seem to be getting in the classroom. Their analysis of classrooms focused on the various inconsistencies between the course and the instruction they observed. This focus may have diverted attention away from noticing the dispositional qualities that coincide with CALTPs. They were still, however, able to construct images of themselves as future practitioners primarily because they were able to engage in a variety of course-addressed literacy teaching practices. 5.1. Practices within these classrooms These findings indicate the need for teacher educators to explicitly address boundaries between courses and practicum experiences. For instance, the course promoted writing process pedagogy which included teacher modeling, writing for authentic purposes to real audiences, and conferencing, but this practice was not emphasized in several schools according to PSTs. Instead, some PSTs observed unstructured journal writing and writing in response to prompts in preparation for standardized tests. Similarly, the concept of differentiated instruction represented another boundary between the course and practicum classrooms. The course text emphasized a developmental approach to word study, and promoted the idea that students study spelling patterns and word meanings within their zones of development (Vygotsky, 1978), yet this was not a practice that all PSTs observed. Some PSTs reported that the students in their practicum sites received the same spelling and vocabulary words to study and be tested on. These unresolved tensions could have been addressed more directly by inviting PSTs to reflect on how these different practices shape students’ literacy growth. Within this reflective space, there should also be opportunities for PSTs to explore both the positive and negative outcomes of developmentally-based instruction when it results in fixed ability grouping patterns that can have stigmatizing effects on students (Ford & Opitz, 2008) and when developmental teaching is so narrowly prescribed that it limits the kinds of words that students might explore or the texts that they might read based on their interests (Souto-Manning & Martell, 2016). Boundaries between what is promoted at the university and what is practiced in K-12 classrooms can be viewed as opportunities for discussion, reflection, and inquiry and therefore teacher educators must monitor for and exploit these opportunities. The one area that PSTs did not discuss in their essays was culturally responsive teaching. Many indicated that they observed instances of CRT, but their visions of themselves as literacy teachers did not include CRT. None provided commentary about how they might someday consider students' cultural backgrounds in their future teaching. Further, PSTs did not discuss the role of critical literacy in their final essays. It may be that PSTs' conceptions of CRT and critical literacy fall outside of what they consider to be essential literacy teaching practices, even though these concepts were addressed in the course and particularly in relation to the use of

269

children's literature. This finding signals the need to address the ways that literacy teaching practices intersect with CRT when they focus on enhancing students' academic excellence, cultural competence, and their ability to challenge the social inequities that schools and other institutions perpetuate (Ladson-Billings, 1995). The goal is to help apprentices see CRT as entwined with literacy practice. PSTs need to observe demonstrations of how to create literacy curricula based on students' experiences and knowledge traditions. These kinds of practices need to be explicitly demonstrated in the university classroom and practiced in the field. Closely connected with CRT is the need to help PSTs cultivate more expansive understandings about students' literacies and languages. The PSTs in this study tended to frame students' literacy abilities narrowly, based on whether students were at, above, or below grade level in reading. While PSTs were introduced to the concept of multiple literacies and the culturally situated nature of literacy in this course and a previous literacy course, none described the rich and wide-ranging literacy teaching practices that engaged students in and out of the classroom. In order for PSTs to see students' fullest literacy capacities, teacher educators need to invite investigations of students' multiple literacies, including those based on students' engagements with technology and social media (including iPads, iPhones, the Internet, Facebook), cultural diversity (family stories, oral histories, narratives, interviews), different text types (tweets, email, texts, graphic novels, videos, podcasts, traditional print) and diverse genres (fiction, nonfiction, biography/ memoir, poetry). In order to teach 21st century literacies, PSTs need to expand their understandings of what constitutes literacy practice (NCTE, 2013). For the teacher educator, this also means arranging alternative practicum sites, such