What Matters: Preparing Teachers of Reading.

A descriptive study was employed to determine differences in knowledge of literacy instruction and perceived preparedness to teach literacy between two groups of teacher candidates enrolled in two different teacher preparation programs at one university. This study investigated which components — coursework, field experience, and collaboration — candidates perceived as best preparing them to teach literacy while enrolled in their program. Data collection instruments included the Survey of Perceptions and the Knowledge Inventory. Both groups of candidates, regardless of program and amount of time in the field, viewed both coursework and field experience as important. Few significant differences were found between candidates in knowledge of literacy instruction. And, while they perceived themselves as prepared to teach literacy, candidates did identify areas of further instructional need. Research in the field of teacher education is an issue of current attention and interest; within this research, a focus on literacy is particularly important. In 1996, the National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future (NCTAF) published its report titled What Matters Most: Teaching for America’s Future. In it, they point out the fragmentation of teacher preparation programs, noting that the “key elements of teacher learning are disconnected from each other. Coursework is separate from practice teaching; professional skills are segmented into separate courses. would-be teachers are left to their own devices to put it all together” (p. 32). Despite this fragmentation, they note that “research in education.sheds new light on ways 242 • Reading Horizons • V50.4 • 2011 to improve student learning and understanding” (p. 32) and that “for new teachers, [improvement] begins with teacher preparation” (p. 31). Anders, Hoffman, and Duffy (2000) noted that over the past 30 years, the number of studies focusing on pre-service reading education has greatly increased with each successive decade. However, the researchers noted that: We have continued to struggle with conceptions of teacher knowledge, beliefs, attitudes and habits — how they are formed, how they are affected by programs, and how they impact development over time. and can make few claims from our current research base on what is effective in reading teacher education at the pre-service level. (pp. 725-726) Anders et al. (2000) believe that more studies that address the literacy components of teacher education, as well as “more longitudinal studies of program effectiveness” (p. 278) are needed in order to better enable teacher educators to prepare teacher candidates. The authors of this study proposed to continue what Anders et al. (2000) identified during their research as an important reading research opportunity: teacher education. The purpose of this study was twofold. First, the authors wanted to determine which elements of their teacher preparation program — coursework, field experience, and collaboration with others — teacher candidates’ perceived as most useful to their learning how to teach reading. Second, the authors sought to determine candidates’ knowledge of primary reading instruction and assessment. Participants in this study were enrolled in one of two graduate education programs at a large, urban university in the Mid-Atlantic region of the United States. The research questions guiding this study were: 1. How do teacher candidates enrolled in two different preparation programs — a Master’s of Arts in Teaching (MAT) program and a Professional Year (PY) program — perceive specific aspects of their program: coursework, field experience, and collaboration with others? 2. How do teacher candidates enrolled in the MAT and PY programs perform on a test that measures knowledge of primary reading instruction? What Matters: Preparing Teachers of Reading • 243 Review of the Literature A theme has emerged from a review of recent research regarding teacher preparation programs, showing that the most valuable elements of such programs for helping teacher candidates learn to teach literacy are coursework, including critical content knowledge (International Reading Association [IRA] Task Force, 2004; National Reading Panel [NRP], 2000), an integrated field component (Fang & Ashley, 2004; Levine, 2006; Massey, 2003; Nierstheimer, Hopkins, Dillon, & Schmitt, 2000; Sailors, Keehn, Martinez, & Harmon, 2005), and collaboration among teacher candidates, university instructors, and cooperating teachers (Frazier, Mencer, & Duchein, 1997; Le Cornu & Ewing, 2008; Sailors et al., 2005). Coursework requiring participation in a field experience, with components such as smallor whole-group instruction or tutoring, is an effective learning tool that allows teacher candidates to apply the knowledge they acquire in the university classroom to work in the elementary or secondary classroom (Cox, Fang, Carriveau, Dillon, Hopkins, & Nierstheimer, 