,l .‘an,,y<,.. . v:|<“‘ " 13‘“ u ' M 5‘» I: 3 , 1% ‘éw‘ -. ‘ ‘I‘fl 1‘3? 1" '7 ~ - Wk“? :15, w Fifi: ‘r'mv‘flvv' 3» 1‘ "1a. 1."; “v.1 ' 1% 5-1225". ”37‘1“ T ' :‘4 C . 4 .~ A ‘ 3‘ ‘ c' - 1&3 31 \— 7&3; “.1 ‘ I -\ v ‘ mag- **¢£¥W“qi§% a - fifiéfiifi’ifi "1 « L. .L..r L r“??? 4‘ ‘ 133' - '31:? iafix‘z’." ~ ‘ 7 “"“ “- .r £113.; “A, 3» m - cw “ wiffiu. ‘ ‘ ”ML-‘9 ’R‘_.‘:‘v2‘ x H 335% m $2.3}; 55"! ~. Tu“ 0.11 , - ~" 1‘ "3-3521: 3;,wa 5‘. 9;”?3“ "114?;235’? t ‘ 7 “my. ‘9‘ 2 A, .- 1% 4Q“! . *w .. 4 \.-.t.vs.‘ 3-. ' j a~ VS ' u:- ££§i¥é§$fi~£ cs: [if J lllllililll'il Willlfiillllllillliilillllil 3 1293 01025 3940 This is to certify that the dissertation entitled Developing Conceptions of Teaching and Learning: Case Studies of rreservice Teachers' Literacy Experiences in School and Non-School Field Placements presented by Margaret Maria Malenka has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. Teacher Education degree in flabflwflfl g4 CCCL MajorU to 5501' / Date //X(7‘¢ MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 012771 LIBRARY Michigan State University PLACE N RETURN BOX to remove thie checkout from your record. TO AVOID F INES return on or betore date due. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE i TAX 3% MSU to An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Inetltuion M ”3-91 DEVELOPING CONCEPTIONS OF TEACHING AND LEARNING: CASE STUDIES OF PRESERVICE TEACHERS’ LITERACY EXPERIENCES IN SCHOOL AND NON-SCHOOL FIELD PLACEMENTS BY Margaret Maria Malenka A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Teacher Education 1994 ABSTRACT DEVELOPING CONCEPTIONS OF TEACHING AND LEARNING: CASE STUDIES OF PRESERVICE TEACHERS’ LITERACY EXPERIENCES IN SCHOOL AND NON-SCHOOL FIELD PLACEMENTS BY Margaret Maria Malenka The increasing diversity of our country’s school population is represented in a range of ethnic, cultural, linguistic, and socio-economic backgrounds. In contrast, the majority of preservice teachers' backgrounds are white and middle class. Their conceptions of teaching and learning are influenced by personal and academic histories which seldom include knowledge of diverse ways of knowing. Consequently, preservice teachers frequently encounter difficulties in providing effective instruction for all students. This study examined four preservice teachers' perceptions and interpretations of teaching and learning during their participation in multicultural field experiences in school and non-school settings. Both contexts emphasized literacy instruction, which served to situate these understandings. Data sources documented participants' theoretical and practical conceptions of teaching and learning in the context of literacy instruction. Theoretical conceptions were determined through pre—term and post-term responses to the Conceptions of Literacy Instruction. Subsequent interviews enabled the participants to expand and clarify their written responses. Participants' practical conceptions of literacy instruction were addressed through observations and interviews. Each participant was observed four times in the classroom placements and four times in the non-school placement. Following each set of school and non-school observations, each participant was interviewed regarding the content, method, and value of the literacy events experienced during the observations. Case studies were constructed which reflected the participants' perceptions and interpretations of teaching and learning as developed during literacy instruction in the two field settings. These were placed in context with their theoretical conceptions as determined through the Conceptions of Literacy Instruction Questionnaire. The results of this study indicated that the school environment encouraged implementation of conventional instructional methods while the non-school environment challenged these notions and promoted reflection on students as authorities and decision makers. The non-school setting also enabled the preservice teachers to eXperience and participate in students‘ personal and community literacies, broadening conventional school definitions of literacy and -confronting stereotypical notions of diversity. Recommendations for teacher education programs are included in the discussion of the results. Dissertation Director: Dr. Margaret A. Gallego Copyright by MARGARET MARIA MALENKA 1994 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to thank Dr. Margaret Gallego, my dissertation director, for her unending guidance and support. She has been a mentor, colleague, and friend, contributing significantly to my development both as a researcher and as a teacher educator. Her constant encouragement and confidence in my abilities provided me with the self-assurance necessary for the completion of my studies. The time and attention she devoted to this study is greatly appreciated. I also wish to thank the chair of my committee, Dr. Gerald Duffy. His guidance throughout my academic career, particularly during my doctoral program, is greatly appreciated. I extend my appreciation to the members of my committee as well: Dr. Linda Anderson, Dr. Mark Conley, and Dr. Taffy Raphael. Their comments and suggestions on numerous drafts have served to greatly improve the quality of this final manuscript. My special thanks goes to the children who attended La Clase Magica; to the children enrolled in the elementary classrooms which I observed; to my research participants Bill, Sarah, Jackie, and Janelle; to the La Clase Magica staff; and to the members of the Distributed Literacy Consortium. Their cheerful cooperation and willingness to help made my work both easier and more enjoyable. I am also grateful to my friends and colleagues in the Department of Teacher Education for their support and encouragement. Finally, I wish to thank my family for their faith in me and their confidence in the successful completion of my doctoral studies. Their support has made this manuscript possible. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ...................................... CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION .............................. Rationale for the Study ......................... Statement of Purpose ............................ Research Questions .............................. Organization .................................... Chapter Two: Literature Review ............... Chapter Three: Methodology ................... Chapter Four: Results ......................... Chapter Five: Implications and Conclusions CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW ........................ Preservice Teachers' Conceptions of Teaching and Learning .................................. Background Experiences and Teacher Education Programs .................................... Literacy Instruction .......................... Summary ....................................... Multicultural Teacher Education Programs ........ Multicultural Courses ......................... Multicultural Field Experiences ............... Summary ....................................... Literacy as a Social Construction ............... Literacy in Non-School Settings ............... Literacy in School Settings ................... Relationships Between Literacy in Non-School and School Settings ......................... Summary ....................................... Conclusion ....................................... vii moxun-a H kOKOmm ll 12 12 14 17 18 18 21 24 25 CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY ............................ Participants .................................... Selection ..................................... The Alternative Teacher Education Program ..... The Non-School Setting: La Clase Magica ....... Data Sources and Collection ..................... Conceptions of Literacy Instruction Questionnaire ................................ Pre-Term and Post-Term Interviews ............ Field Observations ........................... Field Interviews ............................. Analysis ........................................ Determining Participants’ Theoretical Conceptions of Literacy Instruction ........ Determining Participants' Interpretations of Actual Literacy Instruction ................ Constructing the Cases ....................... CHAPTER IV: RESULTS ................................. The Case of Bill ................................ Bill's Theoretical Conceptions of Literacy Instruction ................................ Question One: How Did Bill Interpret Teaching and Learning During Classroom Literacy Instruction? ................................ Question Two: How Did Bill Interpret Teaching and Learning During Literacy Instruction in a Non-School Setting? ....................... Question Three: What is the Comparison of Bill’s Interpretations of Teaching and Learning During Literacy Instruction in a Classroom and in a Non-School Setting? ....... The Case of Sarah ................................ Sarah’s Theoretical Conceptions of Literacy Instruction ................................. Question One: How Did Sarah Interpret Teaching and Learning During Classroom Literacy Instruction? ................................ Question Two: How Did Sarah Interpret Teaching and Learning During Literacy Instruction in a Non-School Setting? ......................... Question Three: What is the Comparison of Sarah's Interpretations of Teaching and viii 38 39 39 39 42 44 44 47 48 49 50 50 51 52 55 55 56 Learning During Literacy Instruction in a Classroom and in a Non-School Setting? ..... 115 The Case of Jackie .............................. 119 Jackie's Theoretical Conceptions of Literacy Instruction ................................ 120 Question One: How Did Jackie Interpret Teaching and Learning During Classroom Literacy Instruction? ...................... 129 Question Two: How Did Jackie Interpret Teaching and Learning During Literacy Instruction in a Non—School Setting? ....... 138 Question Three: What is the Comparison of Jackie's Interpretations of Teaching and Learning During Literacy Instruction in a Classroom and in a Non—School Setting? ..... 146 The Case of Janelle ............................. 151 Janelle's Theoretical Conceptions of Literacy Instruction ................................. 152 Question One: How Did Janelle Interpret Teaching and Learning During Classroom Literacy Instruction? ....................... 162 Question Two: How Did Janelle Interpret Teaching and Learning During Literacy Instruction in a Non—School Setting? ........ 172 Question Three: What is the Comparison of Janelle's Interpretations of Teaching and Learning During Literacy Instruction in a Classroom and in a Non—School Setting? ...... 183 Common Themes Across Cases ...................... 186 The Role of Authority in Literacy Instruction . 187 Literacy Instruction for Diverse Students ..... 190 CHAPTER V: , IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS ............. 194 Non-School Field Experiences .................... 195 Teacher Education Programs ...................... 197 Multicultural Teacher Education ................. 201 Summary ......................................... 203 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................... 206 APPENDIX A: CONCEPTIONS OF LITERACY INSTRUCTION QUESTIONNAIRE ................................... 217 APPENDIX B: PRE-TERM AND POST-TERM INTERVIEW ......... 220 APPENDIX C: FIELD INTERVIEW .......................... 222 ix Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure \OCIJQQU'IDU 10: 11: 12: LIST OF FIGURES Bill’s Pre-Term CLIQ Responses ........... Bill's Post—Term CLIQ Responses .......... Comparison of Bill's CLIQ Responses ...... Sarah’s Pre—Term CLIQ Responses ........... Sarah’s Post-Term CLIQ Responses ......... Comparison of Sarah's CLIQ Responses ..... Jackie's Pre-Term CLIQ Responses ......... Jackie’s Post-Term CLIQ Responses ........ Comparison of Jackie’s CLIQ Responses Janelle's Pre-Term CLIQ Responses ....... Janelle's Post-Term CLIQ Responses ....... Comparison of Janelle’s CLIQ Responses Li...-.'._ .. 57 58 62 88 89 95 121 122 128 153 154 160 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION This study examined the perceptions and interpretations of teaching and learning held by four preservice teachers during their participation in multicultural field experiences in school and non—school settings. Both contexts included an emphasis on literacy instruction, which served to situate these understandings. The school environment provided a conventional setting for literacy learning, while the non- school environment provided an alternative structure. Preparing preservice teachers for the effective instruction of all students includes attention to issues of how preservice teachers View classroom instruction and students’ non-school literacies when these differ from typical school literacy. Rationale for the Study Preservice teachers' conceptions of teaching and learning are often defined in terms of their own academic histories (Lortie, 1975; Feiman-Nemser, 1983). These notions are generally influenced by their participation in white, middle class communities (Center for Educational Statistics, 1987) where daily literacy experiences are compatible with typical school practices (Trueba, 1990). In contrast, students represent a range of ethnic, cultural, linguistic, and socio-economic backgrounds (Hodgkinson, 1985). Preservice teachers often have little experience with diverse communities and little understanding of non—school uses of 2 literacy (Hadaway & Florez, 1987/1988). This is a crucial issue in teacher preparation and education programs. Many teacher education programs prepare preservice teachers for the effective instruction of all students through a focus on broad conceptions of education. The complexities of teaching are addressed, and preservice teachers are encouraged to look beyond their personal experiences to realize the various dimensions of effective instruction (e.g. Feiman—Nemser, McDiarmid, Melnick, & Parker, 1989). During preparation for literacy instruction, an emphasis on the complexities and instructional implications of the reading process are addressed (e.g. Michelson, LaSovage, & Duffy, 1984). A second method of preparing preservice teachers for the effective instruction of all students is through multicultural coursework. This is most often accomplished through a single course added to the existing teacher education program. Such courses usually address issues of student diversity by focusing on the histories and general characteristics of ethnic and cultural groups (e.g. Bennett, Niggle, & Stage, 1990). Such approaches to multicultural teacher education generally do not acknowledge students' non— school literacies nor their impact on school literacy learning. Few teacher education programs integrate issues of diversity throughout the entire curriculum. Burstein and Cabello (1989) describe one such program which includes ‘- 'H In In r‘f (n (”V f” tt‘ (3 '1 (I) f) 3 knowledge of diverse students and implications for instruction in education as well as in arts and science courses. However, due to the limited number of such programs and the lack of empirical research, little or no change in preservice teachers' attitudes and dispositions towards diverse students has been reported. A third teacher education method of addressing issues of student diversity are multicultural field experiences (e.g. Stallings & Quinn, 1991). In these experiences, preservice teachers observe and instruct diverse students in classroom settings. Some teacher education programs also require preservice teachers to participate with diverse students and their families in non-school settings (Beyer, 1991; Ladson- Billings, 1991; Larke, Wiseman, & Bradley, 1990). Such instruction has been reputed to reduce preservice teachers’ negative attitudes toward diverse students and encourage better understandings of equity issues and diverse communities (e.g. Souers, 1979). Although improvement in general attitudes is a positive step, there has been little research which directly addresses the issue of how preservice teachers participating in such experiences conceptualize subject matter instruction for diverse students. Preservice teachers' conceptions of literacy and literacy instruction are especially relevant to elementary c1assroom.instruction. Currently, literacy is associated with the ability to comprehend a variety of texts and to communicate in writing (Venezky, 1991). It is often 4 interpreted as a collection of attributes or abilities possessed by individuals (Scribner, 1984). During literacy instruction, this often translates into attempts by the instructor to impart a series of predetermined skills and/or strategies to the students (Shannon, 1988; DeLawter, 1990). The focus is on the teaching and learning of reading and writing components, particularly those that relate to the comprehension of school subjects. However, children's experiences with literacy begin before they attend school and continues to develop outside of as well as within the school setting. In non-school settings, literacy develops as children interact with family and community members. The language and print used to convey thoughts, needs, and desires reflect the conventions and traditions of their immediate environment. For example, a child may or may not experience bedtime stories; may or may not relate print to conceptual thinking and to real events; may learn to respond to "why" instead of "what" questions (Heath, 1982a). Children personalize these community forms of literacy when they use print for their own purposes such as personal reflection and journal writing (Delpit, 1991). In contrast to the development of literacy in non-school settings, school literacy usually reflects the conventions and traditions of the dominant cultural community. When children's non-school literacies differ significantly from school literacy, which is often the case with diverse students, they may experience difficulties in classroom ac. Cu ‘§ ~,‘ 1‘. C x 5 instruction. For example, Michaels (1981) describes a classroom situation where children's discourse styles did not conform to mainstream forms of expression and the teacher was unable to provide effective instruction. Diverse students' successful participation in school literacy depends in large part on the teacher's recognition and inclusion of students' non-school literacies during classroom instruction. The differences which often exist between the literacy experiences of preservice teachers and of diverse students are a vital consideration in preparing preservice teachers for the effective instruction of all students. Understanding preservice teachers’ perceptions and interpretations of teaching and learning is crucial to designing effective teacher education programs, particularly in the context of literacy instruction and students’ non-school literacies. Statement of Purpose The purpose of this study was to examine four preservice teachers' perceptions and interpretations of teaching and learning. These preservice teachers were enrolled in a teacher education program which provided multicultural field experiences in school settings. As an option of a literacy course within this program, they had also elected to participate in a field experience in a non-school based learning environment. This study examined how these preservice teachers interpreted teaching and learning in the context of literacy instruction in these two settings, and whether they recognized and valued students' non-school <5. 4 v». -n ‘0. .C .3 l s A: E at .T. r v. .t 5. Au 6 literacies. To provide a more complete portrait of the participants, their experiences in both settings were described in relationship to their theoretical conceptions of school literacy instruction. Research Questions The research question which guided this study was: How did preservice teachers perceive and interpret teaching and learning during literacy instruction in school and non—school settings? More specifically, this study was designed to answer the following research questions: 1. How did participants interpret teaching and learning during classroom literacy instruction? 2. How did participants interpret teaching and learning during literacy instruction in a non-school setting? 3. What was the comparison of participants' interpretations of teaching and learning during literacy instruction in a classroom and in a non—school setting? Organization Chapter Two reviews the literature in three areas of research which are relevant to this study. First, preservice teachers' conceptions of teaching and learning are examined. This is an essential factor because most preservice teachers’ understandings of education, including literacy instruction, are based on their personal experiences in school settings. Teacher education programs attempt to broaden these understandings by focusing on the complexities of teaching, V'K.V-.AV~‘ s N; 1 ¢ ‘ ‘Vflav: kw - 7 often including an emphasis on understanding the reading process. Second, multicultural teacher education programs are reviewed. Most of these programs attempt to broaden preservice teachers' educative understandings and improve instruction for diverse students by directly addressing issues of student diversity. These programs frequently focus on the histories and general characteristics of minority groups with the purpose of raising preservice teachers' cultural consciousness and academic expectations for diverse students. Third, the concept of literacy as a social construction is examined. Knowledge and use of literacy develop as children interact with family and community members in non- school settings. As social settings vary, so too do the forms and understandings of literacy. When home and community literacy use differs from the ways in which literacy is used in school settings, teachers may encounter problems in providing effective instruction. In conclusion, many teacher education programs prepare preservice teachers for the effective instruction of all students by emphasizing the complexities of teaching and by providing cultural knowledge of diverse students. While these issues are relevant to effective teacher preparation, they disregard the importance of preservice teachers’ perceptions and interpretations of teaching and learning. This issue is especially relevant in the context of effective literacy instruction for diverse students, whose literacy use in non— school settings may differ from typical school literacy. matings—Methodology Chapter Three describes the methodology used to study what the participants perceived and interpreted regarding teaching and learning during literacy instruction in both school and non-school settings. First, the participants are described. They included four preservice teachers who were juniors in an alternative teacher education program which focused on the instruction of diverse students. During the time of this study, they participated in elementary classrooms two half days a week and in an alternative program in a community center one afternoon a week. Second, data sources and collection are described. Data sources included pre-term and post-term questionnaires and interviews which focused on participants' theoretical conceptions of literacy instruction. Each participant was also observed four times in both the elementary classroom and in the non-school setting, and interviewed after each set of observations. Third, the analysis procedure is described. The participants' theoretical conceptions of literacy instruction were determined through analysis of the pre—term and post- term questionnaires and interviews. Their interpretations of actual literacy instruction were determined through analysis of the observations and interviews of the school and non— school settings. Ch r - 5 Chapter Four describes the participants' interpretations of teaching and learning in the context of school and non— school literacy instruction. Presented are case studies of each participant: Bill, Sarah, Jackie, and Janelle. Common themes across cases are also addressed. I ' i n n ncl i ns This section reviews the results of this study and discusses implications for the effective preparation of preservice teachers. Also presented are recommendations and suggestions for teacher education programs and future research. Limitations 1. Generalizability of Findings: The participants were enrolled in an alternative teacher education program which focused on diverse students. Their application to and selection for this program may have indicated strong beliefs in the importance of the education of diverse populations, a valuing of different ways of knowing, and a willingness and desire to gain understandings in these areas. Therefore, the dispositions and beliefs of the participants may not be typical of all preservice teachers. In addition, while the small sample size provided deeper insight into this investigation, it also limited generalization of these findings. 2. Observer Bias: Instances from the participants' field experiences were recorded, as were participants' stated r? Y - 0“ I i‘pusuilr «N .. 