as community centers, students’ homes, libraries, or after-school clubs. This would allow PSTs to observe and appreciate a much fuller range of literacy practices than what is often demonstrated in school practicum settings. From the perspective of landscape of practice, the challenge for teacher educators is how to help all PSTs construct the fullest and most complex images of the landscape they are about to enter. It is unrealistic to expect that all classroom practices will be aligned with university course objectives, especially given the continued trend to standardize literacy instruction, but there are things teacher educators can do to enhance the learning possibilities for PSTs. One solution is to create stronger partnerships with schools so that teacher educators, mentor teachers, and school leaders can work synchronously to ensure that universities and elementary classrooms are as aligned as they can be to mentor future teachers (Zeichner, 2009). This requires face-to-face meetings where all parties are able to share conceptions literacy instruction and how to enhance PSTs' learning (Anderson & Stillman, 2013). These conversations need to be reciprocal in that teacher educators must learn from teachers as to how they might structure course assignments to broaden and deepen PSTs’ learning. 6. Conclusion Findings indicated that most PSTs observed many types of course-addressed literacy teaching practices in the five urbanbased schools, but wide variations existed between practicum sites in the areas of differentiated word study, writing instruction, literature discussions, and dramatizing literature. Those who regularly observed CALTPs tended attribute their professional growth to their mentor teachers. These PSTs related to their mentor teachers’ positive dispositions when envisioning themselves as future teachers. Those who observed relatively fewer CALTPs in their field placements attributed their growth to the university course and direct work with students. Regardless of their exposure

270


to CALTPs, all felt they could someday be the types of teachers their students needed. Improving literacy education requires that teacher educators invite reflection and inquiry at the boundaries of where differences between these communities of practice surface. By paying attention to these boundaries, teacher educators, mentor teachers, and school leaders can work together to create robust learning opportunities for teacher candidates. Appendix A. Supplementary data Supplementary data related to this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.01.008. References Allington, R. L. (2013). What really matters when working with struggling readers. The Reading Teacher, 66(7), 520e530. Anderson, L. M., & Stillman, J. A. (2013). Student teaching's contribution to preservice teacher development: A review of research focused on the preparation of teachers for urban and high-needs contexts. Review of Educational Research, 83(1), 3e69. Au, K. (1980). Participation structures in a reading lesson with Hawaiian children: Analysis of a culturally appropriate instructional event. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 11(2), 91e115. Bondy, E., Ross, D., Hambacher, E., & Acosta, M. (2013). Becoming warm demanders: Perspectives and practices of first-year teachers. Urban Education, 48(3), 420e450. Brock, C. H., Moore, D. K., & Parks, L. (2007). Exploring pre-service teachers' literacy practices with children from diverse backgrounds: Implications for teacher educators. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(6), 898e915. Cantrell, S. C. (1999). Effective teaching and literacy learning: A look inside primary classrooms. The Reading Teacher, 52(4), 370e378. Castro, A. J. (2010). Themes in the research on preservice teachers' views of cultural diversity: Implications for researching millennial preservice teachers. Educational Researcher, 39(3), 198e210. Cornbleth, C. (2010). Institutional habitus as the de facto diversity curriculum of teacher education. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 41(3), 280e297. Crocco, M. S., & Costigan, A. T. (2007). The narrowing of curriculum and pedagogy in the age of accountability: Urban educators speak out. Urban Education, 42(1), 512e535. Cummins, J., Brown, K., & Sayers, D. (2006). Literacy, technology, and diversity: Teaching for success in changing times. New York, NY: Allyn & Bacon. Diamond, J. B., & Spillane, J. P. (2004). High-stakes accountability in urban elementary schools: Challenging or reproducing inequality? Teachers College Record, 106(6), 1145e1176. Dooley, C., & Assaf, L. (2009). Contexts matter: Two teachers' language arts instruction in this high-stakes era. Journal of Literacy Research, 41(1), 354e391. Ford, M. P., & Opitz, M. F. (2008). Guided reading: Then and now. In M. J. Fresch AuthorAnonymous (Ed.), An essential history of current reading practices (pp. 66e81). