Running Head: TEACHER PREP OF READING TEACHERS 1

The Role of Teacher Preparation Programs in Developing Effective Elementary School Teachers

of Reading

Nisreen Daoud

George Mason University

TEACHER PREP OF READING TEACHERS 2

The Role of Teacher Preparation Programs in Developing Effective Elementary School

Teachers of Reading

Teaching is a multifaceted undertaking that requires professionals with strong pedagogy

and a range of skills to meet the complexities found in todays classroom (Duffy, 2005; Putnam

& Borko, 2000). The field of teacher education continues to be criticized for its preparation of

novice teachers to meet those challenges (Holmes Group, 1986; Levine, 2006; National Council

on Teacher Quality, 2013; No Child Left Behind, 2001). Over the past several decades, policies

have compelled teacher educators to make significant changes to their programs, include a focus

on the standards for teacher quality, sustain teacher effectiveness, and positively influencing

student success (Holmes Group, 1986; NCLB, 2001). Reports and surveys suggest that teacher

preparation, as a field, continues to be fractured and unsure how to best prepare future teachers

(Levine, 2006; National Academy of Science, 2010).

Similarly, reading teacher preparation also struggles with developing an understanding of

how to best educate novice teachers. Identifying the necessary skills and strategies that make

teachers effective continues to be debated (Dillon et al., 2011; Duffy, 2004; Duffy 2005, Duffy,

Miller, Parsons, & Meloth, 2009; Fairbanks et al., 2010; Putnam & Borko, 2000). Researchers

argue that the field must deepen its understanding of reading teacher preparation in order to help

sustain the development of quality teachers of reading (Duffy, 2005; Hoffman & Pearson, 2000;

Risko et al., 2008). Developing teacher preparation programs that readily support this

development is critical (Lenski et al., 2013; Scales et al., 2014; Wolsey et al., 2013). Yet the

multidimensionality of reading instruction continues to make research challenging (Duffy 2005;

Fairbanks et al., 2010).

TEACHER PREP OF READING TEACHERS 3

Standards, both for teacher preparation and more specifically for reading preparation,

have increased accountability placed on programs (CAEP, 2015; IRA, 2010; NCATE, 2010).

These standards place the needs of teacher candidates at the forefront, while also maintaining

student success as a foundation (AACTE, 2011). The International Reading Association (IRA)

developed standards that provide a framework for developing quality teachers as well (Scales et

al., 2014). A complete analysis of the impact of these standards has yet to be studied, but

continued calls for action remain. Disciplines, especially reading, have been challenged to accept

these changes and continue to struggle with identifying the best course of action to develop and

sustain high quality elementary school teachers.

Further complicating reading teacher preparation is the notion that reading is complex

and there is no one best approach to teaching it (Darling-Hammond et al., 2005; Wolsey et al.,

2013; Vagle et al., 2006). Additionally, conceptual and pedagogical knowledge develop gradually

over time (Scales et al., 2014), so attempts to create quality programs are a challenge.

Understanding that learning to teach is influenced by contextual factors is critical for moving

forward (Lenski et al., 2013; Wolsey et al., 2013).

With the tremendous pressure placed on preparation programs (Hoffman & Pearson,

2000), how can programs account for these challenges as they seek to prepare teachers? In this

essay I examine the field of teacher preparation, through the lens of reading, in order to identify

what the field claims will increase quality of elementary reading teachers. The essay begins with

a brief discussion on the search process used to navigate the literature on reading teacher

preparation. Then, a historical look at university based teacher preparation leads into an outline

of the history of reading teacher preparation. Following the historical look is a discussion on the

development of programs. Lastly, looking at what the research suggests effective programs
TEACHER PREP OF READING TEACHERS 4

should include is presented. I end with several implications that can be synthesized from the

research. The essay was guided by several questions that include:

1. What does the research show about the history of reading teacher preparation?
2. What studies have investigated reading teacher preparation, to what extent,

and with what methods?

3. What does the research say reading teacher preparation should encompass?

Database Searches

In order to navigate the literature on reading teacher preparation, several steps were

taken. To begin, I looked at my coursework for relevant studies. This provided me with no

literature directly related to reading teacher preparation, but did provide me with plenty of

research on teacher preparation in general. For example, a look at Holmes Group (1986) and No

Child Left Behind (2001) gave my search a political perspective as a starting point. A review of

standards such as CAEP (2015) and NCATE (2010) suggested standards that all preparation must

strive to meet.

Then, conversations with colleagues lead me to numerous seminal readings. Several of

these were research syntheses. Anders, Hoffman, and Duffy (2000) discussed the paradigm

shifts, challenges, and problems of educating reading teachers. Similarly, Risko and her

colleagues (2008) examined what the research says about educating reading teachers in K-12

classrooms. Additional suggestions gave me literature related to teacher metacognition,

foundational theory, clinical experiences, and reading teacher preparation.

From these articles, I noticed that many referenced the same sources. For example,

articles such as Hoffman and Pearson (2000) and Scales et al. (2014), were noted in many

articles. Additionally, many of the same researchers continued to show up. For example, Duffy

was mentioned by several researchers, which led to me reading many articles written by him.
TEACHER PREP OF READING TEACHERS 5

This included a piece by Duffy (2004) in which he discussed what research says about

developing reading teachers, as well as another piece that focused on teacher metacognition and

adaptive teaching (Duffy, 2005). His research is widespread on several reading teacher concepts.

I then perused the reference list of the articles I had already read to find more articles,

which lead to a few more. When that option had been exhausted, I turned to search databases to

find additional readings. The top sites I explored were Education Research Complete, ProQuest

Research Library, and Education Database. Search terms such as literacy teacher preparation,

reading teacher preparation, reading +teacher candidates, and teacher preparation programs.

These yielded limited results, but did lead to the addition of a few more articles.

All of the research mentioned in this essay was added as a result of one of these methods.

Careful scrutiny was used of each article to ensure its focus would support the answering of the

above research questions. As a result, some articles were discarded. The following synthesizes

the information in the literature.

History of University Based Teacher Preparation

Over the past few decades, education and teacher preparation have undergone several

reforms and policies pressing for change (Holmes Group, 1986; Levine, 2006; NCTQ, 2013; No

Child Left Behind, 2001). More specifically, reform has sought to ensure that programs are

developing teachers who are prepared to meet the varying needs of the students in their

classrooms, including students from varying socioeconomic statuses and diverse backgrounds

(AACTE, 2011). As researchers are continuing to determine, teacher preparation programs can

play a significant role in the development of highly effective teachers (Danneberg, 2014; NCTQ,

2013).

Policies Call for Change

TEACHER PREP OF READING TEACHERS 6

In the 1980s the Holmes Group was formed. Composed of several education school deans

from colleges and universities across the country, the group was created as a response to A

Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983). Their objectives

included reforming the education system, developing standards for teacher preparation programs,

and producing and sustaining highly effective teachers (Holmes Group, 1986). This groups

Tomorrows Teachers report (Holmes Group, 1986) is commonly recognized as one of the most

influential reports on teacher education. With components still visible in current standards, the

report urged the implementation of clinical practice and Professional Development Schools.

Despite the efforts made by the Holmes Group (1986), the field of teacher education continued to

struggle to implement effective change.

As a result of the struggle in education, the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001

was implemented. Among other demands for change, NCLB called for the development of

highly effective teachers. It suggested that content knowledge was of the utmost importance in

development of these teachers (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2006; Wiseman, 2012). It also called for

stronger accountability of teachers and programs (NCLB, 2001). More importantly, it urged

states to include leniency in their teaching entry requirements in hopes that lessening the

requirements would meet the demands of the growing profession and attract future teachers

(Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2006). Despite the growing number of alternate pathways to

certification NCLB allows, about 90% of educators are still prepared in traditional, university-

based teacher preparation programs (AACTE, 2011).

NCLB opened the field of education to much criticism and condemnation. As Wiseman

(2012) states, If teacher education was experiencing an outpouring of political and fiscal action

in the late 1990s, then what we are experiencing in the beginning of the second decade of the
TEACHER PREP OF READING TEACHERS 7

2000s must be a monumental flood (p. 87). In response, several reports have sought to shed

light on the need for change in teacher preparation programs, additionally criticizing the current

state of the field (Levine, 2006; Metlife 2008; National Academy of Science, 2010; NCTQ,

2013).