5.021..» .I’Hi’ in» P. my as . d if. f Aw .Q 10 perceptions and interpretations of these events. The researcher, being more knowledgeable in the area under study and possessing a better developed frame of reference, often perceived and interpreted the same events differently. This research, while presenting participants' actions and comments, may not accurately reflect their actual thoughts. Definitions of Terms Conception: abstract theory which defines the relationship between various aspects of a system. Conception of learning: abstract theory which defines how knowledge is acquired. Conception of literacy instruction: abstract theory which defines the relationship between understandings of the reading process and of the learning process in various contexts. Conception of teaching: abstract theory which defines the process of facilitating the acquisition of knowledge. Diversity/multiculturalism: a range of various ethnic, cultural, linguistic, or socio-economic backgrounds. Interpretation: explanation of one's own understanding of observed event. Literacy: ability to manipulate linguistic symbols. Literacy instruction: direct or indirect teaching and learning of skills and/or strategies associated with reading and writing for a wide range of purposes. Perception: the observation or recognition of objects or events. a CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW The understanding of preservice teachers’ perceptions and interpretations of teaching and learning in the context of school and non-school literacy instruction was guided by three fields of research. First, the literature regarding preservice teachers’ conceptions of teaching and learning was examined in terms of: (a) preservice teachers’ development through background experiences and teacher education programs; and (b) preservice teachers' understandings of literacy instruction. Second, studies were reviewed that described multicultural teacher education programs which prepared preservice teachers for the instruction of diverse students. They are described in terms of: (a) multicultural courses, including segregated and integrated approaches; and (b) multicultural field experiences in school and non—school settings. Third, readings describing the concept of literacy as a social construction provided the framework for elementary school students’ literacy development. This is addressed in three ways: (a) literacy development in non-school settings; (b) literacy development in school settings; and (c) the relationship between literacy in non-school and school settings. 11 12 Preservice Teachers' Conceptions of Teaching and Learning Preservice teachers' conceptions of teaching and learning are developed through experiences in elementary schools, high schools, and teacher education programs. For most, their school literacy instruction is compatible with their literacy use in non—school settings, i.e. typical of experiences which occur in white middle class settings. This section discusses preservice teachers' conceptions of teaching and learning as developed through their own background experiences and through teacher education programs, and in regards to literacy instruction. :2 n. 0.1.. .19‘ ‘9 I, '1'. ‘2 0‘", 0.- v. .79, ,.t.._1_lt Preservice teachers’ own academic histories have provided them with thousands of hours in classrooms, which have influenced their understandings of teaching and learning. As students they did not have access to teacher thinking and decision-making, and so based their assessment of effective instruction on the observable actions of notable teachers (Lortie, 1975; Jordell, 1987; Feiman—Nemser, 1983). These limited notions profoundly influenced their participation and learning during teacher preparation (Lortie, 1975; Weinstein, 1990). Many preservice teachers enter teacher education programs with simplistic views of education, believing that teaching is a natural activity requiring only affection for children and the transmission of information (National Center 'U f'h (D 13 for Research on Teacher Education, 1990). To move beyond personal educative experiences many teacher education programs provide preparation in pedagogical thinking and in actual practice instruction. When possible, these two areas are addressed in methods classes with accompanying practical field experiences (Hollingsworth, 1988; Shefelbine & Hollingsworth, 1987). Such arrangements provide preservice teachers with learning theory through university coursework and application opportunities through field experiences (Ishler & Kay, 1981). Feiman-Nemser, McDiarmid, Melnick, and Parker (1989) studied an introductory education course designed to encourage preservice teachers’ realization of the complexities and intellectual demands of teaching. The students' conceptions of teaching did increase in complexity, e.g. they developed conceptions of learners as active participants instead of passive recipients of knowledge. However, the authors concede to the limited potential of this course to effect enduring change, referring to future methods courses and field experiences which do not explicitly address these issues. simplistic notions of teaching and learning include preservice teachers’ tendency to parallel effective instruction with the affective characteristics of the teacher (Holt-Reynolds, 1991; Weinstein, 1989). When Weinstein (1990) asked preservice teachers their conceptions of good teaching before and after an introductory education course, .rL r». Cw +c TL. 14 themes of warmth, caring, enthusiasm, and control were most apparent. Students unanimously believed a child's self— esteem was more important than academic achievement--none seemed to realize that self—esteem could be developed through academic success. Marso and Pigge (1989), in their study of the developmental stages of learning to teach, found that preservice teachers began their programs with little concern over issues of teaching; their focus was on their own survival as students. Later, concern about teaching tasks developed but with an emphasis on their own performance as teachers. Clearly missing was a focus on the impact of their teaching on students. W Similar to students' development of literacy through interactions in social settings, preservice teachers also develop conceptions of literacy. In non-school settings they learned the literate traditions, knowledge, and interactional styles of their families and surrounding communities. They further learned to adapt this information for personal use. In school settings, they learned to apply literacy in the study of school subject matters. The families and communities of most preservice teachers are white and middle class. Statistics further indicate an increase in the current 86 to 88 percentage of white, middle class teachers (Center for Educational Statistics, 1987). Since literacy in school settings most often reflects the 15 non-school literacies of the dominant culture (Trueba, 1990; Cummins, 1986), most preservice teachers experienced congruity between the literacies they learned in non-school and school settings. For most, the transition from community and personal literacies to using literacy in the study of school subjects was understandable based on their previous experiences. In contrast to those teaching, the student population is becoming increasingly diverse, e.g. school enrollment of between 30 to 40 percent of students of color is predicted by the year 2000 (Hodgkinson, 1985). Students of color are currently the majority in the fifty largest school districts (Banks, 1991); one in four students is poor (Kennedy, Jung, & Orland, 1986); and enrollment of students speaking minority languages is steadily increasing (O'Malley, 1981). Unfortunately, preservice teachers have had little experience with diverse students' non-school literacies (Hadaway & Florez, 1987/1988), or understanding of their instructional implications. Instead, they often rely on the actions and procedures which they had experienced in their own education, and define these as effective literacy instruction. They have confidence in the efficacy of instructional methods which "worked for them" and often blindly generalize personally experienced benefits to other populations (Hollingsworth, 1989). Although many teacher education programs provide methods courses designed to challenge narrow conceptions of literacy ‘o “1" V). E. E e“. C I pur. alt: .kq‘..-. '— I .L t... 5 5 ‘ 16 instruction, classroom field experiences often portray contrasting perspectives (e.g. Meloth, Book, Putnam, & Sivan, 1989; Bawden, Buike, & Duffy, 1979). Elementary school reading instruction is frequently assessment driven and routine (Goodman, 1985), consisting of segmented stories, skill instruction, workbook pages, and testing (Shannon, 1988; Tabachnick, Popkewitz, & Zeichner, 1979-1980). Preservice teachers often adopt the educational perspectives held by their cooperating classroom teachers (Britzman, 1986; Maddox, 1968). Preservice teachers frequently compromise learned theories to comply with the cooperating teachers' beliefs and procedures. For example, Padak and Nelson (1990) studied prospective whole language teachers who were placed in conventional instructional environments. Differences in beliefs were the major source of concern and difficulty, resulting in preservice teachers accommodating to the situations. Goodman (1985) found that although preservice teachers were expected to develop a broad perspective of education, their field experiences were skills oriented. During reading instruction, they were encouraged to "get through" the material and teach for the test. Tabachnick, Popkewitz, and Zeichner (1979-1980) also found an emphasis on order and control. Student teachers' reading instruction followed a routine of reading a story, assigning workbook pages, and giving a grade. Hollingsworth’s (1989) findings corroborate earlier findings emphasizing preservice teachers’ concern Mi... e ..1 r. w o. 6356 b pres ‘,-‘w§ '4 tum” E COLA en ‘Ji 2. at Q. vi 9. v. r.. as. Fe iii... 3., h . a or». Vau p» as. nVa r»: §¢." .Ea ~Wd .Q at Aiv 2 bits :“ b 3 s «a AU C. t s r 17 with classroom management. During field experiences preservice teachers organized reading instruction to maximize order and routine—-it was teacher directed and textbook based. Field experiences which are connected to university reading methods classes appear more successful in focusing preservice teachers' instruction on academic concerns. For example, Michelson, LaSovage, and Duffy (1984) found that connecting a reading methods course to a field experience enabled preservice teachers to gradually transfer knowledge learned at the university to the classroom setting. Preservice teachers also came to realize how various aspects of reading instruction were connected. Reports on these experiences also indicate that preservice teachers with well organized and coherent knowledge regarding the reading process provide more effective reading instruction (Johnson, 1988; Herrmann, 1989). Summarx Preservice teachers' conceptions of teaching and learning are first developed through their early non-school and school experiences. These conceptions are influenced by their cultural context and subjective nature: many times preservice teachers believe that teaching and learning in the school environment are natural extensions of everyone's non- school experiences. Teacher education programs often attempt to broaden these conceptions and help preservice teachers realize the complexities of teaching. Specifically, reading rd. I ...-.I..... JR. 2 «4e 18 methods courses may address instructional practices based on understanding of the reading process. However, field experiences may contradict and even negate instead of reinforce theories learned in university classrooms (Zeichner & Tabachnick, 1981; Goodman, 1985). Currently, teacher education programs do not adequately address issues regarding the complexities of teaching or the literacy usage of diverse student populations. The question for teacher educators then becomes one of how to broaden preservice teachers' academic experiences to include other perspectives. Multicultural Teacher Education Programs Another way in which teacher education programs attempt to help preservice teachers move beyond their personal educative experiences is by directly addressing issues of student diversity. This section examines two options of multicultural teacher education: multicultural courses and multicultural field experiences. WW figg;gga;gd_App;Q§gh Most multicultural teacher education programs employ the segregated approach, which consists of adding on multicultural courses or workshops to the standard curriculum (Zeichner, 1993; Grant & Sleeter, 1985; Baptiste, 1979). Many courses and workshops intend to raise both cultural consciousness and expectations of diverse students' academic performance by providing information on the histories and general characteristics of minority groups ll .7 4 A‘ a - p. ‘I- ‘a .. 4 nx~ ~.‘ «\V ~\ I . . I .C .C .4 C .7. .. 1.. .. S . . .C L . u A: C .1. “a a A. a c .Q .. a .am .‘ I C 8 C .3 :. I I t E r T. I . . L... .... h... by. A: V; A: 6 ii J. C A: v. N: .. a fly a? 19 (Trent, 1990; Cushner & Brislin, 1986; Larke, 1990; Haberman, 1991; McDiarmid, 1990; McDiarmid & Price, 1990). This process may involve reflection on one's own cultural and ethnic background, as well as examination of personal reactions to minority groups (Grant, 1989; Adams, Pardo, & Schniedewind, 1991/1992). One example of a segregated multicultural teacher education course is M300, offered at Indiana University (Bennett, Niggle, & Stage, 1990). The goals of this course include knowledge of major ethnic groups; understandings of cultural differences; successful instruction of diverse students; and reduction of prejudice. Assignments included readings and research on multicultural issues and ethnic groups; essays on personal backgrounds; interviews with international students; observations of urban middle school or high school students; and writing multicultural lesson plans. Bennett et al. report: Findings that the most open-minded students tend to be most receptive to M300 as shown by greater gains in openness to cultural diversity and multicultural knowledge, suggest that the course instructors were most effective with those students who were already convinced, but did little to reach the others. (p. 247) The structure of M300 is similar to other segregated multicultural teacher education courses, specifically in its focus on improving the education of diverse students through raising the cultural consciousness and increasing the C~ *b nw. by ll haifi-P-l h.» .'.I 1.th M! Q a I! A“ 20 multicultural knowledge of preservice teachers apart from subject matter knowledge considerations. Such segregated multicultural courses and workshops report little or no change (Cazden & Mehan, 1989; Zeichner, 1993; Sleeter & Grant, 1987), typically assessed through the use of attitude surveys rather than actual teaching (Grant & Secada, 1990; Haberman, 1991). Grant, Sleeter, and Anderson (1986) note that the fragmentation caused by the segregated approach provides preservice teachers with an incomplete picture of the issues involved. In;gg;atgd_3pngagh A less common approach to multicultural teacher education is the integration of diversity issues throughout all aspects of the curriculum, including arts and science courses (Zeichner, 1993; Grant & Sleeter, 1985). Zeichner notes that most integrated programs are externally funded and therefore exist for a limited time; few integrated programs became institutionalized. Burstein and Cabello (1989) describe one federally funded, integrated multicultural teacher education program. The goals of this two—year graduate program were to: (a) assist teachers in examining their beliefs about the influence of culture on students and themselves, (b) develop teachers‘ knowledge about culturally diverse students, and (c) develop teachers' abilities to adapt instruction to the diverse needs of their students. (pp. 10—11) C‘ Ii.~.a : \. , .LL ..s 21 One component of the program consisted of a multicultural emphasis in every course, including instruction on the adaptation of curriculum to reflect the backgrounds of diverse students. Pre-post measures indicated that participants in the program became more knowledgeable in the instruction of diverse students; however, this was not directly observed. Although the number of integrated multicultural teacher education programs is small, this approach is clearly favored by experts in the field (Gay, 1986). Research indicates that the segregated approach does not provide enough time or emphasis on multicultural issues, with the implication that the more comprehensive approach of integrating diversity issues into the entire curriculum remedies this situation (Zeichner, 1993; Bennett, 1988; Sleeter, 1988). However, little research has been conducted to verify these claims. Sghggl_§gttings Regardless of approach, research on multicultural teacher education recommends preservice teachers’ participation in field experiences in schools with diverse student populations (Hadaway & Florez, 1987/1988; Larke, 1990; Sleeter, 1985). Many teacher education programs require such field experiences, often accompanied by seminars prompting preservice teachers to reflect on their interactions with diverse students (Zeichner, 1993; Ross, Johnson, & Smith, 1991; Gomez & Tabachnik, 1991). ‘V S“ ‘6. S v .f L» . a 3. S ._. c. S e C\ u~ .§ 98 \ RH“ P: 22 The Houston Teaching Academy, sponsored by the University of Houston College of Education and the Houston Independent School District, uses multicultural field experiences to prepare preservice teachers for the education of diverse students. Each semester 10 to 20 student teachers are placed in an inner city elementary/middle school with the goal of preparing them for effective instruction in this type of setting, as well as to attract them to the possibility of future employment in inner city classrooms. A key component of the program is a weekly meeting between the preservice teacher, a university instructor, and the classroom teacher. At these meetings they discuss lesson plans, instructional techniques, and problems unique to the inner city school setting. Research results based on observations indicate that the student teachers learned to reduce time spent managing students and increase instructional time, which "reflects the purpose of the overall program" (Stallings & Quinn, 1991, p. 27). The Houston Teaching Academy was atypical in its use of observations in assessing the program's effectiveness; most programs used attitude surveys to determine results (Grant & Secada, 1990). It was, however, somewhat typical in its emphasis on management techniques rather than on instructional effectiveness; the goals of most multicultural field experiences appear to focus on matters of equity, dispositions, and reduction of negative attitudes (Sleeter, 1989; Zeichner, 1993). While preservice teachers who F. an n . . t. C . C. P» C . f .9. 4.. Jill-£5.51 (Ia-J t~.‘ 23 participated in field experiences in schools with diverse populations did generally make strides in these areas (Grant & Secada, 1990; Sleeter, 1985), some existing negative attitudes merely became stronger (e.g. Haberman, 1991). N9n;$ghggl_$ettings In addition to multicultural school field placements, some programs also require preservice teachers to participate in community activities with adults and children of diverse backgrounds. Non-school field experiences are typically connected to course work and are of short duration. The focus is on understanding the communities and lifestyles of diverse students and their families (Beyer, 1991; Ladson-Billings, 1991; Larke, Wiseman, & Bradley, 1990). Transfer to the classroom of the attitudes and competencies acquired in these community experiences is assumed, but has not been assessed. Opportunity Week, a component of the teacher education program at Indiana University-Purdue University at Fort Wayne, is an example of multicultural non-school field placements (Souers, 1979). After an introductory seminar, preservice teachers selected sites such as government agencies and youth centers located in diverse neighborhoods in which to participate for four days. A culminating seminar provided the opportunity for the preservice teachers to discuss and reflect on their experiences. Based on written responses, Souers reports that preservice teachers gained insights into diverse children's instructional needs and became more sensitive to issues of culture. . . ... u. .C a c at J. E .1 C; J. r I - a: i, .1. w». v? 24 Another type of multicultural non—school field experience is represented by La Clase Magica (LCM). As one of six sites across the country which comprise the Distributed Literacy Consortium (Cole, 1990), LCM is funded by a Mellon Grant through the Spencer Foundation. Researchers study elements of language, institutional settings, the use of telecommunications, and a variety of socio-cultural contexts (e.g. ethnicity, class, community type, and geographic location). At LCM, midwest preservice teachers focus not only on the lifestyles of diverse students but also on their literacy learning. In this setting, located within a neighborhood community center, they interact with diverse students around computer assisted literacy activities (Gallego, 1993a). Acceptance and encouragement of non-school literacy use appears to positively influence participating preservice teachers and students (Gallego, 1993b). Summary The recognized need for multicultural teacher education programs has resulted primarily in the addition of multicultural courses to the standard curriculum. These courses customarily address issues of diversity by providing the histories and general characteristics of minority groups, attempting to raise preservice teachers' cultural consciousness and academic expectations for diverse students. Most courses report little or no change in preservice teachers' attitudes and dispositions. l. t- H. 1. V. v. u - . v. v. .. «I; la a Ca 7‘ L V. V. F. e a v . v 7 o c me .e. Mt w o e m .e m c s a.“ L. Cu 0 v. .3 ... n1 5 .l E I t D. t a .C .C act. NJ. :mc . . i J e III. p .Jsid... .~¢ 3C VU -\¢ ... 3. u“ .wa 6 § (‘1 y “s u. _era P... .n .4 I! 5 m. i c .9. n x .Cu 25 Most programs which integrate multicultural issues into the general curriculum and those which provide multicultural field experiences in school and non-school settings also focus on preservice teachers' attitudes and dispositions towards diverse students. Research indicates that these programs show more potential for successfully accomplishing their goals. Ultimately all multicultural teacher education programs aim to prepare preservice teachers to effectively instruct diverse students. While research on the types of programs described in this section is scarce (Grant & Secada, 1990; Zeichner, 1993), still fewer studies have examined how preservice teachers conceptualize subjeCt matter instruction for diverse students. These conceptions, along with preservice teachers’ attitudes and dispositions towards diverse students, will greatly influence classroom instruction. Literacy as a Social Construction Literacy, broadly defined as the ability to manipulate linguistic symbols (Wertsch, 1985), develops through interactions with others in social settings such as family and community groups (vygotsky, 1962, 1978; Wertsch, 1985; Cole & Griffin, 1983). Linguistic symbols and tools are derived from the language and thinking which are part of these social interactions, and are used for individual and group purposes (vygotsky, 1962, 1978). Thus, literacy consists not only of knowledge regarding technical aspects of 26 print but also knowledge of the ways language is used and interpreted in particular social settings. As Langer (1987) points out, literacy learning outcomes are "shaped by the social contexts in which they are embedded and can only be fully understood in relation to these social contexts" (p.6). This section examines and then compares literacy development in the contexts of non-school and school settings. I'! . H _3 1 J S . rggmmunity_Literagy Children first encounter the world through communication with family members as expressions of their needs and desires. As their environment expands, children's language and thinking also grows to enable them to interact meaningfully with extended audiences. The shared patterns of communication and understandings which develop within the culture of the child's immediate environment embody significant traditions and information. Gallego and Hollingsworth (1992) term this “community literacy"; others (e.g. Sherr, 1990; Ferdman, 1990) use the label "cultural literacy." Children perceive themselves as members of particular communities, and demonstrate this membership, through appropriate use of their community's form of literacy. For example, they may signal identification with a Latino culture by speaking Spanish when interacting within that community. Erickson (1987) describes how this type of literacy differs across various social settings. Citing Hymes (1974, 1972), he describes "speech networks" as "differing . fl.- yum I1.