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Fry, P., & McKinney, L. (1997). A qualitative study of preservice teachers' early field experiences in an urban, culturally different school. Urban Education, 32, 184e198. !lez, N., Moll, L., & Amanti, C. (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices Gonza in households, communities, and classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. (2010). Classroom environments and developmental processes: Conceptualization and & improvement. In J. L. Meece, & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Handbook of research on schools, schooling and human development (pp. 25e41). New York, NY: Routledge. Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Irvine, J. J., & Fraser, J. W. (1998). Warm demanders. Education Week, 17(35), 56. Kleinfeld, J. (1975). Effective teachers of Eskimo and Indian students. The School Review, 83(2), 301e344.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465e491. Labadie, M., Wetzel, M. M., & Rogers, R. (2012). Opening spaces for critical literacy: Introducing books to young readers. The Reading Teacher, 66(2), 117e127. Lazar, A. (2007). It’s not just about teaching kids to read: Helping preservice teachers acquire a mindset for teaching children in urban communities. Journal of Literacy Research, 39(4), 411e443. Lazar, A. (2016). From blame to awareness: Expanding teacher candidates' understandings of emergent bilinguals' literacy and language capacities. Journal of Family Diversity in Education, 2(1), 70e89. Leland, C., & Harste, J. (2005). Doing what we want to become: Preparing new urban teachers. Urban Education, 40(1), 60e77. Lloyd, G. M. (2007). Strategic compromise a student teacher's design of kindergarten mathematics instruction in a high-stakes testing environment. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(4), 328e347. Magolis, J. (2006). New teachers, high-stakes diversity, and the performance-based conundrum. The Urban Review, 38(1), 27e44. McDaniel, C. A. (2006). Critical literacy: A way of thinking, a way of life. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Mosley, M. (2010). Becoming a literacy teacher: Approximations in critical literacy teaching. Teaching Education, 21(4), 403e426. Mosley, M., Hoffman, J. V., Roach, A. K., & Russell, K. (2010). The nature of reflection: Experiencereflection and action in a preservice teacher literacy practicum. In E. G. Pultorak (Ed.), The purposes, practices, and professionalism of teacher reflectivity: Insights for 21st century teachers and students (pp. 431e437). Landham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. NCTE. (2013). NCTE position statement: The NCTE definition of 21st century literacies. http://www.ncte.org/positions/statements/21stcentdefinition. Paris, D. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in stance, terminology, and practice. Educational Researcher, 41(3), 93e97. Parks, A. N. (2008). Messy learning: Preservice teachers' lesson study conversations about mathematics and students. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(5), 1200e1216. Pressley, M., Allington, R., Wharton-McDonald, R., Block, C. C., & Morrow, L. M. (2001). Learning to read: Lessons from exemplary first grades. New York, NY: Guilford. Pressley, M., Rankin, J., & Yokoi, L. (1996). A survey of instructional practices of primary teachers nominated as effective in promoting literacy. Elementary School Journal, 96(4), 363e383. Souto-Manning, M., & Martell, J. (2016). Reading, writing, and talk: Inclusive teaching strategies for diverse learners, K-2. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Taylor, B. M., Pearson, P. D., Clark, K., & Walpole, S. (2000). Effective schools and accomplished teachers: Lessons about primary grade reading instruction in low-income schools. The Elementary School Journal, 101(2), 121e166. Templeton, S., & Gehsmann, K. M. (2014). Teaching reading and writing: The developmental approach. Boston, MA: Pearson. Valli, L., & Buese, D. (2007). The changing roles of teachers in an era of high & stakes accountability. American Educational Research Journal, 44(3), 519e558. Vasquez, V. M. (2003). Negotiating critical literacies with young children. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Walker-Dalhouse, D., & Dalhouse, A. (2006). Investigating White preservice teachers' beliefs about teaching in culturally diverse classrooms. The Negro Educational Review, 57(1e2), 69e84. Wharton-MacDonald, R. W., Pressley, M., & Hampston, J. M. (1998). Literacy instruction in nine first-grade classrooms: Teacher characteristics and student achievement. The Elementary School Journal, 99, 101e128. Wenger-Trayner, E., & Wenger-Trayner, B. (2015). Learning in a landscape of practice: A framework. In E. Wenger-Trayner, M. Fenton-O’Creevy, S. Hutchinson, C. Kubiak, & B. Wenger-Trayner (Eds.), Learning in landscapes of practice: Boundaries, identity, and knowledgeability in practice-based learning. New York, NY: Routledge. Zeichner, K. M. (2009). Teacher education and the struggle for social justice. New York, NY: Routledge.