1998; Hedrick, McGee, & Mittag, 2000; Linek, Nelson, Sampson, Zeek, Mohr, & Hughes, 1999; Massey, 2003). Having the opportunity to practice these newly acquired skills helps boost teacher candidates’ confidence as teachers of literacy (Commeyras, Reinking, Heubach, & Pagnucco, 1993; Duffy & Atkinson, 2001; Fang & Ashley, 2004) and also helps to positively change preconceived attitudes toward struggling readers (Hollingsworth & Burnett, 1993; Nierstheimer et al., 2000). Levine (2006) calls for curricular balance stating “the curriculum integrates the theory and practice of teaching, balancing study in university classrooms and work in schools with successful practitioners” (p. 20). Cochran-Smith and Powers (2010) take the notion of an integrated field experience a step further by asserting that mentored teaching experiences should be at the center of teacher preparation programs; Ball and Forzano (2009) agree, referring to this as a practice-focused curriculum, in which the emphasis would be on “repeated opportunities for [teacher candidates] to practice carrying out the interactive work of teaching and not just to talk about that work” (p. 503). Wold, Farnan, Grisham, and Lenski (2008) state, in their analysis of research on literacy teacher education, that, Quality teacher preparation requires the development of a strong literacy knowledge base coupled with practical literacy teaching opportunities. This balance of research-based teaching and practice generates knowledgeable teachers who know literacy, can explain how to engage students effectively, and are secure in what they know and are able to do. (p. 14) 244 • Reading Horizons • V50.4 • 2011 Further, recent research and theory have led various groups to specific concepts and ideas about the content knowledge teacher candidates need to know in order to become effective literacy teachers. An IRA Task Force (2004) developed standards, based on professional expertise and research in literacy instruction, that have been set forth strongly suggesting all teacher candidates know and demonstrate their understanding of foundational knowledge, instructional strategies, curriculum materials, and assessment, among other areas. The NRP (2000) identified, through extensive research, five critical areas of knowledge for instructing students — phonemic awareness, phonics, f luency, vocabulary, and comprehension. Certainly teacher preparation programs must, at a minimum, include theory and practice in these five areas. Another essential component of a comprehensive teacher preparation program is the relationship between teacher candidates, university instructors, and cooperating teachers — all members of the field experience triad (Frazier et al., 1997). Collaboration among all three members helps create an excellent environment in which teacher candidates can learn and work (Frazier et al., 1997; Harlin, 1999). But there must also be careful oversight of student teaching experiences (National Academy of Education, 2009) as university instructors need to strive for congruence between coursework and the field placement (Levine, 2006), or in the very least, help teacher candidates cope with a possible disparity (Dowhower, 1990). He and Levin (2008) contend that if matches or mismatches in beliefs among teacher educators, cooperating teachers, and teacher candidates could be identified, all parties could better understand each other’s perspectives and be better able to work together to maximize learning for everyone. In addition, collaboration between teacher candidates and cooperating teachers needs to increase (Bean, 2001; Le Cornu & Ewing, 2008; Sturtevant & Spor, 1990; Wham, 1993), as there is much that can be learned by both partners in this relationship. Likewise, teacher candidates must be encouraged to talk with each other and share their experiences (Nierstheimer et al., 2000; Wedman, Kuhlman, & Guenther, 1996). Although recent research supports each of these three elements — coursework, field experience, and collaboration — there are limitations in these areas. Risko, Roller, Cummins, Bean, Block, Anders, and Flood (2008), in their analysis of 82 studies focused on reading teacher education, found that while recent research supports the implementation of coursework with an integrated field component, it also brings to mind some questions. They found that when analyzing findings from the 36 studies focused on teacher candidates’ knowledge development, “prolonged engagement with [students] in field-placements is viewed as the catalyst for What Matters: Preparing Teachers of Reading • 245 reconstructing prior beliefs and refining pedagogical knowledge” (p. 267); however in some cases, teacher candidates “expressed a need for additional professional development in teaching methods associated with identified areas where they felt less knowledgeable” (p. 270). The authors found that teacher candidates were taught specific skills in their coursework and in the field, but they were unable to determine: what