“ u‘flt a; f 0 ti r-r r; ) 1 \v\.. .V-- CL“, ‘ t 0“ “§ “"5 27 assumptions about ways of communicating that show functional intentions such as irony, sincerity, approval and positive concern, rapt attention, disinterest, disapproval, and the like” (p. 337). So community literacies may reflect distinct interactional styles as well as differ linguistically. An illustration of distinct community literacies is found in Heath's (1982a) ethnographic study of three communities: Maintown, Roadville, and Trackton. In Maintown, a middle class community, parents emphasize the role of books with young children. They read bedtime stories, asked "what" questions, and related print not only to real events but also to conceptual thinking. In Roadville, a white mill community, parents also read books to their young children and asked "what" questions. However, they did not help children relate print to real events or to conceptual thinking. In Trackton. a black mill community, parents did not read stories to their young children. Instead, social interactions were emphasized and children were asked "why" instead of "what" questions. These communities illustrate the variability in definitions of literacy: the children in each grew up with distinct ways of thinking about and interacting with print. Egrfignal_Literagy As community literacy develops, children also apply personal uses for literacy. Gallego and Hollingsworth (1992) characterize personal literacy as "ways of knowing and beliefs about self and personal communication norms arising from historical or experiential and gender- ZIP-u r . 7.1- 3. .NDHSK , - pinnP. 28 specific backgrounds" (p. 207). Children adapt the ways of thinking and communicating first experienced in their immediate and extended communities, then in school, for personal needs and desires. Personal literacy may include "using literacy for entertainment, to further one's own thinking, to clarify one's emotions, to share with intimates, to keep track of important issues in one's life" (Delpit, 1991, p.543). Personal literacies are the basis for self-expression and self-esteem (Freire and Macedo, 1987). Life experiences and the language in which these are embodied are crucial to literacy learning. Freire and Macedo state that schools should provide students with the opportunity to use their own reality as a basis of literacy. This includes, obviously, the language they bring to the classroom. In this sense, the students' language is the only means by which they can develop their own voice, a prerequisite to the development of a positive sense of self-worth. (p. 151) Scribner and Cole’s (1981) study of the Vai people of West Africa illustrated personal uses of literacy. The Vai use various languages for specific purposes: Arabic for religious practices and study, English for official government business, and Vai for community and personal communication. The use of the Vai language ensures privacy from outsiders and is used for recording personal events such of a . I x 1 c .O s L. E 1‘ .Lh . b . fl. Twa & b A: .w~ ¢ Haw . E e a. E u . K .3 .1 Cw «flu At Cy . l. C» i t r I. 1.5:» a “K. e M A :cnr V» max. . .IV 'c’m V 0 PA VV‘M“ ut~ § 9‘ 29 as births and deaths as well as business transactions. Vai is also used in writing letters, stories, advice to children, and diaries. Persons who are literate in these personal uses of the Vai language are respected in the community. MEWS. In the school setting, literacy is typically defined as the ability to decode and comprehend subject matter texts; the ability to express ideas in writing; and the adaptation to the school setting (Cook-Gumperz, 1986; Venezky, 1991). School literacy instruction is often portrayed as a series of predetermined skills and/or strategies imparted to students by teachers (Shannon, 1988; DeLawter, 1990). Narrow applications of school literacy emphasize the acquisition of skills apart from meaning within "mechanical" or "quantifiable" approaches to literacy instruction (Sherr, 1990, p.18). Students may learn to complete worksheets, decode words, and effectively use utilitarian information. However, they may not learn to reason about ideas in texts or comprehend deeper and more complex meanings. Broader approaches to school literacy, beyond the acquisition of skills and strategies, emphasize the transforming and knowledge-making nature of language (Freire, 1981; Heath, 1985; Applebee, 1984). Bereiter and Scardamalia (1987) discuss how literate thinkers objectify language by separating words and concepts from their original context. They are thus able to apply the language to a variety of : a C. a: A: add 9» I . . t . ‘ “H; ‘ 'vet' S 3O situations, manipulating ideas and employing problem solving strategies. Michaels and O'Connor (1990) also emphasize the problem solving and reasoning nature of literacy. They note that a student engaged in this type of literacy is "an active reader—-a reader who does not merely decode text but also supplies much essential information that is not in the text, drawing on his implicit background knowledge about language, text genres, and the world" (p. 5). School literacy includes knowledge necessary for participation in the school setting (DeFord, 1984; Cook— Gumperz, 1986; Gallego & Hollingsworth, 1992). Cazden and Mehan (1989) describe the classroom as being "guided by rules or norms established by convention, which means they are implicitly taught, tacitly agreed upon, and cooperatively maintained" (p. 50). These rules or norms include patterns for language use and classroom discourse which most often reflect those of the dominant culture (Trueba, 1990; Cummins, 1986; Deyhle, 1985; Shade, 1982). Within this structure teachers assess responses as correct or incorrect based on a school literacy standard. DeFord notes that upon entering school children learn to regard language as these rules, in addition to their prior understanding of language as a resource for communication and personal reflection. They may learn, for example, that responding to a teacher’s questions involves not only knowledge of the correct answer, but that this answer must be preceded by a raised hand and invitation to speak. 0‘ 31 Winn Teachers' perspectives of school literacy and their theories of the reading process influence the design and implementation of their instruction. Two perspectives of literacy are addressed here: the information processing perspective and the socio-cognitive perspective. Each perspective includes two theories of reading used to guide instruction. The information processing perspective views literacy as an accumulation of a sequence of skills or strategies. Within this perspective, the bottom—up theory contends that the reading process begins with the smallest unit of a word and builds up to the larger text and meaning (Gough, 1972). Teachers who are proponents of this theory emphasize the decoding of words during the beginning stages of learning to read. Only after this knowledge becomes automated through repeated practice is comprehension addressed. Also within the information processing perspective is the interactive theory of reading. This theory contends that reading is an interactive process in which higher-order stages are able to influence lower-order processing (Rumelhart, 1977), and lower-order stages are also able to influence higher ones (Stanovich, 1980). Teachers who are proponents of this theory provide instruction both in decoding and comprehension strategies, so the student is able to use whichever strategies are most effective when reading a particular text. Instruction combines hierarchical skill instruction and students' prior knowledge. 32 The socio-cognitive perspective views literacy as developing naturally as children interact with others in their environment. Reading skills and strategies are learned within the context of personally meaningful activities. Goodman reflects the educational community’s movement away from the information processing perspective towards this perspective of literacy. As a proponent of the top-down theory of reading, Goodman (1976; 1970) initially based his ideas regarding readers’ reliance on syntactic and semantic knowledge of language to predict meaning in text on Piagetian theories of child development. More recently, Goodman (Goodman & Goodman, 1992) has highlighted the central role of society and social interactions in children's construction of meaning during literacy learning, referring to Vygotskian notions. Teachers who are proponents of the top-down theory focus instruction on natural language development. They make available texts which interest students, and as "cooperative allies" (Elbow, 1986) encourage students' involvement with those texts. The meaning that students make while reading reflects their own existing knowledge and interests. Also within the socio-cognitive perspective is the social constructivist theory. This theory emphasizes the central role of culture and society in the construction of knowledge and the development of children (vygotsky, 1978). Teachers who are proponents of this theory focus instruction on the co-construction of knowledge through interactions with more knowledgeable others. Decreasing levels of assistance is I C - . . I L . J. .. - niJ S C “R . . . - u NE. at s 9. 33 provided as learners acquire increasing levels of expertise. Similar to top—down instruction, teaching and learning occurs within the context of engagement in genuine activities. .‘_-. ,or__r_.-- -‘ t“! ' -_, 'r 501-- hoe . 0. h-ol Settings Gumperz (1986) and Cook-Gumperz (1986) note that the social settings in which literacy develops are part of a larger cultural context. Political and economic power structures privilege the literacy developed in certain settings over that developed in others, with schools reflecting the literacy of the privileged, dominant culture (Freire, 1985; Stuckey, 1991; Heath, 1983). Children's non-privileged assumptions about reading (Field & Aebersold, 1990) and non— mainstream linguistic systems (Delpit, 1991) impact on their engagement in school literacy learning (Eisenhart & Cutts- Dougherty, 1991; Ferdman, 1990). Michaels' (1981) study of "sharing time" illustrates how children's non-privileged discourse styles affect their participation in school. During "sharing time“ young children described objects or re-told events as an oral preparation for literacy. Only when the teacher’s and children's discourse styles matched was the teacher able to help the children structure and focus their talk in a way congruent with written discourse. When it differed, this interaction was unsuccessful. . .aliii “‘\— AA“ ‘59.. . f‘u— S“. 'e .flu v5. 34 Heath (1982a; 1982b) examined differences in language socialization and uses of literacy between three differing communities and school. In "Trackton," whose community literacy was most unlike school literacy, children were expected to respond to adults' genuine questions which related to whole incidents. In contrast, at school they were asked questions which tested their knowledge of isolated items. Consequently, these children often did not understand or respond appropriately to classroom questions. Teachers often erroneously interpreted this as students needing more instruction in the area being discussed. Efjegtiye_Lit§ragy_ln§trugtign For effective literacy learning to occur in the school setting, instruction must be sensitive to students' non-school ways of engagement in literacy-based activities (Eisenhart & Cutts—Dougherty, 1991; Trueba, 1990; Gumperz, 1986; DeVos, 1983). Effective instruction starts with students' familiar literacy understandings and usages before introducing new school concepts of literacy. Students are then able to incorporate school literacy into already existing frameworks. Several studies focus on the importance of incorporating diverse literacies into the school curriculum. Taylor and Dorsey-Gaines (1988), in their ethnographic study of literacy in inner-city families, noted that although children and their parents participated in a wide range of literate activities (e.g. wrote messages, recipes, and notes for school; read newspapers, magazines, ads, and political : . O am my. v a 35 flyers; filled out a variety of applications), children had difficulty understanding the literacy they encountered in school. Taylor and Dorsey-Gaines argue that inclusion of meaningful personal and community literacies would enable these students to practice the complex communication skills they already possess, and serve as a basis for generating new knowledge of literacy. Au and Mason (1982) identified two types of discontinuities in reading instruction for Hawaiian children: between lesson content and the students' prior knowledge, and between interaction patterns in school and community. When the children either already possessed or acquired background information relevant to the story, and community patterns of interaction were incorporated into the lesson, comprehension of school texts significantly increased. Summary Literacy, defined as engagement in print mediated activities, develops through interactions in social settings. Each social setting encourages the development of certain forms of literacy: non-school settings promote community and personal literacies while school settings employ the literacy of the dominant culture in the study of school subject matters. Disparities between literacy use in non-school and school settings often make the teaching and learning of school literacy problematic. Successful school literacy learning often requires the recognition and incorporation of elements of non-school 36 literacies into classroom instruction. Preservice teachers’ perceptions and interpretations of classroom literacy instruction, including their responses to non-school literacies, impact on their abilities to provide effective instruction for all students. Conclusion Preservice teachers’ conceptions of teaching and learning are formed through their own academic experiences. Many teacher education programs attempt to broaden these conceptions by emphasizing the complexities of teaching and by developing awareness of students’ diverse backgrounds. Reading methods courses often relate instruction to understanding of the reading process, and encourage application of theory in school settings. In school settings, as well as in non-school settings, preservice teachers are encouraged to recognize and become acquainted with student differences (i.e. culture, language, and socio-economic circumstances). However, diverse students' early development of literacy in non-school settings often differs significantly from the literacy taught and employed in school settings. Further, diverse students' use of literacy in non-school settings often differs from teachers' and preservice teachers' non- school use of literacy. Consequently, teachers often have difficulty effectively engaging diverse students in school based literacy activities. Ch +L Q 1 37 To date little attention has been directed toward understanding how preservice teachers conceptualize teaching and learning in the context of literacy instruction for diverse students. Preservice teachers’ knowledge about students' use of literacy in school and non—school settings becomes especially important in these circumstances. This study addresses this issue by investigating preservice teachers' perceptions and interpretations of teaching and learning in the context of literacy instruction in multicultural school and non-school settings. ‘I‘ I. all. Li;ln 13 .Pu .3 .3 at 4 .§ «Nu CHAPTER I I I METHODOLOGY The research question guiding this study is: How did preservice teachers perceive and interpret teaching and learning during literacy instruction in school and non—school settings? This question was addressed by examining the participants' perceptions and interpretations of literacy instruction in two types settings. Specifically, the following questions were addressed: 1. How did participants interpret teaching and learning during classroom literacy instruction? 2. How did participants interpret teaching and learning during literacy instruction in a non-school setting? 3. What was the comparison between participants' interpretations of teaching and learning during literacy instruction in a classroom and in a non-school setting? Case studies of the four participants were constructed based on research principles described by Yin (1989). This section describes those research methods used in this study. First, a description of the participants and the context of their two field experiences is presented. Second, data sources and collection procedures are described. Third, data analysis procedures used to answer each research question are discussed. 39 Participants Selection Participants in this study were juniors in an alternative teacher education program at Michigan State University. During the spring term, in fulfillment of a program requirement, all juniors participated two half days a week in conventional elementary classrooms located within the local school district. As an option provided in the literacy courses, many also spent one afternoon a week, interacting with children participating in La Clase Magica at the Cristo Rey Community Center. Children at all sites reflected similarly diverse backgrounds, although in different proportions. Six participants were initially selected from the juniors who were involved both in elementary classrooms and at La Clase Magica. Selection was based on obtaining a sample of participants who represented a range of literacy conceptions as determined through analysis of responses to the pre-term.questionnaire. All six agreed to participate; however, the principals of two schools expressed concern that the researcher’s presence might disrupt the regular classroom routine. Consequently, the number of research participants was reduced to four. W The alternative teacher education program in which the participants were enrolled emphasized the effective instruction of diverse students in subject matter knowledge. v. FL by. r ‘1 ~~.-....._ auburn-w ___ — 4() Every academic year, twenty to twenty-five preservice teachers were selected for this program, their application indicating a predisposition towards the education of diverse students. Once accepted into the program, they proceeded through an education sequence as a cohort. Their program included foundation courses in the areas of psychology, sociology, and education; methods courses; classroom field experiences; and a proseminar during their student teaching. Throughout the program, equity and student differences were emphasized. Preservice teachers were expected to develop both subject matter knowledge and skills in pedagogical decision making, as well as dispositions towards social justice and appreciation for student diversity. Field experiences in diverse elementary classrooms were required throughout the program. During the first and second terms preservice teachers were assigned classroom placements in pairs; during the remaining terms each received individual placements. Their direct involvement with students and instruction steadily increased throughout the program, beginning with classroom observations and only occasional instruction during the first two terms and concluding with student teaching. Ei§1fi_Expg;i§nge§ At the time of this study, the participants were individually assigned to elementary classrooms for two half days a week. In conjunction with university coursework their responsibilities included: observation of classroom teachers; assisting classroom a: a; s? S 2. 41 teachers in classroom management and in other areas; teaching lessons related to methods courses; and analyzing teaching strategies in relation to the needs of diverse students. They were observed by and conferenced with field instructors at least once a week, and engaged in informal dialogue with their cooperative classroom teachers regarding educational issues. The participants' particular roles in literacy instruction varied across classrooms. While they all taught writing to small groups of students and at least occasional reading lessons, the extent of their instructional responsibilities and involvement depended in part on the discretion of their cooperative classroom teachers. Based on their assessments of the participants' abilities and readiness, classroom teachers assigned varying amounts of additional duties such as planning and implementing whole group and small group instruction across various subject matter areas. WW Participants were selected from this alternative teacher education program for two reasons. First, the program provided the opportunity for preservice teachers to perceive and value students' non- school literacies during elementary classroom instruction, a primary focus of this study. Second, the program provided optimal conditions for this circumstance by integrating issues of diversity throughout the teacher education curriculum and by including field experiences in both school 42, and non-school settings. Examining how preservice teachers interpret literacy instruction and students' non-school literacies under optimal conditions is a prelude to understanding how to improve this area of teacher education. Participants in this study also interacted with children one afternoon a week in a non-school setting, La Clase Magica (LCM). LCM is housed in a church affiliated community center which is located within a Mexican barrio and serves a variety of family and community needs. The children who participate in LCM include approximately equal numbers of Latinos, African Americans, Asians, and Anglos. The families of these children are primarily working class (Gallego, 1993a). LCM is based on the role play and social activities have in the development of cognitive skills (vygotsky, 1933/1966). Elementary school aged children engage in literacy activities while playing computer games; they work together and with adults to solve problems and think strategically about issues raised by commercial educational software. Children are motivated to progress through the various activities and become actively involved in their own education through their "understanding and acceptance of this system of shared rules" (Cole & Nicolopoulou, 1991, p. 41). Literacy activities include reading instructions, reading and responding to game information on the computer screen, writing to the "wizard" (an unknown adult who "rules" Y). 