Reports Call for Change

In Levines (2006) report, he sought to understand teacher preparation programs through

a survey of college deans, faculty, alumni, and school principals. He concluded that the field still

lacks empirical evidence on the best way to prepare students, stating, We dont know what,

where, how, or when teacher education is most effective (p.19). His findings suggest that the

education field has not come to a consensus on the necessary traits a teacher must have in order

to be highly effective. Similarly, National Academy of Science (2010) pulled together a research

base of what is known and unknown about teacher preparation. Based on their findings, they

propose that the field of teacher preparation is currently filled with gaps in research and

generally lacks strong empirical evidence.

As reported by the NCTQ (2013), only 7% of programs ensure that candidates receive

strong experiences or are placed with effective teacher mentors. Though this report is regarded as

highly controversial and critiqued for its methods, the results have contributed to the criticisms

of teacher preparation, bringing teacher quality to the forefront of the debate. The Metlife (2008)

report, however, suggests that teacher preparation programs have indeed improved the

development of preparing teachers. Using a mixture of survey and interviews to see how

perceptions of teachers changed from 1984, they suggest that programs are finding more success

than they once had.

TEACHER PREP OF READING TEACHERS 8

In conclusion, components of effective teacher preparation programs have become a

prominent research trend in the last several decades. Policies have urged programs to delve

deeper into their processes and ensure the development of quality teachers equipped to teach in

todays classroom (Holmes Group, 1986; No Child Left Behind, 2001). Although strides have

been made, researchers continue to criticize the effectiveness, quality, and overall progress of

these programs (Levine, 2006; National Academy of Science, 2010; NCTQ, 2013).

Standards for Teacher Preparation Programs

In response to the constant and controversial critique facing teacher preparation

programs, several standards have been created to encourage the development of highly effective

teachers (AACTE, 2011, ATE, 2000; CAEP, 2015; NCATE, 2010). The Association of Teacher

Educators (ATE) (2000) developed nine standards for education programs: evidence-based

pedagogical practices, cultural competence, scholarship, sustained professional development,

program development and continuous improvement, collaboration with stakeholders, public

advocacy, teacher education profession, and program vision. ATE (2000) suggests that

accordance with these standards will lead to teacher candidates confidence in impacting student

learning and development. The National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education

(NCATE) (2010) identifies 10 principles for designing clinically based preparation programs.

These standards include (NCATE, 2010, p. 5-6):

1. Student learning is the focus

2. Clinical preparation is integrated throughout every facet of teacher education in a

dynamic way
3. A candidates progress and the elements of a preparation program are

continuously judged on the basis of data

4. Programs prepare teachers who are experts in content and how to teach it and are

also innovators, collaborators, and problem solvers

TEACHER PREP OF READING TEACHERS 9

5. Candidates learn in an interactive professional community

6. Clinical educators and coaches are rigorously selected and prepared and drawn

from both higher education and the P-12 sector

7. Specific sites are designated and funded to support embedded clinical preparation
8. Technology applications foster high-impact preparation
9. A powerful R&D agenda and systematic gathering and use of data supports

continuous improvement in teacher preparation

10. Strategic partnerships are imperative for powerful clinical preparation

These standards push for teachers who are well versed, know the community in which they

teach, apply their knowledge strategically, use assessments appropriately, and effectively engage

all students.

Moreover, the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE) (2011)

recommends a refocus of teacher preparation to support the current and future needs of

educators, staffing partner schools to ensure close connection to school-based learning, multiple

measurements to evaluate teachers, streamlining accountability provisions, and an investment

from the federal government to support tracking of graduating teachers as they enter the

profession. More recently, developed to replace NCATE (2010), Council for Accreditation of

Educator Preparation (CAEP) (2015) introduced five new standards. These five standards

include: content and pedagogical knowledge, clinical partnership and practice, candidate quality

based on recruitment and selectivity, program impact, providing quality assurance and

continuous improvement (CAEP, 2015). They sought to ensure accountability on the part of

teacher education programs, as well as create more stringent requirements to recruit and develop

highly effective teachers. CAEP (2015) seeks to enhance the field by providing a framework for

programs that will successfully impact students.

In summary, teacher preparation continues to struggle with the criticisms that have

plagued the field for several decades (Holmes Group, 1986; NCLB, 2001; NCTQ, 2013,
TEACHER PREP OF READING TEACHERS 10

Wiseman, 2001). Policies and reports such as Holmes Group (1986) and NCLB (2001) sought to

inspire change in how programs were preparing the next generation of highly effective teachers.

What resulted has been a continued uphill battle of identifying what and how effective teachers

should be developed (Levine, 2006). Continued reports call for dramatic change and shifts in

preparation (Levine, 2006; National Academy of Science, 2010) and bring teacher quality to the

forefront of conversations (NCTQ, 2013). To address these issues, standards continue to be

developed and recreated to fit the changing needs of effective teacher preparation (AACTE,

2011, ATE, 2000; CAEP, 2015; NCATE, 2010). Sustaining effective teachers that ultimately

impact student achievement is of the utmost importance in todays teacher preparation programs

(CAEP, 2015). No matter what grade level or content area, these standards place high

expectations on preparation programs and program graduates.

Historical Perspectives on Preparing Teachers of Reading

Research on reading teacher preparation is also no stranger to developing accountability

and focusing attention on developing quality programs. In 1961, the Torch Lighters study

became one of the first recognized studies examining reading teacher preparation (Hoffman et

al., 2005; Morrison & Austin, 1976). The researchers sought to learn more about the practices of

college and universities in preparing reading teachers, as well as make several recommendations

for improvement (Hoffman et al., 2005).

In their follow up Torch Lighters study, Morrison and Austin (1976) collected

questionnaire data from programs focusing on three distinct areas: adoption of the

recommendations made in the initial study, significant changes taking place in programs, and

suggested recommendations by teacher preparation programs. Findings showed compliance of

programs with the recommendations in regards to coursework, observations and field

TEACHER PREP OF READING TEACHERS 11

experiences, and use of reading research. Over the course of the 15 years between the first Torch

Lighters study and the second, researchers found that six significant changes were taking place in

reading preparation programs: (1) an increase in the number of reading courses required; (2)

introduction of competency based programs; (3) the use of field experiences and observations;

(4) implementation of course offerings in diagnostics; (5) movement away from lectures to use

of public school classroom settings and; and (6) availability of specializations in reading

(Morrison & Austin, 1976). Paving the way for future work focusing specifically on reading

teacher preparation, the Torch Lighters research identified reading and teacher preparation as

significant parts of teacher candidate development.

Teaching vs. Educating

The Department of Education, influenced by such work as the Torch Lighters studies,

sought to improve preparation of reading teacher as well (Anders et al., 2000). It focused its

attention on creating a training model, categorizing and recognizing a list of competencies

teachers needed to develop (Hoffman & Pearson, 2000). Hoffman and Pearson (2000) defined

training as those direct actions of a teacher that are designed to enhance a learners ability to do

something fluently and efficiently (p. 32). However, researchers posit the training model does

not create lasting effects for quality reading instruction (Anders et al., 2000; Hoffman & Pearson,

2000). Rather it created teachers that looked like technicians who did not possess sufficient

reading knowledge, but could use scripted programs and basal readers (Duffy, 1981).

Additionally, Duffy (2005) suggests classrooms are unpredictable and require improvisation.

Therefore, a training model will not lead to successful teaching.

More specifically, Hoffman and Pearson (2000) examined the current challenges of

teaching instructors to teach reading by examining the current research. In the comparison of
TEACHER PREP OF READING TEACHERS 12

training versus educating teacher candidates, they found reading to be a complex construct,

which requires teaching strategies to be broad and nurturing to student learning. Due to the

multifarious nature of reading, Hoffman and Pearson (2000) argue training or programmatic

teaching strategies do not suffice. Their findings suggest further research must be dedicated to

understanding what components make up effective reading teachers. As stated, We must commit

our energies to studying our programs, our courses, our teaching, and our expectations and

requirements (Anders et al., 2000, p. 734). They conclude an educative model of teaching

would be a better approach.