4;. a b. VH5 ‘3; v 43 LCM through computers and electronic mail) to ask for help and then reading replies, reading and writing to other children regarding hints about how to win games, and summarizing the steps they took while playing (Gallego, in press). Many of the games are based on literacy skills such as sequencing, content area reading, and critical thinking. Eigld_Expexienges Participants in this study interacted with the children who attended LCM. Their role was not to provide answers or direct instruction, but rather to facilitate the children's involvement in the games by guiding their reasoning and decision making. Their instructions were to engage children in the use of literacy skills and strategies as they played games together. They were also instructed to observe how the children thought and reasoned about the literacy based activities. BaLign§l§_figr_§i;§_§§lggtign A non-school setting was critical to studying preservice teachers' conceptions of students' non-school literacies and literacy instruction for two reasons. First, the contrast between the unfamiliar setting of LCM and the familiar setting of the elementary classroom was likely to prompt the participants to become more aware of their implicit conceptions regarding literacy instruction (Green, 1992). Second, participants' responses to students' literacies in a non-school setting may differ from their responses in a classroom setting. This comparison would help to clarify their views of the relationship between literacy in school and non-school settings. .C at. A A, v E .2 a» S A u u... 44- La Clase Magica was selected as the non—school setting because it is organized around literacy based activities and participation was available to preservice teachers through their literacy coursework. Consequently, participants were already scheduled to interact with students at this site. Data Sources and Collection The Conceptions of Literacy Instruction Questionnaire (CLIQ) used in this study consists of eight items, each describing a possible literacy situation (Appendix A). The first four items addressed what is learned during literacy instruction; the second half addressed how literacy learning occurs. The four possible responses to each of these situations correspond to information processing or socio- cognitive perspectives of literacy, specifically the four theoretical orientations described in the literature review: bottomrup; interactive; top-down; social constructivist. This agreement between the possible responses and the theoretical orientations was independently verified by four advanced doctoral candidates in the field of literacy. gQnstxugtign_gf_§LlQ_ltgms The DeFord Theoretical Orientation to Reading Profile (DeFord, 1985) served as a basis for constructing the CLIQ. The DeFord Theoretical Orientation to Reading Profile (TORP) identifies teacher beliefs about reading instruction in terms of an emphasis on sequential phonics, sight words, or literature based programs. While the TORP provides valuable information ‘55 45 regarding teachers‘ reading beliefs, it was inadequate for the purposes of this study for the following four reasons: First, the TORP measures beliefs about reading as defined in instructional programs. The current study is concerned with preservice teachers' developing conceptions of literacy instruction not in only school, but also in non- school settings. The CLIQ expands the TORP's classifications by identifying an orientation towards the four theories described earlier: bottom-up (building from word units to whole text and meaning); interactive (student knowledge interacting with text); top-down (the meaning the reader gives the text); and social constructivist (the co- construction of shared meaning). Second, items on the TORP are decontextualized; respondents have no context in which to base their decisions. The CLIQ provides situations which make the choice of responses more meaningful. These situations include depictions of students' diverse literacies (e.g. description of student whose first language is Spanish), enabling respondents to reveal their thinking in this area. Third, the TORP does not provide opportunities for respondents to explain their thinking. The CLIQ asks participants to write a brief explanation following each item, providing further insight into their thinking. Finally, the TORP's use of a five point Likert scale allows respondents to remain undecided. The CLIQ prompts respondents to rank responses. .C : s by at «46 Eilgting_gf_§LlQ_lt§m§ Preliminary questionnaires were piloted five times with a total of 110 preservice teachers enrolled in literacy courses. After each trial, the results were used to analyze and revise both the literacy scenarios and the options, ensuring a wide range of responses. After the final revision, the CLIQ was administered to 35 preservice teachers enrolled in a literacy course. Twenty of the group also responded to the DeFord Theoretical Orientation to Reading Profile. To check for instrument reliability, TORP results were compared to the CLIQ responses. Results were compatible: the questionnaire discriminated between responses as well as the TORP and classified respondents similarly; however, it provided more substantive information regarding conceptions of literacy instruction. Data Collection Procedures The CLIQ was designed to identify preservice teachers' conceptions of literacy instruction. This information was used for two purposes: first, the discrimination made possible through the ranking of options and subsequent explanations facilitated the selection of participants who represented a range of conceptions; and second, it provided the base for pre-term and post-term portraits of participants' conceptions of literacy instruction. The CLIQ was administered at the beginning of the term. The order of the questionnaire response options varied from the order of the theoretical orientations as described 1i .2 .C a to .. .. .Q §FH¢ % It 3 S ‘5 § 5 47 earlier, so respondents would not detect a pattern which could possibly bias their responses. Respondents were asked to rank the four options in their order of preference and to explain their reasoning. Six research participants were then selected based on differing responses, in order to represent a variety of literacy conceptions. The six participants were then probed by interview regarding their responses. Subsequently, two of these preservice teachers were not able to participate in the research study because of concerns raised by the principals of their classroom placements, and the number of participants was reduced to four. The CLIQ was administered again to the four remaining participants at the end of the term, also followed by interviews. This time they were not asked to write an explanation of their responses since this was not needed for purposes of participant selection. Also, as during the pre- term interview, they were asked to express their ideas verbally during the post—term interview. The pre-term and post-term CLIQ responses, and the corresponding the interviews, documented participants' conceptions of literacy and the development of those conceptions during the term. This served as one data source. WW Pre-term and post-term interviews were conducted with the four participants (Appendix B). These interviews were tape recorded and later transcribed. Based on responses to A: at ad 48 the CLIQ, participants were asked to explain their thinking and reasoning in ranking the options. Also, the influence of context on responses was probed. For example, after discussing students' use of dialects in writing letters to the mayor, participants were asked to rank and discuss the same options for students' use of dialects in other types of writing. The CLIQ responses provided a starting point for constructing portraits of the participants' conceptions of literacy instruction, the pre-term and post-term interviews provided expanded opportunities for expressing and clarifying these views. We Each participant was observed eight times: four times in their elementary classroom placement and four times at LCM. Observations were scheduled at two week intervals during times when participants indicated they would be engaged in literacy instruction, although their schedules sometimes changed and consequently other activities were observed. Each set of classroom and LCM observations occurred within the same week and lasted for 45 minutes. Field notes were narrative descriptions, recording the content and process of literacy instruction by providing verbatim.accounts of participant, teacher, and student statements and interactions. Field notes taken during classroom and LCM observations were typed by the researcher immediately following the observations. Remembered details were added at this time and the observed scenes were f\ P» .3 :e 49 reconstructed as accurately as possible. Using the typed, rewritten field notes, vignettes of each observation were composed which included all of the events of the observation and much of the original dialogue. Pseudonyms were used for the research participants, students, teachers, other preservice teachers, and schools which appeared in the notes. Field notes taken during the observations served two purposes: first, they served as a data source documenting participants' interactions with students at both sites; and second, they provided the researcher with the basis for participants‘ interpretations of literacy learning at the two sites as expressed during field interviews. W Participants were interviewed following each set of classroom.and LCM observations, for a total of four field interviews during the ten week term (Appendix C). These interviews were conducted in an office on the university campus within the week following each set of observations, and were tape recorded and transcribed. Interview questions focused on the participants' interpretations of the content, method, and value of literacy events experienced during the field observations in both their classroom and LCM placements. They were also asked to discuss similarities and differences in literacy and literacy instruction at the two sites. Field interviews served two purposes: first, responses illustrated which aspects of literacy instruction among many 50 were noticed by participants at each site; and second, responses illustrated which aspects of literacy instruction were valued by participants at each site. Responses to the field interviews provided evidence of participants' perceptions and interpretations of the roles of school and non-school literacies both in the classroom and at LCM, and of their own roles as literacy instructors. Analysis Portraits of participants' conceptions of literacy instruction were constructed based on their responses to the pre-term and post—term interviews. During these interviews, participants' verbal explanations added breadth and depth to their CLIQ responses, often placing the specific issues under discussion within a larger framework. Their discussions also sometimes revealed conceptions of literacy instruction which were at odds with the theory which corresponded to their written response. For example, one participant consistently selected options which focused on the use of children’s literature, a major component of the top-down theory. However, his verbal explanations revealed that his primary purpose for doing so was to provide interesting and fun instruction. Transcriptions of the pre—term and post—term interviews were read several times with the following questions in mind: (a) What elements did participants notice and address in each 51 CLIQ item? (b) How closely did participants' verbal explanations correspond to the selected options? (c) How did participants’ verbal explanations compare with the theories which corresponded to the selected options? (d) Did participants' responses change when different contexts were described? Patterns of commonalities in participants’ responses, both across the CLIQ items and in the preceding areas, emerged. Pre-term and post—term portraits of participants’ conceptions of literacy instruction were constructed, and then examined for changes which may have occurred during the term. I‘ ‘Qll,!,l° '-r ' 9-,! ' , ‘_9 ‘ «7,0 0 i -v ' -r- Instmgtinn With field notes of the classroom and LCM observations serving as guides, participants were interviewed following each set of observations. Transcriptions of these interviews were read several times with the following questions in mind: (a) Which elements of literacy instruction did participants notice in each setting? For example, one participant focused on the general classroom atmosphere during independent seat work, rather than on the actual assignments. (b) What did the participants “count" as literacy? For example, one participant did not consider a child’s cards with short messages to family members as writing. (c) Which student behaviors did participants notice, and how did they interpret them? For example, one participant noted that children were 52 misbehaving because the classroom assignment was rote and meaningless. (d) How did participants evaluate literacy learning? For example, one participant assessed instruction as effective because the students were busily engaged in the accompanying assignment. (e) How did participants respond to students' non-school literacies? For example, one participant encouraged the use of Spanish. (f) How did participants compare literacy instruction in the school and non-school settings? For example, several participants referred to the different locus of control at each site. Patterns of responses emerged for each participant. These were reported, along with illustrative quotes, and placed with the corresponding vignettes of the field observations. The vignettes were then rewritten to include only those details relevant to the analysis. W The data was organized into cycles for each participant, which consisted of classroom vignette; classroom interview analysis; LCM vignette; LCM interview analysis; and site comparisons. The data cycles were organized chronologically, with the first cycle consisting of the first field observation and interview and the others following in order. Preceding the data cycles were the analysis of each participants' theoretical conceptions of literacy instruction. The next round of analysis consisted of studying the field interview data within the context of the pre-term and 53 post-term.interview analysis. Participants’ perceptions and interpretations of literacy instruction in the two field settings were compared with their theoretical conceptions. Patterns of consistent and inconsistent responses were noted and included in the field interview analysis for each participant. Analysis of the participants' comparisons of the two sites revealed recurring themes across data cycles. For example, one participant compared differences in amount of student choice during each field interview. Consequently, to avoid repetition, this data was analyzed for these recurring patterns of responses apart from the specific data cycle in which they occurred. It was then reported for each participant under a separate heading, following the analysis of the four classroom and LCM data cycles. Finally, the participants' responses were compared with each other and analyzed for common themes. Two predominant themes emerged from the data: the participants’ perceptions of the role of authority in literacy instruction and their responses to student diversity. The participants' perceptions and interpretations were further analyzed in comparison with each other's responses in these two areas. The case of each participant was then organized in the following manner: (a) a brief introduction, based on the researcher's perceptions and casual conversations with the participant and school personnel; (b) a description of the participant’s theoretical conceptions of literacy . “f 54 instruction, based on CLIQ and pre-term/post—term interview responses; (c) analysis of the four classroom field observations and interviews, organized by data cycle; (d) analysis of the four LCM field observations and interviews, organized by data cycle; and (e) analysis of participant’s comparisons of literacy instruction in the two settings, based on field observations and interviews. Following the four cases, two themes common to all of the cases are discussed. CHAPTER IV RESULTS The Case of Bill Bill was a junior in the alternative teacher education program when I first approached him about participating in this study. He responded seriously to my request, asking clarifying questions and sharing his opinions and concerns. Bill continued to demonstrate thoughtfulness and sincerity throughout the term, both during interviews with me and during participation at the field placement sites. He often frowned when speaking, seeming serious even during lighter moments. Bill's demeanor was perhaps influenced by having already completed an undergraduate degree in English and being a few years older than most of his classmates. At the time of this study Bill had already completed his first early field experience. He had been placed in a first grade classroom, and expressed frustration with his attempts there to maintain students' attention and classroom discipline. Bill had become discouraged with what he perceived as his lack of teaching ability, and stated that he was re-considering his plans for a teaching career. However, his next field placement was scheduled for a fifth grade classroom, and Bill was hopeful that he was better suited to this higher grade level. Consequently, he was looking forward to his fifth grade placement with both anticipation and some apprehension. 55 56 The elementary school to which Bill was assigned for his second field experience is located within a lower socio- economic community. At the time of Bill's placement almost four hundred students were enrolled in grades Kindergarten through fifth; of these, more than one hundred spoke English as their second language. The students in Bill's fifth grade classroom were representative of the general school population and included approximately equal numbers of African—American, Latino, Asian, and White children. Bill reported that most of the students in his class were reading below grade level. E7, '. o-o - 7 a . -9 To;_ -. f -ig ,_ _ '0; One hundred percent of Bill's pre-term responses to the CLIQ and the subsequent interview questions reflected a socio-cognitive perspective of literacy learning, predominately the top-down theory. Zero percent of his pre— term responses reflected an information processing perspective (Figure l). Seventy-five percent of Bill's post— term responses continued to reflect a socio-cognitive perspective of literacy learning, still predominately the top-down theory. Twenty-five percent of his post-term responses reflected an information processing perspective, specifically the interactive theory (Figure 2). The literacy perspectives and theories reflected in Bill's responses to the CLIQ served as a starting point in constructing his conceptions of literacy instruction. His discussion of the CLIQ items during the pre-term and post- 57 Processing Socio—Cognitive Number Interactive Constructivist # 1 # # #4 #5 #7 Figure 1. 3111's Pro-Term CLIQ Responses 58 ormation Processing Number Interactive Constructivist # 1 Figure 2. Bill's Post-Term CLIQ Responses 59 term interviews explained his thinking about the depicted literacy situations, portraying the reasoning behind his selections. These discussions, which were sometimes not congruent with the theories reflected in his responses, were the basis for constructing the following pre-term and post- term portraits. Ere;1erm_§gngeptign§ Prior to his field experiences in the fifth grade classroom and alternative site, Bill's discussions of literacy instruction centered around stimulating students' interest in literature. He equated interest with meaningfulness, which he stated was the key to student motivation: "If you enjoy something, to me that usually means that it has some meaning for you, so you'll be motivated to try and learn. . . . Motivation is very important.” Bill planned to motivate students by providing them with children's literature and instructional centers which would be of interest to them, and thus meaningful. He stated that "having materials that would interest students again seems to be very important." Bill repeated this same rationale when discussing literacy instruction for diverse learners, appearing to assume that difficulties with reading were caused by lack of personally interesting materials. He envisioned his role as a teacher as one of accommodating to students' individual interests and encouraging independent learning, because "meaning is fundamental to learning anything." 6O Bill's emphasis on personal interest and meaning was also evident in his response to the CLIQ item which referred to students' use of non—school literacies in a school setting. He stated that he would mail letters written to the mayor without editing students' use of regional dialects in order to demonstrate that he valued their language. He stated that "It was probably better not to give them the message that their particular Black English, or whatever their dialect, is wrong or not right." EQ§L;Ie;m_QQngeptiQn§ Following his field experiences in the fifth grade classroom and alternative site, Bill's conceptions of literacy instruction took on an added dimension. He continued to stress the importance of providing meaningful literacy instruction for students, stating that "Meaning seems fundamental ... trying to make it meaningful, it seems to be the most important task." Bill also continued to equate meaningfulness with students' interest, which he again associated with reading children's literature: "A love and enjoyment of quality literature again, it seems to me very important as far as making reading meaningful, and a good way to do it." However, Bill's ideas of what “meaningful" meant now also included students' prior experience with the content of instruction: "Again that's related to meaning ... starting with what they know, what is already meaningful to them and then trying to link what you're trying to teach to that." 61 During the post-term interview Bill focused on the role of prior knowledge when discussing literacy instruction for diverse learners. He noted that children have difficulty comprehending material which is unrelated to their culture, that it lacks meaning for them: Again, meaning seems to be the fundamental idea there, what is the most meaningful to them will make it easier for them to learn. . . . I just have more of a sense now that if you present something that is foreign to the child, as far as their culture goes, then it can really make it difficult. Bill continued to value students' non—school literacies, again stating in reference to writing letters to the mayor that he would not edit their regional dialects. He argued that they would eventually learn standard English in other grades, and his trying to teach it would only impede their learning: I think eventually they are going to learn the so—to- speak correct English in other grades ... so I think it would just hinder [their learning] ... to try and force the standard English on them. Bill was uncertain as to when or how standard English should be taught to students with regional dialects. Summary Figure 3 depicts the change between Bill’s Dre-term and post-term responses to the CLIQ items. The major change between his pre-term and post-term conceptions of literacy instruction consisted of a new emphasis on students’ 62 Socid Consiruciivisi Top Down i I I I interactive ‘ BoHom Up j l T I f V T 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ITEMS + Pre-Term -+- Post-Term Figure 3. Comparison of 8111's CLIQ Responses 63 prior knowledge. However, this shift in Bill's thinking did not replace his earlier conceptions of literacy instruction; rather, it was incorporated into his ideas of meaningful instruction. Bill continued throughout the term to regard books and activities which interested students as basic to meaningful instruction, but by the end of the term also included connecting new ideas to what students already knew as another aspect of meaningfulness. This shift in Bill's thinking was particularly evident when he discussed diverse learners. During the pre-term interview he stated that literacy instruction for these students should focus on providing literature which interested them, as their interests may differ from the mainstream population. During the post-term interview Bill stated that literacy instruction for diverse learners should focus on connecting new ideas to their culturally based knowledge. Bill placed importance on students' non-school literacies during both the pre-term and post-term interviews, appearing concerned with projecting a positive attitude towards non-standard English. While he implied that knowledge of standard English was important, it was unclear if he believed students would acquire this knowledge on their own through repeated exposure, or if other teachers would "force" it on them. In either case Bill did not assume responsibility for this learning, but instead focused on expressing appreciation for non-standard dialects. 64 Bill's participation in the classroom and at the alternative site illustrated the relationship between his theoretical concepts of literacy instruction and his practical decisions. ° ' ' r e i nd L a 'n - i fo t n rdi ed Te 'n Bill sat at the teacher's desk, marking attendance and filling out forms. The classroom teacher had told the students to prepare for standardized testing, and so most of them sat quietly at their desks either reading or doing a worksheet. Three students sat at a small round table with a reading teacher, who was helping them with the worksheet. As she spoke, her glance included several students who were at their desks. "This is egagtly what you'll have to do on the SAT's: read something, remember what you read, and answer questions. Now, read this sentence..." This situation in Bill's fifth grade classroom paralleled a CLIQ item which questioned how to increase standardized test scores in a multicultural classroom. In response to this item during the pre—term interview, Bill had stated that he would focus on using children's literature because other methods such as direct instruction "seem to be geared towards the so-called mainstream American way of thinking ... which may or may not be foreign to them." In responding to this item during the post-term interview Bill stated that he would focus on using culture specific materials because "what is the most meaningful will make it easier to learn." His discussion of preparation for standardized testing immediately following this actual 65 situation, however, did not reflect either of these statements. Following his classroom observation of students preparing for standardized testing, Bill commented on the necessity of students performing well within the system. He perceived the observed method as effective, agreeing that familiarity with the testing format would achieve higher scores. Bill stated that he too would prepare students for testing by asking them to read short passages followed by questions: If they're used to doing that kind of thing, they know what they're supposed to do for each question. . . . I would go along with it ... maybe start preparing them a month before. However, Bill expressed doubts regarding the validity of this form of assessment. He stated that teachers had a more intimate knowledge of their students' strengths and ‘weaknesses, and questioned the guidelines used to measure test results: The teacher would be better to assess the kids, just through knowing them and working with them and having a much more intimate sense of what their strengths and weaknesses were. . . . [Test results are determined] according to a certain set of criteria, but maybe the criteria themselves aren't good. Consequently, Bill advocated the use of culturally :relevant materials as part of literacy instruction not 66 related to testing. He appeared to consider regular classroom literacy instruction as separate from standardized testing preparation, which he discussed as being unrelated to issues of student interest, prior knowledge, or cultural relevancy. E ! 