In an effort to move towards the educative model, researchers in the end of the 20th

century continued to examine the relationship between reading teacher quality and teacher

preparation programs (Duffy, 1981; Hoffman et al., 2005; International Reading Association,

2003; Mallette et al., 2000). Duffy (1981) discussed that a shift in research to a focus on teacher

differences brings the preparation of reading teachers into question. Research began to look at

how reading teachers develop their knowledge in order to understand instruction (Mallette et al.,

2000). Since historically speaking novice teachers have expressed low confidence in teaching

reading (Mellette et al., 2000), improvements have been made to prepare teachers of reading in

the last few decades (Hoffman et al., 2005). Changes have included:

Understanding that effective teachers generate reading opportunities through

management, structures and psychological conditions (Duffy, 1981)

Developing coursework that allows candidates to take on an active role in their learning

(Mallette et al., 2000),

Focus on putting a quality reading teacher in every classroom (International Reading

Association, 2003)
Building coursework that develops teachers who are flexible and adaptive (Hoffman et

al., 2005);
TEACHER PREP OF READING TEACHERS 13

Developing effective and quality teachers of reading became the focus for researchers and

preparation programs (Duffy, 1981; International Reading Association, 2003).

Pressing for Change

Emerging from this need to examine preparation programs, the IRA convened the

National Commission on Excellence in Elementary Teacher Preparation for Reading Instruction.

The purpose of the commission was to address the gaps in the research (Hoffman et al., 2005),

understand current practices, identify common characteristics of exemplary programs, and

conduct a comparative study of graduates of these programs and others (IRA, 2003). The

researchers found that teachers prepared in these exemplary programs are more successful in

their reading instruction than other novices (IRA, 2003). Additionally, the research results

showed that those novice teachers were as successful as experienced teachers and that those

successes lasted well into their second and third years of teaching (Hoffman et al., 2005).

The National Commission on Excellence in Elementary Teacher Preparation for Reading

Instruction identified eight critical features used by these exemplary programs, with the caveat

that not all programs were strong in all eight features. Aligned with the IRA and NCATE

standards, these features were: content, apprenticeship, vision, resources and mission,

personalized teaching, autonomy, community, and assessment (IRA, 2003). Teacher educators

should examine their own programs and practices, they urged, and seek to use these standards as

a guide in developing their own programs (IRA, 2003). The commission reminded the field that

programs may play a significant role in developing and sustaining high quality reading teachers

(Hoffman et al., 2005).

Teacher preparation programs, however, must prepare candidates for the unpredictability

in teaching due to human actions, complexity of classrooms, and ambiguous situations (Duffy
TEACHER PREP OF READING TEACHERS 14

2005, Duffy et al., 2009; Fairbanks et al, 2010; Putnam & Borko, 2000). Research has shown

reading achievement can be tied more to what teachers do than a program they may use (Duffy,

2004). Therefore, programs must help develop teachers who are adaptive and metacognitive to

support reading success of all students (Duffy 2005, Duffy et al., 2009; Fairbanks et al., 2010).

Metacognition is the ability of a teacher to self-regulate their own knowledge to strategically

plan, promote learning, and make in-the-moment decisions (Duffy, 2004; Duffy et al., 2009).

Expert teachers are metacognitive as they consistently make generalizations and construct

understanding as it occurs in the classroom (Duffy et al., 2009). This approach allows

preparation programs to build teachers who not only disseminate knowledge, but also are able to

make judgments and use their professional knowledge consistently (Darling- Hammond et al.,

2005; Duffy, 2004).

Role of the candidate. This focus on improving reading teacher preparation must also

take into account the significant role the teacher candidate plays. Researchers have aimed to

better understand the beliefs and perceptions of future teachers (Grisham et al., 2000; Mallette et

al., 2000; Sadoski et al., 1998). Sadoski and his colleagues (1998) examined the literacy

knowledge of 33 preservice and inservice teachers. Among their findings were misconceptions

among undergraduate and graduate students in regards to literacy concepts. The researchers

discussed that reading teacher knowledge may be insufficient without specific preparation and

therefore programs needed to place emphasis on methods courses. Similarly, Grisham (2000)

followed 12 teacher candidates for three years to learn about their reading beliefs and practices.

Findings showed that the teacher preparation program did influence the teachers, as did the

context. The findings showed that teachers do not delve deep enough into their own complexities

surrounding literacy learning, so preparation programs may need to provide an avenue for that.
TEACHER PREP OF READING TEACHERS 15

Like Grisham (2000), Mallette and her colleagues (2000) found that teacher candidates needed to

better understand the role they play when working with students. Teacher preparation programs

are urged to provide opportunities for candidates to question their understandings and

apprenticeship of observation (Mallette et al., 2000).

In sum, examining the role of preparation programs in the development of effective

teachers of reading saw its beginnings in the 1960s (Morrison & Austin, 1976). With increased

pressure to create highly effective teachers (Anders et al., 2000; Duffy, 1981), researchers began

dedicating more time to better understanding the effects of programs (Grisham et al., 2000;

Hoffman et al., 2005; Mallette et al., 2000; Sadoski et al., 1998). The National Commission on

Excellence in Elementary Teacher Preparation for Reading Instruction recommended changes to

programs based on eight critical features, as well as paved the way for researchers to further

explore the gap in research (IRA, 2003).

Developing Effective Teacher Preparation Programs

Research regarding the preparation of teachers equipped to effectively teach reading has

gained attention the last few decades, with several researchers calling for changes in the methods

currently employed (Anders et al., 2000; Duffy, 2004; Risko et al., 2008). More than 200,000

teacher candidates graduate from a teacher preparation program every year (National Council on

Teacher Quality, 2013). Current trends in education have highlighted the need to develop

effective teachers in these programs (National Academy of Sciences, 2010; NCTQ, 2013; The

Education Schools Project, 2006). More prominently than ever before, teachers must now be

prepared to educate all learners and close the achievement gap, especially with the influx of

English language learners and special education students found in todays inclusive classrooms

(AATCE, 2011; The Education Schools Project, 2006).

TEACHER PREP OF READING TEACHERS 16

The multifaceted nature of reading, requiring the coordination of several skills for

success, has created difficulty for researchers to study teacher preparation (Duffy 2005;

Fairbanks et al., 2010). Qualitative and quantitative research to support strategies of increased

teacher effectiveness has been scarce (Duffy et al., 2009; Risko et al., 2008). Current research

suggests changing the perspectives of teacher educators and fostering the development of teacher

candidates are critical components of future teacher preparation programs. Teacher educators

perspectives must now include a more teacher candidate-centered approach that allows the

candidates to take charge of their learning (Hoffman & Pearson, 2000). Educators must also be

willing to foster candidate growth by improving field experiences that center around high quality,

ongoing professional development in reading (Dillon et al., 2011).

Isolating necessary characteristics and knowledge that teacher candidates need to be

effective reading teachers, therefore, has been difficult for reading research (Anders et al., 2000;

Hoffman & Pearson, 2000; Risko et al., 2008). For example, Anders and her colleagues (2000)

examined paradigm shifts as well as challenges in the research on teaching educators of reading.

They found seven thesis statements representing the current research:

Preservice research has not been a priority

There has been an increase in research in the last decade
Diverse methodologies are being used
There is no current reference point for preparation programs
The field continues to struggle with conceptions of teacher knowledge and beliefs
Few claims can be made based on the current research
Teacher education programs are complex

In another comprehensive synthesis of research on reading teacher education in K-12

classrooms, Risko and her colleagues (2008) examined a total of 82 studies identified through a

paradigmatic analysis process. Of those studies identified, 76% were studies of elementary

education, 90% were in undergraduate programs, 53% occurred over a one-semester period, and
TEACHER PREP OF READING TEACHERS 17

two thirds were white females when researchers reported demographic information. The

researchers found scholars did not acknowledge what understanding was important for teachers

to know, a variety of approaches are necessary for deeper understanding of reading teacher

research, and researchers have not found explicit links between beliefs and practice. However,

the researchers did recognize research has made some gains in the expected direction in the last

few decades. Future studies should build on the current research, as well as broaden and deepen

the research agenda (Risko et al., 2008).