2 J I . H 3] 3 I 3' i H' 1 J I i It was Willie's turn to read aloud from the handout Bill had given the students on woodland Indians. As he completed the passage which described the dwellings in a typical Southeast Indian Village, Bill asked him about the differences between the northern and southern tribes. "The houses," Willie replied. "Why do you think that?" Bill waited for a few moments, but Willie didn't respond. "YOu're on the right track,” he encouraged. ”Something about the houses. What about them? can someone help him out?" .Marcia spoke up. "The Southeast houses had a grass framework, and the.NOrtheast houses had wood." "The.Nbrtheast had a lot of families living in one house, and the Southeast had one family in a house." After Bill noted this difference, he referred back to Marcia's ‘point. "So the houses were built differently, too. Do you think they were as warm as those in the north?" "Yes." Bill frowned. "Ybu may be right," he agreed, "but it's warmer in the south. Okay, who'd like to read the next section?" During the pre-term and post-term interviews Bill had stated that he would use children's literature to interest and motivate students. During the post-term interview he had also discussed using culturally based materials to which diverse learners could relate new knowledge. Bill's lesson on ‘Woodland Indians did not reflect either of these conceptions. Instead of using trade books or other forms of children's literature Bill had photocopied a chapter from a textbook he had found in the library. Instead of encouraging students to learn about their own cultural 67 backgrounds he focused on Woodland Indians because this topic was presented in their classroom textbook. Bill's ultimate objective, however, was not directly related to knowledge of Woodland Indians but rather to developing a kind of general awareness of cultural diversity: It's hard to say how they would actually use such information in the future, but it just seems like it's good to know it. Because it just maybe gives you a sense that there are other cultures; an awareness that there are other ways of living. Bill's instruction of this topic, however, did not include discussions or assignments related to diverse cultures or lifestyles which students might currently encounter. Rather, he appeared to hope that the students would develop these understandings on their own through oral reading of the text. Bill believed his role consisted of helping students recall the details of what they read, and to perhaps prompt them to think further about the topic. Bill attempted to accomplish these goals through the questions he asked: I tried to stop after short bits and go over what they had read, so that they could recall it. I felt like it went okay ... they seemed to be able to answer the questions pretty well. . . . I tried to tie things together as much as I could ... maybe get them to think about it a little more. 68 Although Bill did not use children's literature to engage students' interest, he did plan a writing activity designed to be creative and motivational. This assignment directed students to write to people of their own choice, ‘which may have reflected Bill's post-term conception regarding the connection between meaningfulness and students' prior knowledge. He anticipated that this assignment would help students recall and integrate the information in the handout: I was going to have them pretend that they were an Indian living in one of those tribes and just to write a letter to somebody, it could be anybody, Michael Jordan or whoever, and just tell about their lives and what it was like there, and try and have them include maybe three things about their specific tribe and maybe three things about Woodland Indians in general. . . . I'm not sure how I could make it more creative. Bill had not yet assigned this writing activity, and the students were not aware of this component of the lesson when they read the textbook excerpt. Wham—MW Bill sat behind the teacher's desk as the students either read quietly or worked independently on various assignments such as completing spelling and math tests, and constructing newspapers. Some students, however, pushed their work aside and started talking. As the noise level rose, Bill became concerned and admonished the students. "Okay, you should be sitting quietly doing your work. Iflm going to start taking names of those who are talking instead of working." .Mbst of the students settled into their work, although .many still conversed with their friends. Brian, absorbed in 69 a paperback novel, left his desk by the windows and approached Bill. "What's this word?" he asked, pointing. "I think it’s Chinese." Bill looked in the book. "I don't know." "I'll ask Kim." Brian walked across the room to where an Asian girl was working on the newspaper assignment, and tried to show her the word. Kim, however, ignored him, so he returned to his desk. "Did she know it?" Bill asked. "I don’t know." "Read it to her," Bill directed. "I showed her." ”Read the word," Bill repeated. "I can't!" "Read it," Bill encouraged. "It's chow.mein, or something," Brian finally mumbled. Bill let the subject drop, and continued to monitor the students' behavior. During the pre-term and post-term interviews Bill had stated that literacy instruction should "allow students to individually progress at their own pace," and should consist of personally interesting texts and activities. When the students in his classroom worked individually at their desks on various assignments, however, Bill appeared unconcerned with the content of their activities. Rather, he viewed this time as an opportunity for students to relax, and focused on keeping students moderately quiet and busy. He appeared to 'view his role as one of supervision, not instruction: Just some time to relax a little bit, that's what they were doing. . . . I think it could be good, you know, if they've been really busy a lot of the time, working on a bunch of different things, to give them time like that, certainly. . . . As long as they weren't making a lot of noise it didn't matter too much, although I did want them to try to work on something. . . . It seems good to 70 have them working on something or, if nothing else, at least reading, you know? Bill's perception that this was a time of relaxation and that learning was secondary was apparent in his treatment of the ”Chinese" word. He did not help the inquiring student use context or any other strategy to interpret the unknown word, and later stated: "I didn't really look at the context. I didn't even hardly look, really look at the book." Again, Bill did not appear to perceive this as a time for instruction. Bill stood at the chalkboard and called for the attention of the students. They were studying the concept of "capacity” in groups of five, using water and various sized containers to answer questions on a worksheet. Several groups were having difficulty with the same problem, and Bill decided to address this question with the whole group. First he indicated the chalkboard, where he had written several pertinent facts: Capacity——the amount of liquid that a container can hold. Capacity is measured in liters and milliliters. One liter of liquid is the same as 1,000 cm3. One milliliter is the same as 1 cm3. "‘HOW'many cubic centimeters are in the smallest cup?'" Bill held up a cup that was marked "88 ml." "If there are 88 .milliliters, there are 88 cubic centimeters, because one nfilliliter is the same as one cubic centimeter." Bill left the chalkboard and started to circulate around the room. Immediately cries for help arose, and he turned to the nearest group of students. Bill listened to their question, and picked up one of the cups. "This cup is 350 milliliters. If one milliliter is the same as one cubic centimeter, how*many cubic centimeters are in this cup?" The students responded with confused looks and mumbles. .Bill repeated his question. When the students were still unable to answer, he pointed to the statements on the board. "It's right there, read it again." 71 During the post—term interview Bill stated that effective, meaningful instruction starts with what students already know. He attempted to enact this theoretical concept in his lesson on capacity by relating it to volume, which the students had studied previously. In this early attempt, however, Bill started with the new and asked students to relate it to the familiar. Although Bill actually stated this during the interview following the lesson, he did not appear to notice the incongruence: Milliliters and liters were the two units that were being introduced. . . . I wanted to start from there and then show how a milliliter was the same thing [as a cubic centimeter], only in liquid. . . . The main thing is to start out with what they know and then go to what they don't know. Try and be concrete, and I just think it was passed over too quickly. Bill had realized that the students were having difficulties relating milliliters to cubic centimeters. Later he stated that he would have liked to spend more time on this relationship, on "what the difference is, maybe having them do problems in the book" instead of working in cooperative groups. He questioned if the students understood the concepts he was trying to teach: It's hard to know how much they really understood. I guess the main skill they were using was adding [but] you can just take two different numbers and add them without really knowing what they mean, so they 72 could have taken the capacity of the smaller cups and added them into the larger cup without really realizing what that meant. While Bill was aware that the students may not have understood "capacity," his instruction did not help the students develop this concept. He continually referred students to the definitions he had written on the board, implying that the correct answers to the worksheet problems were right there. Later, during the interview, Bill referred to literacy as "the stuff written on the board," and how he had "talked about it." Bill did not appear to realize the contradictions in what he was asking students to do: while he made a clear distinction between measuring liquids and solids, he repeatedly stated that “one milliliter is the same as one cubic centimeter.” During the pre-term and post—term interviews Bill had discussed the importance of student interest, which he perceived as key to motivation. His lesson on capacity included an activity designed solely for the students' enjoyment, to stimulate their interest in learning about this concept. The final worksheet problem called for students to pour water into the large jar, using each cup only once, and to calculate the resultant amount. Since the container would not be filled, this activity was not an example of capacity. Instead, it was a precursor to making lemonade: Bill surprised the students by pouring powdered lemonade into their jars. Bill placed so much importance on this "fun" 73 activity that he chastised a group of students who were actually experimenting with the capacity of the jar instead of preparing for the treat. Summary Bill's participation in a fifth grade classroom reflected his pre-term and post-term conceptions regarding the importance of providing meaningful literacy instruction. He continued throughout the term to interpret this as instruction which the students would find interesting and consequently motivating, such as when he planned a creative writing assignment and concluded a lesson with lemonade. By the end of the term Bill also included connecting new knowledge to students' prior knowledge as another component of meaningful instruction, which was reflected in his lesson on capacity. Bill attempted to interest students in learning by adding "fun" elements not directly related to the content of instruction. He did not appear to consider how the subject matter itself could be made intrinsically interesting or personally related to students' lives, for example by allowing students to study diverse cultures of their choice instead of writing to a person of their choice. The classroom situations to which Bill did not attempt to add an element of interest, testing preparation and independent seatwork, were ones which he characterized as outside normal instruction. They were also situations which could have reflected Bill's pre-term and post-term conceptions of literacy instruction for diverse learners. 74 However, instead of using children's literature to prepare diverse students for standardized testing, Bill decided that direct instruction of fundamental materials was the way to improve test scores. And instead of noting that independent seatwork could accommodate the needs and interests of diverse learners, he perceived this situation as a time for relaxation. Bill appeared to overlook the opportunities for instruction of diverse learners which he discussed during the pre-term and post-term interviews, instead perceiving them as not part of regular classroom instruction. Bill had just finished playing "Spider world" with Pam, a ten year old girl from Laos. Bill had helped Pam read and follow the directions to this computer game, which involved forming letters and pictures by' moving a "spider" across the screen. Now it was time for the follow-up activity. "Okay, now let's write a letter to the wizard," Bill suggested, placing a piece of paper and a pencil in front of Pam. Pam picked up the pencil and frowned. "But what should I write?" "wall, why don't you tell the wizard about the game you ,played, and how.hard it was." "Okay.” Pam started writing. Soon she became enthusiastic about the wizard and the message she was composing, sharing her comments with Bill and asking his help in spelling words. Bill first tried to help her sound out the words, sometimes spelling them for her. Then he changed his strategy, and no longer helped her with letter sounds. "JUst spell it the way you want to. Don't worry about it, it's okay.“ Pam reluctantly accepted this directive, and completed the letter. During the pre-term and post—term interviews Bill had discussed the value of students' non-school literacies. This ‘was reflected in his treatment of and later comments on Pam's 75 letter writing. He encouraged her to express her ideas without regard to spelling, to enable her to focus on the substance rather than form of her message. Bill also accepted non-standard wording, which may have reflected the syntax of her native language or limited proficiency in English. Bill did not ask Pam to revise or edit her writing, even when it was unclear: I don't know if she's had inventive spelling before, but I think that is something good, the opportunity to focus on what she was writing rather than on the spelling aspect of it. . . . I don't think you could understand it unless you had been watching the game, just the way it was worded ... but I let that go, too, I didn't try and change that. During the pre-term and post—term interviews Bill also discussed the value of meaningful instruction, which he perceived as present in this writing activity. The type of personal meaning which Bill perceived in this activity, however, appears to be different from that which he discussed in relation to the CLIQ items. Rather than being related to students' interests or prior knowledge, Bill discussed this activity as enabling Pam to experience learning on her own terms for her own purposes: [The writing activity] was, I thought, very good, she really seemed to enjoy it. . . . The whole environment is supposed to be unstructured and giving them a chance 76 to explore for themselves, and maybe if it was meaningful to her, that was the important thing. Another aspect of effective literacy instruction which Bill discussed during the pre-term and post-term interviews related to the value of independent learning situations. In playing this computer game and writing the follow-up letter Pam was able to pursue her personal interests, which Bill perceived as important for all students—-particularly diverse learners whose interests may differ from the mainstream. gate gygle lug; Reading the Map on "Qenny's Journey" Bill sat down in front of a computer with Laura, a friendly nine year old. He opened the folder for "Jenny's Journey“ and handed it to Laura to read. She read the directions aloud with few errors: "‘YOur favorite aunt, Aunt Jenny, has lent you her car to run some errands for her. USe the map to locate the destination, and drive there by the shortest route. Be careful not to run out of gas.'" "You read very well," Bill complimented. On the screen appeared the destination: a picture of a building with "Restaurant" and "210 Oak Street" printed below it. Laura pressed the "Enter" key on the computer, and the screen displayed a street scene. She was traveling east on .Fig Street. "I think we need to use the map," Bill advised. Laura pressed "M“ and located her current position on the map which now filled the screen. Next she found the restaurant on Oak Street, and then returned to the street scene. As Laura "drove" her car in the direction where she remembered the restaurant to be, she sometimes asked Bill for advice or checked the map. After several turns, Bill spotted the restaurant on the street corner. "There it is!" Bill exclaimed. "Press ‘P' for ‘Park.'" Laura Tparked" the car and then read the computer's inessage: "COngratulations! Ybu have reached your destination." During the pre-term and post-term interviews Bill discussed the importance of meaningful instruction, which he equated with student interest. Reflecting this conception of 77 literacy instruction, he interpreted Laura's apparent interest in "Jenny's Journey" as an indication that this game was an effective way to teach map reading skills. He guided her playing with a minimum of direct instruction, stating that Laura "was enjoying herself, it was a fun activity." He added that if instructional material was not intrinsically interesting, fun activities might have to be added: The material itself, it seems, ideally, anyway, should be meaningful to them, so that you don't always need to think up fun activities. . . . That doesn't mean you can't have fun activities, and that doesn't mean that they're not useful, and you may need them sometimes just because the material itself may be boring and you have to teach it anyway. While Bill praised "Jenny's Journey" for its inherent meaningfulness in terms of its appeal to Laura, he did not mention the real-life purposes of reading maps. Bill did not seem to consider this practical aspect of the game as a component of meaningful instruction. Bill discussed this computer game as "interesting" and "challenging,” but was unsure of how much Laura learned. He expressed awareness of the relevance of Laura's prior knowledge, stating that he did not know "how much exposure she had to that kind of thing before ... maybe she learned quite a bit as far as how to do that. Then again, maybe it was just review, I don't know." This awareness is also 78 present in Bill's post-term comments about linking new knowledge to previously learned concepts. B others la in "Mat h Game" Bill sat at the computer with two brothers, and inserted the "Match Game” disk. As he selected "Computer words," one of the beginner games, a grid of twenty boxes appeared on the screen. Bill turned to Michael and Charles and explained the game. "What you do is, each of these boxes has a word behind it. Ybu get to turn over two boxes, and you want the words behind the boxes to match. Okay, who wants to go first?" "I will!" Michael shouted, and selected box #20; the word "byte" appeared. {N w pick another one," Bill directed. .Michael selected box #1; the word was "keyboard." "Okay, now you should try and remember where these are," Bill instructed. .Next it was Charles' turn. He selected two boxes, but neither of them matched. Bill took a turn, but also did not make a match. When it was again Michael's turn, he discovered "byte" behind box #11, and remembered to select box #20 for a match. "Yes!” he exclaimed excitedly. .Michael kept his lead as the game progressed, growing increasingly enthusiastic and vocal while Charles became more and more silent. When the game was finally over, Michael had .made seven matches to Charles' one and Bill's two. "I won!".Michael shouted exuberantly. He pointed first at Bill, and then at his brother. "YOu only got two, and you only got one! I got them ALL!" Bill's interpretation of "Match Game" again reflected the concept of meaningful instruction which he discussed during the pre—term and post-term interviews. He stated that this game was an effective method of developing memory, a potentially useful literacy skill, because the boys apparently enjoyed playing it: Certainly there's a lot of memory involved, just trying to remember where words were ... word recall, I suppose it could help as far as that goes. . . . I don't think it should be stressed too much, but it can be useful. 79 . . It seems like it is [a good way to develop memory skills]. They seemed to really enjoy it, they're competing against each other. During the pre-term and post-term interviews Bill had also discussed the importance, especially when instructing diverse learners, of noting individual students' interests, learning styles, and background knowledge. However, during his participation in "Match Game" Bill did not notice and respond to each brother as an individual. For example, while Michael was clearly enthusiastic about playing and winning, Charles did not appear to feel equally as positive about losing. In fact, Bill did not seem to notice that Charles had matched only one pair of words. Instead, he pointed to the boys' success at matching words as proof of successful memorization, stating that "they seemed to be getting some matches, quite a few matches. More than I was." He did not appear to differentiate between the two brothers. II " Bill and.Miguel watched the underwater scene of "Odell Lake" displayed on the computer screen. .Miguel, as a rainbow trout, had to decide what to do about the plankton which appeared as tiny particles: eat it, run away to deep water, run away to shallow water, chase it away, or ignore it. He looked to Bill for direction. "Should I eat it?" he inquired. "That's up to you. Ybu decide," Bill replied. .Miguel decided to eat the plankton. As the fish swallowed the particles, the computer reported that "Plankton is not your favorite food." .Miguel continued to play, and advanced to the next level. As a dolly varden, he decided to eat a small fish which swam across the screen--it disappeared into his fish's mouth. Then algae appeared, and Miguel decided to eat this also. When he next saw a large fish, he hesitated. “Oh, you can take that," Bill encouraged. 80 .Miguel decided to try; his fish swallowed it. An even larger fish swam across the screen. Miguel tried to eat it, but as it swam away the computer reported that "A rainbow trout is too big for you to eat." Bill checked the follow-up activity for this level of .play. “Ybu're supposed to keep track of what you eat and what can eat you, and then make a food chain. Do you want to do that, or just play for awhile?" .Miguel shrugged. "JUst play for awhile." "Okay." .Miguel, with Bill watching, continued to play "Odell Lake" until it was time to go home. Bill's discussion of "Odell Lake" again reflected the emphasis he placed on students' interests during the pre—term and post-term interviews. He stated that this game was an effective learning tool because Miguel "really seemed to enjoy it." Bill perceived Miguel as practicing memory and decision making skills, which he stated were significant aspects of literacy learning: "You have to decide what's important and what's not, about what you're reading; also, the memory aspect, of course." Bill also noted that learning about the food chain was an important component of this game. However, he did not prompt Miguel to record the details of what the fish ate or to develop a diagram of the chain because Miguel "wasn't interested." Consequently, Bill did not perceive Miguel as learning anything about food chains: I don't know if he would be able to make all of the connections without really keeping track, writing it down ... a child would have to do that, write it down and then begin to see this pattern developing. . . . But it would be so hard to keep that all in your mind when you're playing the game. 81 Bill appeared to act as a facilitator and guide as Miguel played “Odell Lake." He did not pressure Miguel to do anything he didn't want to do, but rather focused the interaction around Miguel's interests. Summary Bill's participation in La Clase Magica, an alternative educational site, reflected his pre-term and post-term.conceptions regarding the importance of students' enjoyment of literacy instruction. Bill perceived all of the computer related activities as effective literacy instruction because the students appeared to enjoy them. One time he looked beyond a student's surface reaction in judging the value of an activity: he noted that the writing task associated with "Spider World" allowed Pam to experience learning at her own terms for her own purposes. During the pre-term and post-term interviews Bill had also discussed the value of allowing students to independently pursue activities which interested them. The availability of activity options at LCM and the students' freedom to participate in the activities of their choice enabled Bill to reflect this conception of literacy instruction in his interactions with the students. He acted as facilitator and guide, encouraging and helping students as they engaged in activities which interested them. Bill did not directly instruct or manage students, or attempt to add ”fun” elements to the instruction--perhaps because he perceived the computer activities as already being enjoyable and thus intrinsically meaningful. 82 While Bill regarded interesting, independent activities as especially critical for diverse learners, during the pre— term and post-term interviews he had also discussed the importance of valuing students' non-school literacies. This conception was reflected in his instruction of the girl from Laos. He encouraged Pam to write in a way which was personally meaningful even if others would be unable to comprehend what she wrote. Bill did not guide her in connecting letter sounds to spelling or sentence structure to meaning. He was pleased with her writing as it was. Bill also appeared to value the diverse interests and backgrounds of the other students with whom he worked individually. However, he did not differentiate between the two brothers who played "Match Game." He did not appear to notice and value their different responses to the game. School_and_uon;School_§ultures Bill's comparisons of the two sites during the field interviews often focused on the differing atmospheres and how he perceived these as affecting his role. He viewed the classroom as a structured environment, where learning was ”formalized" and "the teacher has a lot of control.” In contrast, Bill perceived LCM as "a lot more relaxed,” and.where children are given the "chance to explore.“ Consequently, Bill appeared to conform his instruction and interactions to what he understood to be the 83 rules and norms of each setting. He perceived himself as an authority in the classroom and a facilitator at LCM: I'm.much more the authority figure in the classroom, certainly. At least I try to be, and in LCM that's more toned down, although it is there, as far as guiding them through the activity and keeping them involved. Bill's perception of the culture of each setting also influenced his interpretation of what students should learn at each site. In the classroom, Bill appeared to focus instruction on teaching students specific information, such as details about Woodland Indians and the definition of capacity. In contrast, he guided students through computer activities at LCM seemingly without concern as to whether they learned specific information, for example not emphasizing the food chain in "Odell Lake" or specific map skills in “Jenny's Journey." Bill stated the necessity of assessing what students learn in the classroom, but not at LCM: LCM, you just ask questions, you know, "How was that activity hard or was it easy for you?" . . . There's no critiquing of anything they do, and I don't think they need to be evaluated more. . . . In school, I would say there does need to be evaluation. Bill viewed the culture of the school and the culture of LCM very differently, and correspondingly interpreted the content and purpose of literacy instruction differently at each site. He did not attempt to transfer aspects of one 84 site to the other, but continued throughout the term to regard them as distinctly separate environments with their own conventions and expectations. MW During the Dre-term and post-term.interviews Bill equated effective literacy instruction with instruction which was personally meaningful for the students. At the beginning of the term Bill interpreted this as activities and materials which would interest, and thus motivate, the students. At the end of the term Bill interpreted this to also include instruction which began with students' prior knowledge. Bill often interpreted students' enjoyment of the LCM activities as an indication of student success and instructional effectiveness. He did not attempt to incorporate students' prior knowledge into the activities, although he once alluded to its importance in assessing learning. In the classroom, however, Bill did not appear to expect the same enjoyment of instruction. Consequently, he incorporated ”fun" elements into his lessons, as when he made lemonade even though the water level was not consistent with the definition of capacity. Bill also appeared more aware of the role of prior knowledge in the classroom, attempting to incorporate it into this same lesson on capacity. Bill did not discuss meaningful instruction in terms of purposeful, authentic activities; however, he did allude to the writing activity following "Spider World" as having meaning for Pam because she was expressing her own thoughts 85 in her own way. Bill's further discussion of this activity also implied that classroom lessons are often perceived by students as having no real purpose: [Pam s writing activity] was geared towards a purpose, which she enjoyed, as far as I could tell, and in school, it may or may not be that way. . . . Why they're doing it may be something that is, at least in the child's viewpoint, more artificial. Bill's theoretical conceptions of literacy instruction for diverse learners included allowing students to independently engage in personally interesting, and thus meaningful, activities. The organization and atmosphere of LCM enabled Bill to encourage students to do this. In contrast, Bill's classroom instruction did not reflect consideration of students' diverse interests and knowledge: for example, he directed students to take turns reading aloud from a photocopy of a textbook chapter instead of encouraging them to pursue related topics which interested them. He also characterized independent seatwork in the classroom. as a time for relaxation, while perceiving independent work at LCM as literacy learning. Bill noted the similarities between these two situations, but indicated that student choice of activities was not the classroom norm: In both situations they had some range of choice as to what they could work on. Certainly more so in LCM than in the classroom, but still, there was some choice 86 there. They were both more laid back than the normal, usual classroom environment. Bill perceived student enjoyment as critical to meaningful literacy instruction in both the classroom and at LCM. In the classroom he often found it necessary to ‘manufacture something "fun" to engage students' interest; at LCM, the students enjoyed the activities themselves. Bill did not appear to connect student enjoyment with a purpose for engaging in the activity, although he noted that classroom lessons were often "artificial" in comparison to participation at LCM. Bill again appeared to view the two settings as distinctly separate environments, with inevitably different types of instruction. The Case of Sarah Sarah was a junior in the alternative teacher education program when I first approached her about participating in this study. She responded in a cheerful and positive manner, seeming happy to be of assistance. Sarah continued to be relaxed and enthusiastic throughout the term, especially during her interactions with children at the non—school site. She appeared to genuinely enjoy the time she spent with the children. Sarah's motivation for applying to a teacher education program which focused on diverse learners appears to have been influenced by her interest in speaking Spanish. She often smiled when she heard children speaking this language, and.was quick to join in the conversation or to initiate a 87 new one. Another indication of Sarah's interest in children and Spanish was her volunteer work with children in a predominately Latino community center. She often referred to these experiences. Sarah's was assigned to a first grade classroom in an elementary school located within a lower middle class community. The students in her classroom were culturally and ethnically diverse, although the majority were White. Sarah expressed surprise at the lack of games and toys in the classroom, and at the silence and cooperation of the students. ,0. v... 0‘. . 1, 0! ‘9 0! . o 7 2 Q. _ 0! Approximately eighty-five percent of Sarah's pre-term responses to the CLIQ and subsequent interview questions reflected a socio-cognitive perspective of literacy learning, predominately the social constructivist theory. Approximately twelve percent of her pre-term responses reflected an information processing perspective, specifically the interactive theory (Figure 4). Approximately sixty-two percent of Sarah's post-term responses reflected a socio-cognitive perspective of literacy learning, predominately the top-down theory. Approximately thirty-seven percent of her post—term responses reflected an information processing perspective, specifically the interactive theory (Figure 5). The literacy perspectives and theories reflected in Sarah's responses to the CLIQ served as a starting point in 88 ormation Processing Number Interactive Figure 4. Sarah's Ere-Term CLIQ Responses Constructivist 89 ormation Processing Interactive Constructivist Figure 5. Sarah's Post-Term CLIQ Responses 9O constructing her conceptions of literacy instruction. Her discussion of the CLIQ items during the pre-term and post- term interviews explained her thinking about the depicted literacy situations, portraying the reasoning behind her selections. These discussions, which were sometimes not congruent with the theories reflected in her responses, were the basis for constructing the following pre-term and post- term portraits. Ere;1erm_§gnceptigns Prior to her field experiences in the classroom and alternative site, Sarah's discussions of literacy instruction emphasized the importance of stimulating children's interest in reading: "If they're interested they're going to want to learn about it and so, that's what I want to promote is the interest and then that will lead into their development." Sarah planned to use children's literature and learning centers to promote this interest, but she also viewed children working together as key to motivation. She stated that a student "would feel more like he was accomplishing something, because he was able to work ‘with others.” Sarah appeared to view cooperative learning as :more than merely a motivational tool, however. She also stated that through working together students "can get different ideas about things and look at things from a different perspective." Sarah's discussion of literacy instruction for diverse learners was an extension of these same ideas. She planned to focus instruction around literature which interested the 91 students because "if they're interested in it, they're going to want to pursue it and keep going at it." At the same time, Sarah stated that a teacher may have difficulty relating to a child culturally different from herself, and that this child would benefit from interactions with other students. She stated that "if you didn't know Spanish or you didn't know about his culture, maybe you wouldn't know what to talk about with him. . . . [A native Spanish speaker] would probably learn better if he learned from others in a natural environment.” Sarah expressed conflicting sentiments when discussing the CLIQ item which referred to students' use of non-school literacies in a school setting. She appeared to value their personal expressions of community literacy while at the same time viewing use of standard English as necessary for success in mainstream society: Just because that's what the student wrote and you shouldn't want to try and change it because that was the student's, that was their work. . . . The only reason why it would be important for me to teach [standard English] to kids, is because of how other people might look down on them because they speak this way. However, Sarah was unsure how she would provide this instruction: "It would be difficult for me to know where to fit in standard English." Epst;Ie;m_angeptiQns Following her field experiences in the classroom and alternative site, Sarah continued to 92 emphasize the importance of promoting students' interest in reading through use of children's literature. She restated her pre-term conception that if a student "enjoys what he's doing, then he'll want to keep doing it and then he'll feel good about himself reading. . . . First he has to enjoy reading and then you can work more on the strategies." Sarah also restated the value of children working together, with the additional explanation of different prior knowledge as the reason for varying perspectives. She used her own experiences as an example: I think that that's really important, like when I try to tell or teach something to someone else, like one of my classmates, I can learn from myself better when I'm trying to teach them, and also I might be telling them a different way than they thought of it so they can also learn from what I'm saying. . . . Other people come with different prior knowledge than I have, and so by listening to what they have to say, I can get more out of it. Sarah also stated that consideration of students' prior knowledge was an important aspect of effective literacy instruction. Along with the importance of student interest and cooperative learning, she noted that instruction should start with the familiar and make connections to new material. Sarah stated that maybe students "already know some stuff about the subject and if they think about that first then they can more easily connect what you're going to teach them 93 than if you just throw these facts at them and say, ‘Okay, here you go.'” Sarah's post-term conception of connecting instruction to prior knowledge is especially apparent in her discussion of literacy instruction for diverse learners. She noted that a culturally diverse student "doesn't relate to the things ... that he has [no] prior knowledge about, and so I should probably use something more culture specific and get him involved." Sarah also stated that connecting to a diverse learner's prior knowledge would promote an interest in reading: "Culture specific materials are important. They'll be interested in it ... and then they would like reading." In reference to writing letters to the mayor, Sarah again stated that she would not edit students' regional dialects. However, she no longer discussed students' use of non—school literacies as legitimate expressions of communication. Rather, Sarah expected that the students would do their best to incorporate "correct" English in their writing and so would accept their efforts: It's not that I don't think that correct grammar is important, it's still important but I think that it will develop ... my first graders, if they wanted to write in their dialects I would let them. And I suppose I would let my fifth graders too ... they would probably know to write it correctly or as correct as they know how, so I would assume that they would do the best they could. 94 Sarah did not discuss how she supposed the students would acquire this knowledge of standard English. ngmaxy Figure 6 depicts the change between Sarah’s pre-term and post-term responses to the CLIQ items. The major shift in her conceptions of literacy instruction was in regards to the role of prior knowledge. During the post-term interview Sarah discussed the importance of relating literacy instruction to students' prior knowledge for purposes of stimulating their interest and to help them make sense of new information. She added these ideas to ones she had discussed during the pre-term interview, continuing to emphasize the importance of cooperative learning and of promoting students' interest in literature. She did not change or abandon her pre—term conceptions, but instead developed them further. .m Sarah's conceptions of literacy instruction were reflected in her discussions of literacy for diverse learners. In general, she restated the same ideas in a multicultural context. She continued to place importance on promoting interest in reading through children's literature, and on the benefits of children working together and learning from each other. During the post-term interview, Sarah also included mention of the importance of making connections with the students' culturally—based prior knowledge. The major difference between Sarah's pre-term and post- term interviews was in the area of non-school literacies. During the pre-term interview she struggled with the conflict 95 Socid Constructivist ‘ Top Down I interactive : Boiiom Up a I 1 I I T 1 I I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ITEMS + Pre-Term + Post-Term Figure 6. Comparison of Sarah's CLIQ Responses 96 between valuing students' regional dialects and wanting them to succeed in mainstream society. Sarah implied that while she understood the merit of their personal forms of expression, society in general did not. During the post—term interview, however, Sarah did not discuss the value of non- standard ways of speaking and writing. Instead, she expressed assurance that students would aspire to "correct" English and implied that it would not be reasonable to demand more than they were capable of producing. Her decision to not edit students' writing remained the same, but her rationale had changed. Sarah's participation in the classroom and at the alternative site illustrated the relationship between her theoretical concepts of literacy instruction and her practical decisions. 0 ‘_ 09 01" .0. D0. _-. z o ‘797‘ -._ 09- 200. ‘o. 9,n- : . :1 1.! I I I. 9 L! 2 J 3 . E . K J: 32 a. l. The children sat quietly on the carpet in the front corner of their first grade classroom. The teacher, Miss Chambers, indicated the basal reader she held in her lap. "Today we're going to read a new story, called ‘Secrets.’ What do you know about secrets?" She nodded at a boy seated near her. "They're,private." "YOu shouldn't tell secrets, mean things about people," another student added. "It makes them feel bad." .Miss Chambers tilted her head to the side and looked inquiringly at the children seated around her. "What is your voice like when you tell a secret? Jenny?" ”Ybu whisper." "If someone whispers to you, how does your ear feel?" Miss Chambers looked over the children. "JOey?" “It tickles." "If someone else hears, is it a secret?" 97 TNo," several voices chimed. .Miss Chambers picked up the reader and showed the students that it was opened to "Secrets." "I'll read the first page, and then you can tell me what kind of secret you think it will be." After.Miss Chambers read the first page, they discussed the type of secret the mother might tell her little boy, and [predicted what might happen to the secret. Miss Chambers next [presented key vocabulary} and then directed the students to read the rest of the story to themselves. The children picked up their books from their desks and settled into comfortable spots around the room. During the post-term interview Sarah had discussed the importance of relating instruction to students' prior knowledge. Her interpretation of this reading lesson reflected this emphasis, plus the use of prediction strategies: I like it that she has them.make predictions. I think that shows that they're thinking about what's happening. And I like how she tries to relate it to their prior knowledge. 'Cause if she didn't do that, then they wouldn't be able to really critically think about it, I don't think. Sarah assessed this instruction as effective when the students later responded accurately to questions the teacher had written on the board. Sarah interpreted the students' responses as evidence that they not only understood the events of the story, but that they had also acquired knowledge of the reading process. Sarah stated that the students had learned that readers get meaning from text: [The teacher] wrote questions on the board like, "What was the secret? How did it change? How did [the mother] react to the changed secret?" . . . They know what 98 happened, in the end, so I think they did [get the meaning of the story], especially by the questions that she wrote on the board ... it's more comprehension based. . . . They learn that they can get meaning from reading, I think. Sarah's discussion of this reading lesson focused on her interpretation of what she had observed. She did not refer to other conceptions of literacy instruction which she had discussed during the pre-term and post-term interviews, such as promoting interest in reading through use of children's literature and cooperative group work, or acquiring various perspectives through working with others. These did not -appear relevant to this lesson, and Sarah did not speculate on what might be done differently. I 'l' Sarah sat at a small round table in the back of the first grade classroom. The four students seated around her looked at the book she held up, ,Smimmy by Leo Leoni. "I'm going to read a story to you," Sarah explained, ”And then we'll talk about it, before you start writing." The children listened attentively, enjoying the story of the small fish who saves his friends from being eaten by'a large fish. After reading the story, Sarah placed the book on the table and passed out think sheets. {NOW we're going to talk about organizing and planning a story." Sarah directed the students' attention to the first question. ”‘Who am I writing for?’ Who did Leo write for? .Adults?" Courtney shook her head and said, "Kids." "Right," Sarah agreed. They discussed the other think sheet questions, which referred to the topic of the story; why the author wrote it; what knowledge the author had; and .how the author put his ideas together. "So Leo organized his ideas to write this story. You can use this sheet to organize your ideas," Sarah explained. 