Examining Effective Programs

To build on the current research and support the development of effective teachers of

literacy, several studies have examined the literacy elements of programs across universities and

colleges to identify common themes in successful reading teacher preparation (Lenski et al.,

2013; Scales et al., 2014; Wolsey et al., 2013; Vagle, Dillon, Davison-Jenkins, LaDuca, & Olson,

2006). In a three-year study by Hoffman and colleagues (2005), effectiveness of seven

universities and one college, identified as exemplary, in preparing elementary teachers in reading

was examined. Following the novices into their first year of teaching, the researchers found

candidates from these highly effective reading teacher preparation programs were more

successful in creating rich classroom text environments, higher engagement with text, and higher

levels of understanding and valuing texts than that of peers who did not participate in these

programs. They concluded teacher preparation programs could positively influence teacher

candidates. Heredia (2011) suggests that methods courses within these programs are critical in

developing literacy competency in prospective teachers. As Darling-Hammond and her

colleagues (2005) suggest, there may be no best way to organize learning in preparation, but
TEACHER PREP OF READING TEACHERS 18

common themes in effective programs continue to shed light on common considerations for

programs. Such themes are presented below.

Focus on standards. Studies have sought to examine preparation through the lens of the

IRAs (2010) Standards for Reading Professionals (Lenski et al., 2013; Scales et al., 2014;

Wolsey et al., 2013). These standards, consisting originally of five published in 2003 and revised

to include a sixth standard in 2010, provide a framework for developing literacy programs of

quality for preparing not only teachers but other roles, such as support personnel, literacy

coaches and specialists, teacher educators, and administrators (Scales et al., 2014, p. 4). These

standards can be described as performance-based rather than course-based (Lenski et al., 2013).

The standards include (1) foundational knowledge, (2) curriculum and instruction, (3)

assessment and evaluation, (4) diversity, (5) literate environment, and (6) professional learning

and leadership (IRA, 2010).

Lenski and colleagues (2013) investigated the extent to which literacy courses were

similar across programs, how they prioritized these standards, and the signature aspects of each

program. Examining nine programs producing elementary education teachers, they studied four

private and five public schools with six at the undergraduate level and three at the graduate level.

They found that alignment with standards relied on a dedication to connecting instruction with

theory and research. Programs found it essential for candidates to have a solid understanding of

literacy theory and strategies to implement those theories, as well as importance of assessment.

More specifically, when it came to their signature features, six programs named balanced

literacy, five programs identified assessment to inform instruction, and four named instructional

practices and strategies.

TEACHER PREP OF READING TEACHERS 19

Similarly, to examine the perceptions of teacher candidates in literacy methods courses

pertaining to the IRA standards, Wolsey and his colleagues (2013) surveyed 301 candidates and

dissected syllabi and interviews. Gathering data from 10 programs, they found that a majority of

candidates perceived they had learned and understood dispositions in the standards. The

foundational knowledge was difficult for students to express, candidates had high confidence in

curriculum and instruction, expressed understanding of assessment but were unsure how to use

assessment results, and diversity was an area of need across all the programs. Overall, the

researchers found a high level of congruence among what was taught in courses and what

students perceived they learned. They suggest that supporting teacher candidates as they find

ways to think about literacy is essential for programs (Lenski et al., 2013; Scales et al., 2014;

Wolsey et al., 2013).

In addition, Scales and her colleagues (2014) sought to find how teachers candidates

were enacting the standards during their student teaching and how that aligned with what the

program found to be important. They looked at 15 student teachers from eight teacher

preparation programs. The researchers found that candidates showed less understanding of

foundational knowledge, curriculum and instruction, assessment and evaluation, and professional

learning and leadership than what was taught during their preparation coursework. Students also

spent a large amount of their time creating a literate environment, despite this being less of a

focal point of the program.

Researchers should aim to identify strategic methods for achieving exemplary preparation

programs. One way to support candidates and effective teacher preparation programs, Vagle and

his colleagues (2006) suggest, is to begin forming collaborations across universities. In their

qualitative interpretive study, the researchers described and analyzed the changes in teacher
TEACHER PREP OF READING TEACHERS 20

education of literacy preparation courses from four universities, two small private and two large

public. Through three years of collaboration, the participants created and implemented four

agreed upon assignments, developed rubrics to assess the assignments, developed research-based

syllabi, shifted course content to match expectations, and implemented a framework by which

the programs would teach literacy instruction. The researchers imply that a framework can create

balance and coherence among programs and teacher educators must develop environments that

engage learners and develop their literacy skills.

In conclusion, using the IRA (2010) standards to support candidate growth may be

effective, but must be strategically embedded in programs (Lenski et al., 2013; Scales et al.,

2014; Wolsey et al., 2013). However, its critical to understand that literacy knowledge advances

over a continuum and requires time for development (Dillon et al., 2011; Duffy, 2005; Heredia,

2011; Scales et al., 2014). Future research should continue to deepen the fields understanding of

reading teacher preparation in order to create effective educators (Duffy, 2005; Hoffman &

Pearson, 2000; Risko et al., 2008). Understanding teacher preparation needs a more student-

centered approach is critical (Fairbank et al., 2010).

Components of Teacher Preparation Programs

With a refocus on the teacher candidate, research has sought to identify components

successful teachers should embody. The following discussion suggests several strategies for

teacher educators to use, as well as components they should support teacher candidates to have.

Teaching Practices

Researchers often propose that knowledge is socially constructed, requiring experiences

to be situated in a learning community (Putnam & Borko, 2000). Repeated experiences with

repeated opportunities to practice skills may enhance deeper learning and allow candidates to
TEACHER PREP OF READING TEACHERS 21

investigate problems, analyze student learning, and reason (Darling-Hammond et al., 2005). As a

result, a teachers learning is indeed situated in their practices (Putnam & Borko, 2000). The

more experiences afforded to teacher candidates, the more opportunity for knowledge to be

constructed.

One way to socially construct this knowledge and provide opportunities for development

is through modeling and explicit teaching. Modeling and explicit teaching of certain knowledge

is necessary to foster development of candidates (Dillon et al., 2011; Duffy, 2004; Risko et al.,

2008). Researchers suggest that modeling is an effective strategy that helps candidates learn best

(Dillon et al., 2011). This explicit guidance and focused instructional support may deepen

reflective thinking (Risko et al., 2008). As research shows, teachers who make the greatest gains

use modeling and scaffolding on a regular basis (Duffy, 2004). Explicit teaching offers

candidates sufficient time to view appropriate skills, such as modeling, and affords educators the

opportunity to reflect deeply on specific practices (Risko et al., 2008).

Research also suggests that several other teaching strategies may be used in teacher

preparation programs to increase future effectiveness of candidates. Risko and her colleagues

(2008) identified several activities to enhance reflection. These activities, they suggest, should

include personal use of reading strategies, writing narratives, writing family histories of students,

collaboration with peers, and peer coaching. Targeted discussion and collaboration can lead to

long-term deep learning (Dillon et al., 2011). These collaborative models may led to the

development of teachers that can think for themselves and use their professional judgments to

make informed teaching decisions (Duffy, 2004). As Duffy (2004) argues, to prepare adaptive

teachers who use judgment to change practices when necessary, we must change what we teach

teachers and how we teach, and when we teach (pp. 10-11). Continued research efforts must be
TEACHER PREP OF READING TEACHERS 22

examined in order to identify what teachers must know when leaving the preparation program in

order to continue to implement best preparation practices (Dillon et al., 2011).

Metacognition

Experience can be described as meaningful human behaviors (Polkinghorne, 1988;

Johnson & Christensen, 2014) that support the development of knowledge (Bruner, 1996).

Teachers may organize structure, in this case their instruction, based on the experiences that they

have had in classrooms (Connelly & Clandinin, 1990). As Feuerverger (2011) stated, experience

gives teachers a way to give meaning to practices shared within the classroom. Since teachers

create a fit between their current and past experiences (Robinson & Hawpe, 1986), it is essential

that teacher preparation programs provide teacher candidates with necessary skills to use those

experiences appropriately.

As a result, developing metacognition in teacher candidates is essential for experiences to

be used successfully. Metacognition can be described as using conscious, mindful actions that

require being aware of ones knowledge and self-regulating that knowledge (Duffy, 2005). Using

the experiences they have had, teachers can make decisions based on generalizations and

construct rules to guide their actions (Duffy et al., 2009). Effective teachers of reading

understand that every situation they encounter is different and they must apply their pedagogical

knowledge differently (Fairbanks et al., 2010). Furthermore, the development of metacognitive

teachers can be fostered in preparation programs where experts take on the supportive role

allowing teachers to transform their own knowledge (Duffy, 2005).

Teacher educators can support the development of metacognition by fostering reflection

in candidates. When candidates have an opportunity to reflect on their practices, teachers are

readily available to identify areas of improvement, consider alternate strategies for the future,
TEACHER PREP OF READING TEACHERS 23

and problem solve (Darling-Hammond et al., 2005). By participating in reflection practices,

instruction can be enhanced (Anders & Richardson, 1991). Pushing the boundaries to make

reflection multidimensional will make teacher candidates readily available to access and use their

experiences and knowledge to drive instruction, promote learning, and make on the spot

decisions (Duffy et al., 2009; Fairbanks et al., 2010). This will result in teachers of reading who

are able to construct and experiment with instructional methods and meet the needs of their

specific students (Anders & Richardson, 1991). Continued research is needed to document more

extensively the use of metacognition of teachers (Duffy et al., 2009) and examine if

metacognitive teachers are able to increase academic success of students (Duffy, 2005).

Teacher Vision

Duffy (2005) suggests that metacognition is tied to a teachers vision. A teachers vision

can be identified as what they hope to instill in their students beyond the call of the curriculum

(Hammerness, 2003). Duffy (2002) defined a teachers vision as a personal stance on teaching

that rises from deep within the inner teacher and fuels independent thinking (p. 334). A vision

can give meaning to the work of a teacher and motivate continued growth and development

(Hammerness, 2001). This vision provides a benchmark for measuring pedagogical efforts

(Scales, 2013).

Fairbanks and his colleagues (2010) argue a vision should be the driving force for the

instructional decisions made by teachers. This not only facilitates the design of activities for

teachers, but acts as a means of reflection as well (Hammerness, 2001). Helping candidates hone

their vision, which includes their beliefs, belonging, and identity, can support the adaptive nature

of each teacher (Fairbanks et al., 2010). It can also support the development of novice teachers

who adjust and modify their instruction on their quest to becoming adaptive (Duffy, 2002).
TEACHER PREP OF READING TEACHERS 24

In a longitudinal study, researchers investigated the maturity and change in nine teachers

visions over a seven-year period, including their first years of teaching (Parsons, Vaughn,

Malloy, & Pierczynski, 2017). The researchers found that as the teachers were moving towards

enacting their vision, they were met with many obstacles and challenges. Despite those

challenges, the teachers focused on controlling what they could in their classrooms by

developing instruction that aligned with their vision. Visions, Parsons and his colleagues (2017)

concluded, can support the development of effective teachers. Despite this study, the limited data

on the effects of visioning, however, do not give us a complete understanding of the

sustainability of teacher visions (Scales, 2013). More research is needed to investigate the effects

of visions on reading teacher quality.

Clinical Experiences

While components of an effective reading teacher preparation program continues to be

studied, much research has suggested that targeted clinical experiences embedded within these

programs is critical to connect theory and practice (ATE, 2000; CAEP, 2015; Darling-Hammond,

2014, Hollins, 2015; Linton & Gordon, 2015; NCATE, 2010; Rust & Clift, 2015; Zeichner &

Bier, 2015). Standard two of CAEP (2015) focuses on clinical partnerships and clinical practice.

The standard pushes for the nurturing of teacher candidates and suggests these experiences help

connection of theory. Prior to CAEP (2015), ATE (2000) suggested these experiences support the

development of reflective teachers, encourage teaching in diverse contexts, and promote

collaboration among stakeholders.

Despite the inconsistency in understanding the essential knowledge effective reading

teachers should have (Anders et al., 2000; Dillion et al., 2011; Risko et al., 2008), several

researchers have begun to identify potential strategies teacher preparation programs should
TEACHER PREP OF READING TEACHERS 25

consider, which include clinical experiences (Darling-Hammond, Hammerness, Grossman, Rust,

& Shulman, 2005; Dillion et al., 2011; Duffy, 2004; Putnam & Borko, 2000). In the past

programs have relied on theoretical understandings and paid little attention to connecting

practice to the theories in the courses (Darling-Hammond et al., 2005). As a result, targeted field

experiences are suggested as critical for the success of teacher candidates (Duffy, 2004; Heredia,

2011; Putnam & Borko, 2000). These experiences, Duffy (2004) argues, are a collaborative

model allowing for reflection and the development of teachers who can think for themselves.

Guided observations and engagement in practice may help develop an intellectual framework for

interpretation (Darling-Hammond et al., 2005).

Current research continues to push for the necessity of these experiences for teacher

candidates. Rust and Clift (2015) suggest that these experiences give adult learners time to

collaborate with professionals and receive guided practice. Similarly, Zeichner and Bier (2015)

advocate that clinical experiences should become the norm for teacher educators to bridge the

gap between theory and practice. Linton and Gordon (2015) discussed clinical practice has three

major components: focused inquiry, directed observation, and guided enactment. Darling-

Hammond (2014) identified three features of effective programs: tight coherence and integration

among clinical work, extensive and intensely supervised clinical work, and strong relationships

with schools to connect theory and practice. Research shows that clinical experiences can be

enhanced when coupled with analysis of student work and teacher plans, videotapes of

classrooms in action, the reading and writing of cases, skillful use of portfolios, performance

assessments, and action research (Darling-Hammond, 2014; Darling-Hammond et al., 2015).

Clinical Experiences and Coursework

TEACHER PREP OF READING TEACHERS 26

Studies have begun to investigate the deep connection between clinical experiences and

coursework (Leland, 2012; Lipp & Helfich, 2016; Young et al., in press, 2017). Aligned with the

IRA standards, one study observed how students enact the standards during their placements and

the effects of the placement itself (Young et al., in press, 2017). Through an examination of 15

candidate and mentor pairs, they found that candidates were situated in a range of classroom

contexts. Furthermore, data showed that to varying degrees, 14 classrooms were using a core-

reading program, 14 were using small group instruction, and some classrooms spent a lot of time

on assessments. As a result of their findings, they concluded that selection of appropriate

placements is important for matching program emphasis with experiences. Educators are urged

to consider ways to help candidates participate in experiences that counter coursework.

Similarly, Lipp and Helfich (2016) focused their clinical experiences study on how

teacher candidates grow understanding of running records and guided reading when coursework

and clinical experiences are aligned. They found that candidates showed a clearer understanding

of the close relationship to literacy instruction of running records and guided reading.

Comparably, Leland (2012) explored the perceptions of teacher candidates enrolled in six

sessions of an early literacy methods course. She sought to examine the impact clinical

experiences had on candidates understanding of emergent literacy. She found that 76% of

candidates believed that the 12 hours of clinical experience impacted their knowledge

development of emergent literacy, especially in the areas of understanding the course

information, awareness of the importance of emergent literacy, awareness of classroom diversity,

and an understanding of the content knowledge needed to teach emergent literacy.

In conclusion, engaging teacher candidates in clinical experiences that bring together

literacy content and practice allows for deeper knowledge growth and stronger development of
TEACHER PREP OF READING TEACHERS 27

understanding (Lipp & Helfich, 2016; Young et al., in press). A candidates reliance on their own

schooling, also known as the apprenticeship of observation, can heavily influence candidates

perceptions. Therefore, clinical experiences can create opportunities that challenge those

acquired observations and force candidates to reflect deeply (Leland, 2012). Consequently, a

significant aspect of teacher education is how teachers come to integrate theory and practice in

ways that allow them to become experts (Darling-Hammond, 2014; Lipp & Helfich, 2016).