99 "Before you write, if you plan first, it's easier to write later. What will you write about?" Annemarie wanted to write about her cat, and Courtney decided to write about a singing bird. Matt finally selected his dog as his topic, but.Andy remained undecided. "YOu know,.Andyy maybe Courtney can help you get an idea," Sarah suggested. "Courtney, why don't you help Andy think of a topic. And Annemarie and.Matt, why don't you two be partners and tell each other what you're going to write about." . The students paired up, and discussed their writing ideas. During the pre-term and post—term interviews Sarah had discussed the value of children's literature as a source of motivation. She seemed to start this lesson with this concept in mind, using Smimmy to engage the students' interest. During the post-term interview she had also discussed the role of prior knowledge, and her next step in the lesson was to demonstrate the relationship between the story and their own writing. Sarah was aware that the students were already familiar with story grammar even before discussing Smimmy, stating that they "had been learning about the parts of a story." Sarah's objective for this lesson was to instruct students in how to plan and organize their writing. She used the children's story and think sheet questions as a framework, with the idea that the students would base their current writing on this outline. Sarah also anticipated that the students would look back and use this framework as a model for future writing: And we worked on our process writing, planning and organizing. . . . I tried to make up [a think sheet] that would cater to them, not like a worksheet, but 100 something that they could [use to] think about their writing and plan out how they would want to write. I wanted them to have a copy of it in their writing folder, 'cause then they could look back at it if they were going to do another one. After the lesson, however, Sarah expressed doubt that the students had learned what she had hoped they would. She stated that they did not make the connection between their writing and a published author's writing, or realize that they could model their work after that of an author's. Sarah based this assessment on Annemarie's reaction to her suggestion that her cat was a character in her story: I said, "Well, wouldn't your cat be a character?" And she's like, "No, it's just my cat." I thought that was funny. . . . And so I don't think they really connect the two, that [published] authors' writing ... and [their writing] are the same. During the pre-term and post-term interviews Sarah had also discussed the importance of students working together to acquire various ideas and perspectives. In this lesson she paired the students and directed them to help each other think about their writing. WWW Sarah turned on the overhead projector, which displayed .a (place value" mat with tens and ones sections. The .students had similar mats in front of them on their desks, along'wdth popsicle sticks and small blue squares of construction paper. Each stick had ten squares glued onto 101 it, representing the number ten; each loose square represented the number one. "we're going to work on place value, on tens and ones," Sarah told the students. She placed two sticks on the tens side of the mat on the projector, and three loose squares on the ones side. "What's this? Marina?" "Twenty-three." "What if I had seven more ones?" Sarah asked as she ,placed seven more squares with the three already there. "Then what do we have? What do we have to do?" "Trade them." "Right. Who wants to come up and trade them?" Sarah called on one of the students to remove the ten ones and add a popsicle stick to the tens side. She repeated the procedure a few times, and then started to call on students to write the appropriate numbers on the overhead. Those at their desks represented the numbers on their mats, using popsicle sticks and blue squares. After several examples, Sarah reminded the students of a place value game they'had‘played.previously. "Do you remember the trading game? Where you and a partner trade ten ones fbr one ten?" The students nodded. "Okay, let's play that now, with the popsicle sticks." Sarah helped the students pair up, and soon everyone was manipulating sticks and squares as they played the trading game. During the post-term interview Sarah had discussed the importance of connecting new knowledge to what students already know. This was reflected in her instruction when she began the lesson by activating the students' prior knowledge of place value. During the pre-term and post-term interviews Sarah had also stated that students enjoyed learning from each other: she paired students to work together on the game. Sarah perceived that through this lesson the students had learned the connection between the place value manipulatives and the written numbers: [The teacher] did something similar but she just used the blocks and she didn't write in the numbers, so I wanted them to see the correlation between the numbers 102 and the blocks and how they were the same thing. . . . I think [they understood that], 'cause when I asked them the questions, they knew them. However, Sarah was unsure if this was a good lesson. She noted that the only literacy related activities were the interactions between partners as they played the game, and when the students later read worksheet directions. This lack of reading and writing bothered Sarah. She would have liked to include a math journal, in which the students could explain their thinking or ask questions: They didn't write any words or read anything really. If I were the teacher, I would have them do math journals everyday ... explaining how they did a problem, or how they felt about doing it, if they felt they understood it or they didn't, or if they still had any questions that they didn't want to ask in front of the class, they could do it in the math journal. So in my ideal classroom, that's what I would do, and that would incorporate literacy into math. Sarah's statements regarding the use of writing to develop mathematical thinking were not reflected in her pre- term or post-term interviews. However, she appeared to have strong beliefs about integrating literacy with this subject Imatter. Sarah stated that she did not do so because she felt constrained by the classroom teacher: But, with that lesson I didn't do it. For one reason, I always feel strapped for time in that class. I probably 103 would be in any class, but it would be my class and that's how it would be run, but with Miss Chambers over me, I feel like I should do what she wants me to do. And that's how I feel with the writing group, too, as if, let's hurry up and get this over with, there's other things to be done, you know? Sarah's perception of the culture of this classroom and her awareness of the teacher's position of authority restricted her planning and implementation of lessons. However, she envisioned the instruction she would provide someday in her own classroom. h w ' ' ' i The children in.Miss Chambers' first grade classroom looked up at Sarah from their places on the carpet. She sat in front of them on a chair, next to a stand of chart paper. "Today we're going to learn about shadows," Sarah told them. "Let's brainstorm about shadows. What do you know about shadows?" "When it's sunny, they show," a boy seated near her offered. Sarah wrote this on the chart paper, and then turned back to the class. "Something else? Amanda?" "When it's cloudy, they don't show." "You're right," Sarah remarked as she also recorded this statement. After several other students also contributed their ideas about shadows, Sarah sat back and surveyed the list. ”What a good list!" Sarah commented. "Right now, I'm going to read a story for fun. Later, I'll read you an informational story." The students listened attentively as Sarah read about .Mr. Wink and his shadow.Ned. At the end of the story, they discussed where.Ned went when it rained. Sarah then picked up the informational book, and they further discussed the facts found in there. The students appeared confused as to what really happened to shadows at noon, and Miss Chambers interrupted Sarah's lesson with an attempt to clarify this .point. 104 EN w you're going to make your opp shadows," Sarah told the students at the lesson's conclusion. She plugged in the slide projector and turned off the classroom lights. During the pre-term and post-term interviews Sarah had discussed the importance of promoting an interest in reading through children's literature. Her use of both a fictional narrative and an informational book reflected this concept of literacy instruction. During the post-term interview Sarah had also discussed the importance of beginning instruction with what students already know, and she began this lesson by activating the students' prior knowledge of shadows. Sarah wanted the students to learn how shadows are formed, and stated that she believed most of the students had learned this: I wanted them to learn how shadows are formed, and that's about it. . . . When I got their prior knowledge down first, they really knew a lot. . . . I think that they did learn that ... light doesn't go through you and where your shadow is, is where you block out the light. During the pre-term and post-term interviews Sarah had discussed the benefits of students working together. After reflecting on the classroom teacher's interruption of this lesson on shadows, Sarah extended this concept to her relationship with the classroom teacher. She stated that ‘working together with the teacher benefited not only the students, but also herself: 105 I always feel so nervous when I'm up there, I forget things and stuff like that. . . . I wanted the kids to understand, that when the sun's out, there is a shadow ... and that's what I tried to explain. I don't think it came out too good. . . . Afterwards, I thought, it's not a big deal that she jumped in because I want the kids to get the most out of it that they can, and if she can explain it better than me, then that's good. They'll learn from her, from both of us. And also, when she jumps in, I can see where I have problems and see what she does so that I can do it. Sarah concluded the lesson with an activity in which the students used the light form a slide projector to form shadows on the wall. In this way, the students were able to physically experiment with shadows and test their newly acquired knowledge. The information from the books became immediately real for them. Summary Sarah's participation in a first grade classroom reflected several aspects of her pre-term and post— term conceptions of literacy instruction. Her participation also illustrated a complexity and depth which were not revealed during those interviews. Sarah not only used children's literature to promote interest in literacy but also to instruct across subject matter areas, as during her lesson on shadows. She not only paired students so they would enjoy learning and acquire various perspectives but also applied this conception to herself and the classroom 106 teacher. Reflecting her post-term conceptions, every lesson began with activating the students' prior knowledge--not through teacher directed reminders, but by soliciting and building on students' ideas. Sarah's instruction continued to focus on the students, as when she based her assessment of lesson effectiveness on student responses. Sarah's initial interpretations of classroom literacy instruction focused on the classroom teacher's actions. When she began planning and implementing her own lessons, however, Sarah seemed to search for ways to improve the teacher's instruction e.g. adding the writing element to the lesson using math manipulatives. She further envisioned instruction which she perceived the classroom teacher as finding unacceptable, and so planned to implement someday in her own classroom. Sarah's discussions during the pre-term and post—term interviews of literacy instruction for diverse learners were not fully actualized in the classroom. Her instruction did not contradict these conceptions, which were primarily an extension of her conceptions of literacy instruction for all students. However, she did not appear to have the opportunity to explicitly adapt these conceptions for culturally diverse students. 107 ' ° i r h In e ret Teachin and Le rnin Daring Litetaty Instrpgtion in a Non-School Setting? a e- is E l'sh "Lemonade" Stands As Sarah inserted the "Lemonade" disk into the computer, she noticed that this game had both Spanish and English versions. She had already been speaking some Spanish with Paulo, the ten year old boy with whom she was working, and knew that this was his first language and the one he spoke at home. . "Should we play this game in Spanish?" ”Okay," Paulo agreed. "Let's read the directions, because I haven't played this before. Do you know how to play?" Paulo shook his head, so they read the directions together in Spanish. Sarah asked for clarification on some of the terms, and for occasional help when it was her turn to read. Paulo cooperated, but sometimes pressed the "Enter" key to skip ahead. He appeared somewhat impatient and eager to start playing. 7 As Paulo started to play; however, it quickly became apparent that neither he nor Sarah fully understood the rules of the game. They worked together, Paulo helping Sarah with the Spanish vocabulary and Sarah instructing Paulo on the mathematics involved in running the lemonade stand. Still, Sarah did not understand enough of the Spanish which flashed so quickly across the screen to effectively help Paulo with the game. Finally, she turned to him with a suggestion. "Do you want to try this in English?" Paulo sat back in his chair and nodded thankfully; Sarah selected the English version of "Lemonade," and they again started reading through the directions together. This time when Paulo attempted to skip ahead, Sarah stopped him and insisted that they read every line. Sarah's suggestion to Paulo that they play "Lemonade" in his native language of Spanish reflected her discussion during the pre-term interview regarding the value of students' non—school literacies. It also reflected her statements during the post-term interview of starting instruction with what students already know, in this case the language. However, Sarah found it difficult to help Paulo while playing the Spanish version of this game: 108 I was trying to slow him down and have him read it, but the Spanish, I wasn't so sure. I knew most of it, and I could get the gist of it, but I didn't know exactly what it was saying, so I would try to ask him. When they switched to the English version, Sarah was able to provide more guidance. She was also more insistent about reading the messages on the computer screen: But then when we switched to English, I could understand it, and even though he wanted to push the buttons real fast, I could still catch a glimpse of it. What we did is, I said, "Okay," I said, "We have to read this. You read one line and I‘ll read the next." And that worked pretty well. During the Spanish version of the game Sarah was compelled by her inadequate knowledge of the language to be a cooperative partner with Paulo. She appeared comfortable in this role, reflecting her pre—term and post—term interview discussions that working together is enjoyable and academically beneficial. During the English version Sarah also worked together with Paulo by taking turns reading aloud. It seems that although her own understanding of the printed screen gave her the confidence to provide more direction for Paulo, she still chose to remain partners with him at some level. " ' he s" Sarah watched as two girls, both about 11 years old, played "Mario Brothers" on the computer. Pam, born in Laos, 109 shouted encouragement as Sylvia, from Mexico, manipulated "Luigi" on the screen. "Get the money!" Pam shouted exuberantly; She jumped up and pointed to the dollar sign which had appeared above Luigi. "The money! Go up! Jump! Jump!" The money sign disappeared before Sylvia could get it, and Pam sank back in her chair with a sigh. Sarah, seated next to her, indicated a piece of paper in from of them. On it, Pam had started a letter to the wizard as a follow-up activity for a computer game she had played previously. "Let's finish this letter," Sarah suggested. "Okay. But I don't want to write." "You tell me what you want to say, and I'll write it down," Sarah offered. "Okay." Pam started dictating what had happened in the previous game, but kept one eye on Sylvia's progress with Luigi. Soon the screen changed, and Pam shifted her entire attention to the computer. "Oh look! It's.my turn," she said as she happily started moving "Mario" through the maze. Sarah watched, and supported her with encouraging comments. Much of Sarah's discussion of this activity appeared unrelated to her statements during the pre-term and post—term interviews, probably because "Mario Brothers" is an arcade type of game not directly related to literacy development. However, Sarah did not seem to think that the girls were wasting time by playing it. Rather, Sarah recognized their achievement of advancing to higher levels of play and their corresponding sense of accomplishment. Sarah also noted that the two girls worked well together and enjoyed the game, both aspects of instruction which she had mentioned as important during the pre-term and post-term interviews: They advanced to levels that they hadn't gone to before, and when they got to that level, they were all excited. . . . They had a really good time, and that was good. I'm glad that they were there and having fun, in a safe environment, but I don't know what they got out of it. 110 They worked [well] together, I think that they got a sense of accomplishment because they got the high score, and that was really neat for them. Sarah extended the concept of cooperative learning to herself and Pam: "Pam didn't want to do hers, she didn't want to [write], but she told me what I should write down." But even with Sarah's cooperation and prompting Pam was more interested in the computer game, and Sarah allowed Pam's interests to take precedence. The potential for literacy development present in the writing activity did not materialize. r ' "Gu Wh " t ' ' ? Sarah sat at a table with Pam and Sylvia, watching as they played the board game "Guess Who?". They were towards the end of their third game, and Pam studied the faces on the few cards which were still propped up in the rack facing her. Sylvia, too, had a rack of cards in front her. Each had started out with identical faces, and had selected a card which the other had to identify through a series of questions. It was Pam's turn. ”Does your person have a big nose?" Pam questioned. "Yes." Pam considered this clue, and moved to put down a card which depicted a person with a big nose. Eventually, the card that was left after several questions would be the one Sylvia had designated. Sarah, however, stopped Pam. “No, he has a big nose, leave him up. Put down those." Sarah pointed to the characters with small noses, and Pam flipped them down. Only one card remained standing. FNOwaou know who it is!" Sarah prompted her. "Is it Peter?" Pam asked Sylvia, reading the name on the remaining card. "Yes." "I won. Let's play again!" "Don't you guys want to play a computer game now?" Sarah asked encouragingly. "You can't work your way towards being a wizard's assistant with ‘Guess Who?'." Pam and Sylvia exchanged glances. 'Wéll...Let's just play one more time, okay?" Pam beseeched. "Okay," Sarah agreed. 111 The two girls played the board game two more times, and then moved to the other side of the room to play a computer game. During the pre-term and post-term interviews Sarah had discussed the instructional importance of considering diverse students' different backgrounds and prior knowledge. Reflecting this concept, she considered whether Pam's and Sylvia's native non-English languages had impacted on their participation in this game. She noticed that the two girls had difficulty eliminating the correct cards when a question was answered with "Yes," often putting down the faces with the given characteristic instead of those without it. Sarah referred to this as "double negatives": In Spanish you do use the double negative ... but if you use a double negative in English, it means positive, and so I wondered if that [might] have a bearing on why they were getting mixed up, but, I don't know. Sarah's interactions with the two girls as they played "Guess Who?" also reflected an awareness of the culture of LCM. She was concerned that Pam and Sylvia had opted to spend time on a board game when LCM was designed around computers; at the same time, LCM also encouraged participants to make their own decisions. Consequently, Sarah prodded the girls towards a computer game but was willing to negotiate with them: They wanted to play "Guess Who?" the whole day again. I said, ”Well, don't you guys want to play a [computer] game because this game, it's fun, but you can't work 112 your way towards being a wizard’s assistant. You have to play the computer games." Instead of explicitly directing the girls towards the computers, Sarah explained the situation and allowed them to continue playing "Guess Who?" a little longer. Data Cytle Four; Reading for "Faces" Sarah watched as Adam, an eleven year old boy from Mexico, played "Faces" on the computer. First he had constructed faces on the screen by selecting from the various facial features offered by the computer. .Now the last face he had made was animated, programmed by the computer to exhibit a series of facial movements. Adam had to remember the movements, and record them on the computer. "Let's read the directions," Sarah suggested. But instead of reading the explanation on the screen, Adam started playing immediately; Since he didn't know how to record the smile which he saw, the computer scored his response as incorrect. "Let's read the directions," Sarah said again. This time, Adam complied. He had difficulty with the words, however, so Sarah not only helped him but also took turns reading. "Okay, so ‘w' is for ‘wink,’ ‘t' is for when he sticks out his tongue, ‘c' is for ‘cry,’ ‘5' is for ‘smile,’ and ‘f' is for when he frowns," Sarah summarized, pointing to each word. Adam pressed "Enter" to start a new game. When the face on the screen frowned, Adam pressed "f." "That's right!" Sarah encouraged. They continued to play for awhile, and then Adam selected another computer game. During the pre-term and post—term interviews Sarah had discussed the importance of students' enjoyment of instruction, which she perceived as promoting motivation and consequently learning. This conception was the basis for her assessment of this interaction as successful: Adam told Sarah that he was looking forward to returning to LCM. He had been to LCM once or twice before, but even though his brother attended regularly Adam had not returned until this 113 day. Sarah expressed satisfaction that Adam was now excited about LCM, and felt this reflected on herself: He sounded really excited to come back next Thursday so that I could work with him again, so that was good, 'cause I didn't know if I was really reaching him or not. . . . I guess I did the right thing, whatever I did, because he was really excited to come back next week. Sarah also discussed how Adam had learned the importance of reading directions, even though she did not refer to situated, meaningful activities during the pre-term or post- term interviews. She had allowed him to play "Faces" without first insisting that he read the directions, referring him back to the directions when he did not understand how to play the game. Consequently Adam experienced for himself their usefulness: I think he learned, I hope he learned about directions, because he tried to do the animated thing without the directions and it was difficult, and then we read the instructions and it was a little bit clearer. Sarah had alternated reading lines of the directions with Adam so the task would not overwhelm him and he would be able to focus on the meaning. Summary Sarah's participation in La Clase Magica, an alternative educational site, reflected several of her pre— term and post-term conceptions of literacy instruction. She demonstrated an appreciation for a student's non-school 114 literacy and prior knowledge when she suggested they play "Lemonade" in his native language of Spanish. Another indication of Sarah's awareness of issues related to linguistic diversity was her consideration of how language differences might influence understanding of a board game. Sarah's instruction also reflected her conceptions regarding the importance of students' enjoyment, such as her feelings of success when Adam told her that he wanted to come back and work with her again, and her appreciation of the girls' enjoyment and sense of accomplishment when they played "Mario Brothers." Sarah appeared aware that the LCM culture emphasized computer games, and urged Pam and Sylvia in that direction. However, the structure of LCM also encouraged student decision making and cooperative learning. Sarah did not explicitly discuss this aspect of LCM, but her interactions with the students reflected these perspectives. For example, she allowed Pam.and Sylvia to play a few more rounds of the board game, did not insist that Adam read the directions before trying to play "Faces," and consented to Pam abandoning the writing activity in favor of "Mario Brothers." All of Sarah's interactions with the students indicated an 'awareness of and responsiveness to their interests and learning strategies. During the pre-term and post-term interviews Sarah had also discussed the benefits of cooperative learning. Her role of guide rather than authority placed her in the 115 position of being a kind of partner to the students with whom she worked. For example, she took turns reading directions when playing "Lemonade” and "Faces," and helped Paulo with math while he helped her with Spanish. Sarah also commented on how well Pam and Sylvia worked together. Sarah did not discuss situating literacy instruction in meaningful activities during the pre-term or post—term interviews. However, her reference to the importance of Adam learning the purpose of reading directions implied that Sarah valued this aspect of instruction. 0. . ‘00 ‘9 1 1-...01 2!! ‘o e \09- 00 .