Strengthening clinical practices is seen as one of the most important strategies for developing

effective teacher preparation (Darling-Hammond, 2014).

Implications

As a field, reading teacher preparation may use the current research as a foundation for

building future programs that develop sustainable highly effective teachers of literacy. In this

section, I aim to discuss some of the significant implications of the current research.

Teaching is Complex

A simple concept, yet fundamental in the development of effective reading teachers. It is

imperative that as educators we understand that there is an underlying unpredictability in

teaching and every situation has its ambiguity and uniqueness (Duffy 2005, Duffy et al., 2009;

Fairbanks et al, 2010; Putnam & Borko, 2000). Similarly, reading itself is a complex

phenomenon requiring strategies that are nurtured and broad, for both the teachers and the

learners of reading (Hoffman & Pearson, 2000). Learning to be an effective reading teacher does

not occur rapidly; instead, it requires sufficient time to be cultivated (Dillon et al., 2011; Scales
TEACHER PREP OF READING TEACHERS 28

et al., 2014). Through repeated experiences with numerous opportunities to practice (Darling-

Hammond et al., 2005), reading teachers can be supported in developing skills and strategies.

Learning to Teach Reading can be Socially Constructed

Knowledge can be developed through the integration of social experiences and through

social contexts (Hausfather, 1996). The literacy experiences teacher preparation programs offer

can impact the construction of literacy knowledge (Scales et al., 2014), such as intentional

coursework, strategic school placements, and opportunities to work with peers (Lenski et al.,

2013). Situating coursework within a learning community may elicit significant results within

programs (Putnam & Borko, 2000). Additionally, the clinical experiences that are offered to

candidates facilitates that social construction of knowledge (Duffy, 2004; Putnam & Borko,

2000). Creating opportunities for the integration of theory and practice can support candidates as

they transition into the classroom (Darling-Hammond, 2014; Lipp & Helfich, 2016).

Engagement in targeted clinical experiences can create both breadth and depth of knowledge

consumption and ultimately develop stronger teachers of literacy (Lipp & Helfich, 2016; Young

et al., in press). Continued research efforts should be placed on developing ways to strengthen

those clinical experiences (Darling-Hammond, 2014).

Teacher Preparation Programs can Support Development

Despite the challenges that continue to plague programs, research has identified several

strategies that can be integrated into courses, aside from stronger clinical experiences (Darling-

Hammond et al., 2005). First, it is imperative to adopt the notion that teachers cannot be trained,

but rather can be supported through an educative model (Anders et al., 2000; Duffy, 2005;

Hoffman & Pearson, 2000). This model allows for the development of teachers who are

metacognitive thinkers (Duffy, 2005) and who adapt based on their vision and identity
TEACHER PREP OF READING TEACHERS 29

(Fairbanks et al., 2010). Highly effective teachers must self-regulate and should be able to make

judgments based on the knowledge they have constructed (Duffy, 2004; Duffy et al., 2009). As a

result, the training model does not adequately meet the needs of todays classroom or the

expectations of todays teacher (Duffy, 2005).

Additionally, understanding the role IRA (2010) standards play in the design and

implementation of teacher preparation program is critical. As research has shown, teacher

candidates will value the standards that are intentionally highlighted in a given program (Lenski

et al., 2013; Scales et al., 2014; Wolsey et al., 2013; Vagle et al., 2006). While it is apparent that

programs are not long enough for a focus on every aspect of every standard (Lenski et al., 2013),

it is critical for educators to purposefully choose components and standards that will lead to the

most highly effective reading teachers (Lenski et al., 2013; Scales et al., 2014; Wolsey et al.,

2013).

Lastly, realizing that educating teachers is a demanding profession is critical (Darling-

Hammond et al., 2005). Just as teaching reading is complex, so is educating teachers to be

effective reading teachers (Fairbanks et al, 2010; Putnam & Borko, 2000). Sure, we can employ

teaching strategies such as modeling (Duffy, 2004), explicit teaching (Risko et al., 2008), and

repeated experiences (Darling-Hammond et al., 2005). However, we must also remember that

knowledge happens over a continuum and we will not be able to magically develop highly

effective teachers in our short programs (Dillon et al., 2011; Duffy, 2005; Scales et al., 2014). It

is our duty, though, to continue to make strides to prepare teachers the best we can to become

highly effective teachers and arm candidates with the necessary skills and strategies to continue

to develop.

Proposed Study
TEACHER PREP OF READING TEACHERS 30

Several researchers have suggested the study of exemplary programs is necessary to

move the field of teacher preparation, and literacy teacher development, forward. Anders and her

colleagues (2000) stated, We must commit our energies to studying our programs, our courses,

our teaching, and our expectations and requirements (p. 734). They suggest that studying these

programs will indeed support the development of teacher candidates. Darling-Hammond (2006)

took to studying exemplary programs in order to identify similar components across the

programs that lead to successful candidates. As discussed earlier, the IRAs (2003) National

Commission on Excellence in Elementary Teacher Preparation for Reading Instruction also

sought to identify common factors across exemplary literacy programs. Hence, my instrumental

case study can help the field of literacy teacher preparation learn about the qualities of effective

programs and the impact it may have on teacher candidate development (Hoffman et al., 2005).

The purpose of my proposed instrumental case study is to examine the preparation of

elementary school reading teachers at a distinguished International Literacy Association (ILA)

university. The focus is descriptive, striving to document the programs goals, components, and

structures (Darling-Hammond, 2006) to support the field of teacher preparation in understanding

what makes quality reading teachers within an effective program. The work is guided by several

research questions:

1. What are the programs goals, vision, and values in developing highly effective

reading teachers?
a. How are these goals, visions, and values interwoven within courses?
b. What kind of schools are teacher candidates being prepared for?
2. What is the content and processes of the learning constructed by the program that

support the development of highly effective teachers?

a. What courses are offered and required by the program?
b. What settings, activities, and kinds of teaching are created to support

learning?
TEACHER PREP OF READING TEACHERS 31

c. How does the program value clinical experiences and in what ways are

clinical experiences fostered throughout the program?

Brief Description of Study Design

The study will use an instrumental case study design. As Baxter and Jack (2006) suggest,

qualitative case study is an approach to research that facilitates exploration of a phenomenon

within its context using a variety of data sources (p. 544). Stake (1995; 2006) posits an

instrumental case study allows one to look beyond the case itself and determine what other

factors are influencing the case. The instrumental case study approach will allow me to delve

deeper into identifying the factors that influence the exemplary literacy teacher preparation

program in order to better understand how to effectively prepare future reading teachers. In

addition, it allows me to understand not only just this program (Stake, 1995), but also more

importantly what other literacy programs may employ to increase effectiveness of novice

teachers.

For the purposes of this study, the case has been identified as an exemplary literacy

teacher preparation program. Mount St. Marys University is the selected exemplary site. The

International Literacy Association has awarded the university a Certificate of Distinction for the

Reading Preparation of Elementary and Secondary Teachers. The universitys distinction extends

from 2011 to 2018. As the award is no longer available, Mount St. Marys was one of two last

universities to be chosen for the honor in 2011. More importantly, its distinction extends to 2018,

making the current program exemplary. The program has earned national accreditation through

NCATE for its education programs as well. Information on the details of the program will be

collected and analyzed during the study.

TEACHER PREP OF READING TEACHERS 32

Data collection will include (a) document analysis; (b) interviews; and (c) content

analysis. Using multiple data sources will support increased credibility of the findings of the

study (Baxter & Jackson, 2006). I chose to include several data sources to get a complete picture

of the exemplary program and understand more in depth the factors that effect the development

of candidates. As can be seen in table 1, data sources were chosen strategically to ensure a

comprehensive understanding of each research question.

Table 1

Data Collection

Data Research question Related data source

Mission statement 1a; 1b Document analysis
Vision statement 1a; 1b Document analysis
Program syllabi 1a; 1b; 2a; 2c Content analysis
Course assignments 1a; 1b; 2b; 2c Content analysis
Course catalog descriptions 1a; 2b Content analysis
Admissions forms 1a; 1b Document analysis & Content analysis
Online website 1a; 2a; 3b; 2c Document analysis & Content analysis
Teacher educators interviews 1a; 1b; 2b; 2c Interview
Teacher candidates interviews 1b; 2b; 2c Interview

Theory

Social Constructivism

Several researchers used sociocultural (Lenski et al., 2013; Scales et al., 2014; Young et

al., in press) or social constructivist (Deulen, 2013; Hausfather, 1996; Powell & Kalina, 2009)

perspectives to discuss literacy instruction in teacher preparation programs. Social

constructivism posits that knowledge is constructed within a social context (Deulen, 2013;

Hausfather, 1996; Powell & Kalina, 2009). This knowledge, Hausfather (1996) suggests,

develops through social experiences and interactions within specific contexts. Moreover, the
TEACHER PREP OF READING TEACHERS 33

literacy experiences that teacher candidates have can support the learning that is constructed

(Scales et al., 2014). Specifically, learning is social and influenced by contexts such as

coursework, clinical experiences, schools, classrooms, mentors, and peers (Lenski et al., 2013).

Additionally, these tools, symbols, or social interactions, sometimes called meditational means,

influence and shape human learning and development (Young et al., in press, p. 4). Influenced

by the work of Vygotsky, constructivists argue that experiences that are collaborative and require

social interaction are essential for knowledge development (Powell & Kalina, 2009).

For the purposes of my proposed study, the social constructivist theory provides an

avenue to examine the exemplary program. Data collection of artifacts and interviews builds

upon the notion that a context can influence learning (Lenski et al., 2013). Moreover, my

research suggests that the development of effective teachers of reading is socially constructed

within the parameters of the teacher preparation program (Hausfather, 1996). The opportunities

afforded to the candidates, such as coursework and field experiences, play a role in the

pedagogical growth that takes place over the course of the program (Powell & Kalina, 2009).

Community of Practice

In spite of the complexity of reading teacher preparation, programs strive to prepare

teacher candidates to join a community of practice. As defined by Nixon and Brown (2013), a

community of practice (CoP) is a group of people who share a concern or a passion for

something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly (p. 358). A CoP must

be built on a shared understanding, collaboration of experiences, and a shared domain (Cook &

Buck, 2014; Nixon & Brown, 2013). Teacher candidates must be prepared to join a community

that continues to grow, adapt, and develop collaboratively with all stakeholders (Nixon & Brown,
TEACHER PREP OF READING TEACHERS 34

2013). The co-construction of knowledge can support teachers as they navigate the complexities

of teaching (Bouchamma & Michaud, 2011).

The exemplary teacher preparation program ultimately supports the development of

teacher candidates who are ready to join their CoP, teaching (Nixon & Brown, 2013). My

proposed research study suggests that the teacher preparation program defines a set of

components, experiences, and knowledge for teacher candidates to learn and grow from.

Through these shared understandings, candidates are able to learn what makes a quality reading

teacher and begin to transfer those skills into practice (Cook & Buck, 2014).

References

American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (2011). Transformations in educator

preparation: Effectiveness and accountability. Washington D.C.: Author.

Anders, P. L., Hoffman, J. V., & Duffy, G. G. (2000). Teaching teachers to teach reading:

Paradigm shifts, persistent problems, and challenges. In M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, D.

Pearson, & R. Barr (eds), Handbook of reading research (Vol. III, pp. 719-742). Mahwah,

NJ: Erlbaum.

Anders, P. L., & Richardson, V. (1991). Research directions: Staff development that empowers

teachers reflection and enhances instruction. Language Arts, 68(4), 316-321.

Association of Teacher Educators (2000). Standards for field experiences in teacher education.

Reston, Va. Retrieved from http://www.ate1.org/pubs/uploads/nfdfstds.pdf

Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and

implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544-559.

TEACHER PREP OF READING TEACHERS 35

Bouchamma, Y., & Michaud, C. (2011). Communities of practice with teaching supervisors: A

discussion of community of members experiences. Journal of Educational Change, 12,

403-420. doi: 10.1007/s10833-010-9141-y

Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. United States of America: Harvard University Press.

Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1986). Rhythms in teaching: The narrative study of teachers

personal practical knowledge of classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 2(4), 377-

387. doi: 10.1016/0742-051X(86)90030-2

Cook, K., & Buck, G. (2014). Pre-service elementary teachers experience in a community of

practice through a place-based inquiry. International Journal of Environmental &

Science Education, 9, 111-132. doi: 10.12973/ijese.2014.206a

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (2006). Troubling images of teaching in No Child Left Behind.

Harvard Educational Review, 76(4), 668-697.

Council for Accreditation of Educator Preparation (2015). CAEP accreditation standards.

Washington, D.C. Retrieved from http://edsource.org/wp-content/uploads/commrpt.pdf

Dannenberg, M. (2014). Ten words to better teacher preparation programs: Reward the good,

improve the middle, and transform the bad. Washington, DC: Education Reform Now

Darling-Hammond, L. (2014). Strengthening clinical preparation: The holy grail of teacher

education. Peabody Journal of Education, 89(4), 547-561. doi:

10.1080/0161956X.2014.939009

Darling-Hammond, L., Hammerness, K., Grossman, P., Rust, F., & Shulman, L. (2005). The

design of teacher education programs. In L. Darling-Hammond, & J. Bransford (Eds.),

Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do

(pp. 390-441). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

TEACHER PREP OF READING TEACHERS 36

Deulen, A. A. (2013). Social constructivism and online learning environments: Toward a

theological model for Christian educators. Christian Education Journal, 10(1), 90-98.

Dillon, D., OBrien, D., Sato, M., & Kelly, C. (2011). Professional development and teacher

education for reading. In M. Kamil, P. D. Pearson, E. B. Moje, & P. P. Afflerbach (Eds.),

Handbook of reading research (Vol IV, pp. 629-660). New York, NY: Routledge.

Duffy, G. G. (1981). Teacher effectiveness research: Implications for the reading profession. In

M. Kamil (Ed.), Directions in reading: Research and Instruction. (30th yearbook of the

National Reading Conference, pp. 113-136). Washington, DC: National Reading

Conference.

Duffy, G. G. (2002). Visioning and the development of outstanding teachers. Reading Research

and Instruction, 41, 331-344. doi:10.1080/19388070209558375

Duffy, G. G. (2004). Teachers who improve reading achievement: What research says about what

they do and how to develop them. In D. Strickland, & M. Kamil (Eds.), Improving

reading achievement through professional development (pp. 3-22). Norwood, MA:

Christopher-Gordon.

Duffy, G. G. (2005). Developing metacognitive teachers: Visioning and the experts changing

role in teacher education and professional development. In S. Israel, C. Block, K.

Bauserman, & K. Kinnucan-Welsch (Eds.), Metacognition in literacy learning (pp. 299-

314). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Duffy, G. G., Miller, S. D., Parsons, S. A., & Meloth, M. (2009). Teachers as metacognitive

professionals. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of

metacognition in education (pp. 240-256). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

TEACHER PREP OF READING TEACHERS 37

Draper, R. J., Broomhead, P., Jensen, A. P., & Nokes, J. D. (2012). Re (imaging) literacy and

teacher preparation through collaboration. Reading Psychology, 33, 367-398. doi:

10.1080/02702711.2010.515858

Fairbanks, C. M., Duffy, G. G., Faircloth, B. S., He, Y., Levin, B. B., & Stein, C. (2010). Beyond

knowledge: Exploring why some teachers are more thoughtfully adaptive than others.

Journal of Teacher Education, 61, 161-171. doi:10.1177/0022487109347874

Feuerverger, G. (2011). Teaching for the love of it: An education professors narrative at the

crossroad of language, culture, and identity. In J. Kitchen, D.C. Parker, & D. Pushor

(Eds.), Narrative inquiries into curriculum making in teacher education (pp. 71-89).

Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Grisham, D. L. (2000). Connection theoretical conceptions of reading practice: A longitudinal

study of elementary school teachers. Reading Psychology, 21(2), 145-170. doi:

10.1080/02702710050084464

Hammerness, K. (2001). Teachers visions: The role of personal ideals in school reform. Journal

of Educational Change, 2(2), 143-163.

Hammerness, K. (2003). Learning to hope, or hoping to learn: The role of vision in the early

professional lives of teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 54, 43-56.

Hausfather, S. (1996). Vygotsky and schooling: Creating a social context for learning. Action in

Teacher Education, 18(2), 1-10.

Heredia, B. A. (2011). Preparing teachers for effective literacy instruction in the elementary

grades: Two-year teacher preparation programs in Ontario (Doctoral dissertation).

Retrieved from Proquest Dissertations & Thesis Global. (NR77705)

TEACHER PREP OF READING TEACHERS 38

Hoffman, J. V., & Pearson, P. D. (2000). Reading teacher education in the next millennium: What

your grandmothers teacher didnt know that your granddaughters teacher should.

Reading Research Quarterly, 35, 28-44.

Hoffman, J. V., Roller, C., Maloch, B., Sailors, M., Duffy, G. G., Beretvas, S. N. et al. (2005).

Teachers preparation to teach reading and their experiences and practices in the first

three years of teaching. Elementary School Journal, 105, 267-287.

Hollins, E.R. (2015). Learning teaching through clinical rotations. In E.R. Hollins. Rethinking

field experiences in preservice teacher preparation: Meeting new challenges for

accountability (pp. 117-134). New York: Routledge.

Holmes Group (1986). Tomorrows teachers: A report of the Holmes group. East Lansing, MI:

Author.

International Reading Association. (2003). An Executive Summary of the National Commission

on Excellence in Elementary Teacher Preparation for Reading Instruction. Newark,

Delaware: J. V. Hoffman.

International Reading Association. (2010). Standards for reading professionals-revised 2010.

Newark DE: Author.

Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. (2014). Educational research: quantitative, qualitative, and

mixed approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Leland, K. M. (2012). Taking a look at the impact of clinical experience on pre-service teachers

perceptions of emergent literacy. National Teacher Education Journal, 5(4), 37-43.

Lenski, S., Ganske, K., Chambers, S., Wold, L., Dobler, E., Grisham, D.L., Scales, R., Smetana,

L., Wolsey, T.D., Yoder, K.K., & Young, J. (2013). Literacy course priorities and

signature aspects of nine teacher preparation programs. Literacy Research and

TEACHER PREP OF READING TEACHERS 39

Instruction, 52(1), 1-27. DOI: 10.1080/19388071.2012.738778

Levine, A. (2006). Educating school teachers. Education Schools Project.

Linton, A.S., & Gordon, R.K. (2015). A clinical classroom process. In E.R. Hollins (Ed.),

Rethinking field experiences in preservice teacher preparation: Meeting new challenges

for accountability (pp. 135-150). New York: Routledge.

Lipp, J., & Helfich, S. R. (2016). Pre-service teachers growth in understandings of best practice

literacy instruction through paired course and field experience. Reading Horizons, 55(2),

45-62.

Metlife. (2008). The Metlife survey of the American teacher. New York, NY: D. Markow, & M.

Cooper.

Mallette, M. H., Kile, R. S., Smith, M. M., McKinney, M., & Readence, J. E. (2000).

Constructing meaning about literacy difficulties: Preservice teachers beginning to think

about pedagogy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(5-6), 431-457.

Morrison, C., & Austin, M. C. (1976). The torch lighters revisited: A preliminary report. The

Reading Teacher, 29(7), 647-652.

National Academy of Sciences. (2010). Preparing Teachers: Building evidence for sound policy.

Washington, D.C.: E. Lagemann, & K. Shine.

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for

educational reform. An open letter to the American people. A report to the nation and the

Secretary of Education. Washington, DC: D. P. Gardner.

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (2010). Report of the Blue Ribbon

Panel on clinical preparation and partnerships for improved learning. Washington, D.C.

Retrieved from www.nacte.org/publications.

TEACHER PREP OF READING TEACHERS 40

National Council on Teacher Quality. (2013). A review of the nations teacher preparation

programs. Washington, D.C.: J. Greenberg, A. McKee, & K. Walsh.

Nixon, S., & Brown, S. (2013). A community of practice in action: SEDA as a learning

community for educational developers in higher education. Innovations in Education and

Teaching International, 50(4), 357-365. doi: 10.1080/14703297.2013.839392

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115, Stat. 1425 (2002).

Parsons, S. A., Vaughn, M., Malloy, J. A., & Pierczynski, M. (2017). The developmeny of

teachers visions from preservice into their first years of teaching: A longitudinal study.

Teacher and Teacher Education, 64, 12-25. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2017.01.018

Polkinghorne, D. (1988). Narrative knowing and the human sciences. Albany, NY: State

University of New York Press.

Powell, K. C., & Kalina, C. J. (2009). Cognitive and social constructivism: Developing tools for

an effective classroom. Education, 130(2), 241-250.

Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say

about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4-15.

Risko, V. J., Roller, C. M., Cummins, C., Bean, R., Block, C. C., Anders, P. L., & Flood, J.

(2008). A critical analysis of research on reading teacher education. Reading Research

Quarterly, 43, 252-288.

Robinson, J. A. & Hawpe, L. (1986). Narrative thinking as a heuristic process. In T.R. Sarbin

(Ed.), Narrative psychology: The storied nature of human conduct (pp. 111-128).

Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

Rust, F.O., & Clift, R.T. (2015). Moving from recommendations to action in preparing

professional educators. In E.R. Hollins (Ed.), Rethinking field experiences in preservice

TEACHER PREP OF READING TEACHERS 41

teacher preparation: meeting new challenges for accountability (pp. 47-69). New York:

Routledge.

Sadoski, M., Norton, D. E., Rodriguez, M., Nichols, W. D., & Gerla, J. P. (1998). Preservice and

inservice reading teachers knowledge of literary concepts and literary analysis. Reading

Psychology, 19(3), 267-286. doi: 10.1080/0270271980190302

Scales, R. (2013). Examining the sustainability of pre-service teachers visions of literacy

instruction in their practice. The Professional Educator, 37(2), 1-10.

Scales, R.Q., Ganske, K., Grisham, D.L., Yoder, K.K., Lenski, S., Wolsey, T.D., Chambers, S.,

Young, J.R., Dobler, E., & Smetana, L. (2014). Exploring the impact of literacy teacher

education programs on student teachers instructional practices. Journal of Reading

Education, 39(3), 3 13.

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Stake, R. E. (2006). Multiple case study analysis. New York: Guilford Press.

Stemler, S. E. (2015). Content analysis. In R. Scott & S. Kosslyn (Eds.), Emerging Trends in the

Social and Behavioral Sciences (1-14). Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

The Education Schools Project (2006). Education school teachers. Washington, D.C.: A. Levine.

Vagle, M. D., Dillon, D. R., Davison-Jenkins, J., LaDuca, B., & Olson, V. (2006). Redesigning

literacy preservice education at four institutions: A three-year collaborative project. In J.

V. Hoffman, D. L. Schallert, C. M. Fairbanks, J. Worthy, & B. Maloch (Eds.), 55th

yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 324340). Oak Creek, WI: NRC.

Wiseman, D. L. (2012). The intersection of policy, reform, and teacher education. Journal of

Teacher Education, 63(2), 87-91.

Wolsey, T.D., Young, J., Scales, R., Scales, W. D., Lenski, S., Yoder, K., Wold, L., Smetana, L.,
TEACHER PREP OF READING TEACHERS 42

Grisham, D.L., Ganske, K., Dobler, E., & Chambers, S. (2013). An examination of

teacher education in literacy instruction and candidate perceptions of their learned

literacy practices. Action in Teacher Education, 35 (3), 204 222.

Young, J.R., Scales, R.Q., Grisham, D.L., Dobler, E., Wolsey, T.D., Smetana, L., Chambers, S.,

Ganske, K., Lenski, S., & Yoder, K.K. (in press). Teacher preparation in literacy: Cooking

in someone elses kitchen. Teacher Education Quarterly.

Zeichner, K., & Bier, M. (2015). Opportunities and pitfalls in the turn toward clinical experience

in U.S. teacher education. In E.R. Hollins (Ed.), Rethinking field experiences in

preservice teacher preparation: meeting new challenges for accountability (pp. 20-46).

New York: Routledge.