‘ .909 MW Sarah perceived the culture of the classroom and the culture of LCM as very different, stating that it was "real hard to find similarities" between the two settings. She often referred to the classroom atmosphere as "formal" and LCM as "relaxed": Again, like we've been saying, school's so much more formal. . . . [Miss Chambers] wants everything just so. You do this and then you do this and then you do this, and that's how you do it, no other way. . . . She likes it to be the way she wants it to be, whereas at LCM, they can just do whatever they want, basically. I mean, as long as they're not hurting anyone else. . . . LCM is so much more relaxed. ti“. St st pe ET. 136: "e 116 Sarah noted that learning occurred in both settings, but that the classroom agenda was set by the teacher while students had more control over the LCM activities. Along with the games, she perceived this as contributing to the students viewing LCM as a place for fun, while the classroom remained strictly a place to learn. The student enjoyment which Sarah perceived at LCM reflected her discussions during the pres term and post-term interviews regarding the importance of enjoyment and interest in promoting student motivation: I [LCM is] supposed to be a learning environment, but I don't think the kids think of it as a learning environment, they think of it as fun stuff to do. It doesn't mean they're not learning, but, like school, you're there to learn, you know? That's what they have to do. . . . In the classroom, it's the teacher's classroom, and that's the way it should be, but at LCM it's everybody's classroom, and they can, we can do it however we want to do it. Sarah preferred the culture of LCM over that of the classroom for several reasons. She was able to become personally acquainted with the children at LCM and have fun with them; she also had the opportunity to speak Spanish with them, as when she played "Lemonade" with Paulo. Sarah stated that this enabled her to learn about social issues in a way not possible in the classroom, reflecting her statements during the pre-term and post-term interviews regarding the importance of understanding diverse learners: 117 I like LCM better. I like going there, 'cause I always have fun with them. And I like the chance to interact in Spanish, too. . . . Sometimes I think I learn more than they do [at LCM], not so much about literacy but social stuff. Social skills and society, I learn about there. I mean, not that I don't learn about it in the school, but at school it's so much more formal, you don't get a chance to get to know your kids like you can at LCM. Sarah envisioned her own future classroom as being "a little bit noisy," more like LCM than her field placement classroom. She stated that "a more open, interactive atmosphere would be more conducive to learning" because "different people do things differently," and this type of environment would provide the opportunity for students to learn in their own ways. Sarah attempted to implement some of these ideas in her field placement classroom. WW During the Dre-term and post-term interviews Sarah had discussed the importance of students working together for purposes of providing motivation and new perspectives. This conception was evident both in the classroom and at LCM, both for students and for herself. She appreciated the students working together at LCM, and paired or grouped students whenever possible in the classroom. For example, Sarah stated she was pleased that her instruction of the small writing group was similar to 118 LCM's more relaxed atmosphere, even though she sensed the classroom teacher's disapproval: My kids were just talking and having a good time and I like it. . . . They were just telling stories, and talking about different ideas and stuff, and I liked that, but I got the sense, from the teacher, "Oh boy, we're being a little bit too noisy." During the pre-term and post—term interviews Sarah had also discussed the importance of student enjoyment. She brought game playing into the classroom in the form of the place value "trading game," comparing this to the games at LCM and stating that it was more "organized." However, Sarah noted that these students usually did not play any games at all in the classroom: I've never seen the first graders play games. They played the "trading game" with me, but ... I don't even think they have any games in the classroom. I never noticed any. That's weird. Another aspect of LCM which Sarah attempted to reconstruct to some degree in the classroom was the atmosphere of freedom and experimentation. She discussed the similarity between Adam constructing faces on the computer and the students forming shadows on the wall. She stated that both ”had to use their imagination and creative thinking,” and wondered if this "would be considered literacy." 119 In both settings Sarah continued to focus on the students' ideas rather than on her own. For example, in the classroom she listened to and built on students' thoughts during instruction; at LCM she respected students' decisions even when she would have hoped for different ones. The Case of Jackie Jackie was a junior in the alternative teacher education program when I first approached her about participating in this study. She expressed an interest in discussing her ideas of literacy instruction and her field experiences with me, and was open and talkative during our subsequent interviews. Jackie may have become accustomed to educational discussions through sharing ideas with her mother, an elementary school teacher. She often referred to her mother's views and experiences during our interviews. Jackie was assigned to a second grade classroom in an elementary school located within a middle class community. This school provides extensive services for special needs children, including over fifty special education therapists and aides in addition to over thirty regular faculty. At the time of Jackie's placement, the almost six hundred students enrolled in pre-school through fifth grades were approximately sixty percent white; twenty—five percent African-American; ten percent Latino; three percent Asian; and two percent American Indian. Jackie's second grade classroom was part of what had been designed as an open classroom, in the middle of three 120 distinct areas divided by book shelves. Although these three classroom teachers met weekly to discuss instruction, they were each responsible for their own planning and did not team teach. Jackie expressed discomfort with this room arrangement and worried that her students might disturb the two neighboring second grade classes if they became too enthusiastic. o. ..‘5. ‘0 ’ -_ .0 ‘9 .Q. 0 . ‘_v. , -. .0 Fifty percent of Jackie's pre-term responses to the CLIQ and the subsequent interview questions reflected an information processing perspective of literacy learning, specifically the interactive theory. Fifty percent of her pre—term responses reflected a socio-cognitive perspective, predominately the social constructivist theory (Figure 7). Fifty percent of Jackie's post-term responses continued to reflect an information processing perspective of literacy learning, still specifically the interactive theory. Fifty percent of her post-term responses reflected a socio- cognitive perspective, predominately the top-down theory (Figure 8). The literacy perspectives and theories reflected in Jackie’s responses to the CLIQ served as a starting point in constructing her conceptions of literacy instruction. Her discussion of the CLIQ items during the pre-term and post- term interviews explained her thinking about the depicted literacy situations, portraying the reasoning behind her selections. These discussions, which were sometimes not ormation Processing Number Interactive Constructivist #1 #2 # #4 #5 #7 Figure 7. Jackie's Pre-Term CLIQ Responses 122 Processing Socio—Cognitive Number Interactive Constructivist # I # #4 #5 #7 figure 8. Jackie's Post-Term CLIQ Responses 123 congruent with the theories reflected in her responses, were the basis for constructing the following pre—term and post- term portraits. £re;Ierm_§gnteptiona Prior to her field experiences in the classroom and alternative site, Jackie's discussions of literacy instruction centered around fostering a community of learners. She expressed the idea that students should consider each other, as well as the teacher and textbooks, as resources: I really want my students to understand that the classroom's a community and they don't have to have a line by me, that I'm the only one that can help them if they don't understand something. I really, really want them to understand that they're all working together, and that they're all resources and that they all know and can all help somebody with something. Within this classroom community, Jackie stated that students should work together on purposeful, authentic literacy activities. She envisioned lessons as starting with students' prior knowledge, thus making instruction "more meaningful because they can relate it to their home or past experience. . . . It gives them something to tie into, and they can make analogies." Jackie also expressed the belief that specific skills should be taught within the context of literature and genuine communication, thus circumventing the difficulties of transferring skills learned in isolation to real life applications: 124 I think there's a way to teach skills, not just one at a time, not in isolation. If [a student is] involved, and he's interacting with the text, he'll be able to pick up these skills. . . . They can see the purpose, if they're learning something that's purposeful and genuine exchanges of information, ideas that are their own, or that they're their classmates. . . . Kids who do isolated skills just get the pattern down and they don't really learn it, and they don't apply it, they can't transfer it back into just reading on their own. Jackie's emphasis on interactions around authentic activities was also evident in her discussions of literacy instruction for diverse learners. She stated that she would again focus on "meaningful, purposeful, genuine interaction." Jackie also again referred to the importance of relating to a student's prior knowledge, stating that if a culturally diverse student was having difficulty reading that "maybe he's not relating to the concepts or whatever, and like a particular story, I would change that." Jackie's emphasis on authentic activities was also central to her response to the CLIQ item which referred to students' use of non-school literacies in a school setting. She stated that audience should determine the type of language which is used, and that while students' personal and community literacies were legitimate in their own contexts a letter to the mayor called for the use of standard English: 125 I just think that audience is key. . . . They would need to use correct English in this context. . . . And then if it's your friends, or you're writing a poem, I mean poems are so personal, and stories are so personal that they can write however they feel comfortable. Boat;1arm_ggugeptigu§ Following her field experiences in the classroom and alternative site, Jackie's conceptions of literacy instruction no longer emphasized students working together and learning from each other. In fact, the only mention she made of cooperative learning was in regards to her own literacy learning in education courses, stating that as a result of discussions with classmates "you're able to see different views that you might not have come up with that help shape your opinion." For children's literacy learning, however, Jackie emphasized using children's literature to promote an interest in reading. She stated that a student who is having difficulties with reading might easily develop a negative attitude, "so if you can motivate him so that he likes to read, and find stuff that interests him, then I think that's the first step in helping him improve his reading strategy.” Jackie stated that instruction which focused on children's literature would "make it interesting and successful for them, and start a foundation for the literacy program." Jackie continued to discuss the importance of relating new material to students' prior knowledge, stating that "every time you learn something new it always relates to 126 something you've learned before. . . . It's just a fundamental part of learning that you have to start with something familiar, you have to make connections to it otherwise they're just going to be lost." Jackie related this concept to literacy instruction for diverse learners, stating that a culturally diverse child who was having difficulty reading was "not able to connect it to something familiar. . ... So first thing would be my instruction is off and the activities are off.“ Jackie also returned to her new emphasis on motivating students through interesting literature, stating that she wanted diverse learners "to enjoy literature, [I] want them to be interested in what they're doing, the foundation for motivating them to even go through it." Jackie continued to stress the importance of audience when discussing the CLIQ item which referred to students' use of non-school literacies in a school setting. However, she now appeared less sure of her decision to edit students' writing. Jackie expressed her respect for students' decisions and rights as authors, and hesitated to change or tell students to change what they had written. She stated that she would teach them about the importance of audience, and seemed to hope the students would choose to edit their writing on their own: I don't know if I would actually edit. . . . I keep thinking editing and revising is up to them, now I'm more into authorship, it's their choice. If that's how 127 they want to express themselves, then that's the way they should be heard. . . . Maybe if I saw them writing that way I would mail them as they are and then think oh, I need to do some lessons on audience, let them know that there are different audiences out there and they need to write differently to express themselves to different people. Summary Figure 9 depicts the change between Jackie’s pre-term and post-term responses to the CLIQ items. The major shift in her conceptions of literacy instruction was from a pre-term emphasis on developing a community of learners engaged in purposeful, authentic activities to a post-term emphasis on using children's literature to motivate students to read. During both the pre-term and post—term interviews Jackie continued to stress the importance of relating new material to students' prior knowledge. Jackie's conceptions of literacy instruction were reflected in her discussions of literacy for diverse learners. During the pre-term interview she emphasized instruction which focused on students interacting around purposeful activities, with connections to students' culturally—based prior knowledge. During the post-term interview Jackie continued to stress the importance of relating to diverse students' prior knowledge, but changed her focus from authentic interactions to providing literature which students would find interesting. As in Jackie's more 128 Social Constructivist Top Down ‘ hieraciive . I + Boiiom Up ITEMS + Pre-Term + Post-Term figure 9. Comparison of Jackie's CLIQ Responses 129 general discussions of literacy instruction, she continued to value the role of prior knowledge in both contexts. Jackie's discussions of the CLIQ item which referred to students' use of regional dialects reflected an emphasis on the role of audience. She stated during the pre-term interview that letters to the mayor should be edited because in this context "correct" English was appropriate. During the post-term interview Jackie hesitated to edit students' writing, even though she still focused on the critical role of audience. Instead, Jackie stated that if students did not use standard English she would teach them about the importance of audience and hope that they would edit their writing on their own. She appeared to assume that use of regional dialects was a choice, and that these students would not require instruction in standard English. Jackie's participation in the classroom and at the alternative site illustrated the relationship between her theoretical concepts of literacy instruction and her practical decisions. 0.“. 09 09‘ ,0. '0. -, .,‘ o ‘ .0 ‘ ‘o. {90 210. ‘-.Q_ 0 E . :1 I'! I I I. 9 Data Cyele One; "Time Killere" and Behayier Problems Jackie watched as Melissa, a student teacher from another university, taught the second grade classroom to which she had been assigned. Mrs. Phillips, the cooperating teacher, was away at a meeting, and the students were restless. "Shush!".Melissa angrily reprimanded students who were talking. They were momentarily silent, but continued their conversation when.Melissa crossed the room to discipline another noisy student. 130 "You should be working on dictionary skills," Melissa told Mark. She pointed to the ten states listed on the board; the students were supposed to look up the capital cities. .Mark shrugged, and Melissa, incensed, dragged his desk away from the others. "Shush!" she irately told two other students who were talking. "It’s time for the spelling test." As the students pulled out their spelling test papers, .Melissa started the test. She repeated the words twice each, and used them in sentences. The students continued to talk with each other as they wrote down the words Melissa dictated, occasionally asking her to repeat a word. During the pre—term interview Jackie had characterized effective literacy instruction as being taught within the context of purposeful, authentic activities. In discussing this observed situation, she commented that the lack of such meaningfulness was the root of the student teacher's problems with classroom management. Jackie perceived the seatwork, which consisted of looking up states and copying down their capitals, as pointless: I don't think they learned anything about states and capitals, which they could have if the lesson was expanded. . . . I think it was just simply alphabet, dictionary, looking up words ... it seemed like a real time killer to me. And a lot of the kids, they're not motivated to do it because it's pointless, and they don't get anything out of it. Jackie added that learning to spell words merely to know them for a test was also meaningless. She stated that spelling instruction should be incorporated into writing aCtivities, but that this was not the case in this classroom: Spelling skills would be valuable if they incorporated it in some type of writing activity, but for right now, 131 I think they just know they have a spelling test every Friday and they know they want to do well on it, and that's their only [purpose]. . . . I don't see very many opportunities for them to use spelling words, or [see them] writing very much and spelling anything. Jackie perceived the lack of meaningful, integrated literacy instruction not only as a waste of time but also as impacting negatively on the students' behaviors. W Jackie and the five students in her writing group sat around the table in the small room adjoining their second grade classroom. They had all decided to write poems, and so Jackie had read a descriptive poem and one that told a story. .NOw she was instructing them in how to organize their writing. "One way to organize your ideas is by using the five senses," Jackie told the group. "Do you know what they are?" The students called out the senses, and Jackie showed them a paper with circles and lines on it. ”Good! Those words go in these circles. I'm going to pick a topic, and we’ll describe it using the senses, and I'll write what you say by each sense. The topic is ‘spring.' What do we see in the spring?" "Flowers," Marcia replied. "What else?" Jackie asked, as she recorded Marcia's answer next to "seeing" on the paper. "Tree buds," Rachel offered. "Dandelions," Tanika said. Jackie wrote down these responses, and then followed the same procedure using the other senses. When they had finished, Tanika looked at the paper in front of Jackie. "we can make our own circles, and fill in the circles and lines with our own ideas for our own poems!" Tanika excitedly suggested. "Brilliant!" Jackie exclaimed. "That's what I was thinking we could do!.Next week, I won't talk and read, you'll just write. Okay; right now it's time to go back to class." During the pre-term interview Jackie had discussed the importance of authentic literacy activities. Her writing lesson reflected this concept--she read published poems to 132 the students so they could "see that with language, you can do different things." These authentic texts were examples for the students to keep in mind as they composed their own poems. Jackie also planned that the students would apply the subsequent instruction to their own poetry. Her comment of "I think it will be a lot more meaningful for them when they do their own topics" again reflected her conception of meaningful, authentic instruction. During the pre-term and post-term interviews Jackie had stressed the importance of basing instruction on students' prior knowledge. Reflecting this concept, she had chosen to focus on descriptive poetry for this writing lesson because the students were studying description in their English class: I really tried to talk, just anything about description, because now they're just learning about description in English. So basically my lesson then was more about what a poem is than what a poem does. Jackie further concentrated on the five senses because the students had learned about these both in English and Health Classes: That's what they were doing in English, so I knew that they understood the five senses, and they learned the five senses in health. Jackie assessed the effectiveness of her instruction by evaluating the students' writing. She noted that the students who had started their poems were including 133 descriptive words, and stated that this caused her to "think they did get something out of it." Data Dyele Three: Au Interest in Ants "Since it’s spring and that's insect time, I thought we'd read about ants today," Mrs. Phillips told the students seated around her on the carpet. "HOW many of you have seen that commercial with ants and ketchup? It won an award last year." Mrs. Phillips observed several students nodding their heads in recognition. She held up a book for them to see. "This is W. Do you remember that ants have two stomachs?" "I’ve been seeing ants," a boy seated near her said. "It's spring," Mrs. Phillips repeated. "They come out in the spring. I hope I don't see any in my house!" Mrs. Phillips opened the book and started reading aloud to the students. The text described ants' bodies, and that they are neat and clean creatures. Mrs. Phillips paused in her reading and addressed the students. "So next time you see an ant, instead of stepping on it, see if you can see the feelers,” she told them. She continued reading, and again told the students to take a close look they next time they saw an ant. Hrs. Phillips continued reading, and soon completed the book. During the post-term interview Jackie had discussed the importance of using children's literature to promote an interest in reading. Her observations of this classroom ‘ activity reflected this conception. She commented that the students appeared interested in the facts they heard about ants, and that this had helpfully heightened their awareness of informational books: That's nice to show them that there are books [with] little known facts. They were talking about it after she was done reading it, when they were lining up for lunch ... so I think they like all that. I think it's 134 intriguing to them and just exposing them to that I think helps them a lot. Jackie stated that she thought the students learned about ants through listening to the teacher read the informational book. However, when discussing the details of what the students had learned Jackie again focused primarily on their interest. She was pleased that they appeared to enjoy learning new facts: I think they were really interested ... they like those little known facts, amazing things, like an ant can carry so much more times his weight, you know? "Wow." They just think that's great. During the pre-term interview Jackie had discussed the importance of situating literacy instruction in meaningful contexts. However, she did not refer to attempts by the teacher to do so, such as when she related the text to the students' prior knowledge and real life experiences. Jackie did not appear to notice this aspect of the class discussions. Whore The five students in Jackie's writing group sat around the table, busily recopying the final versions of their poems. "I can't think of a title," Jerome said, frowning. "So what are some words that describe this poem?" Jackie prompted. "What will let people know what this is about?" Jackie waited a moment for_a response, but Jerome sat quietly looking at his paper. "Think about it for awhile,” Jackie suggested. "It's up to you, you're the author." A few moments later Jerome handed his paper to Jackie. 135 "Did you think of a title?" she asked as she looked at what he had written. "‘We’re Out of School.'" I like that! That fits what you wrote about summer vacation." "I'm done!" Tanika interrupted. She had completed both a poem and a song. Jackie handed Tanika and Jerome blue construction paper to use as covers, and picked up a book from the table. "Look at this book," Jackie directed, pointing to the title. "When you write your title on the blue paper, when someone picks it up they'll see ‘Springtime by Tanika.' They won't have to look for it. They'll know what it's about." Tanika took the paper and wrote for a few minutes. Then she looked over at Marcia's poem and asked Jackie if she could read it. "Ask Marcia," Jackie said. "She's the author." Tanika turned to Marcia and politely asked, "Can I read this?" Marcia nodded, and Tanika took the paper and silently read Marcia's poem. After a few minutes, Jackie directed the students back to their classroom. During the post-term interview Jackie discussed student authorship as an important concept of literacy instruction. She attempted during this writing lesson to foster those feelings of authorship in the students in several ways. One method Jackie used was to explicitly remind students that they were authors. She encouraged them to make their own decisions regarding pictures, titles, and whether they wanted to share their work. Jackie also used a published text to demonstrate the position and purpose of the title page, thus emphasizing the connection between their writing and the writing of published authors. This further promoted the students' images of themselves as authors. The concluding portion of Jackie's plan to develop students' feelings of authorship involved publication through oral readings of their poems to their classmates: They'd be able to share it with their class. . . . I just wanted them to say, "Look, we've reached our goals. 136 This is the end, this is what we've been working for and we can share it and we're authors and illustrators." Jackie stated that developing the students' feelings of authorship was especially important because she perceived most of the classroom writing as being rote and teacher directed. She discussed the importance of allowing students to make their own choices: They're very worksheet oriented at that school, they don't do a lot of writing except for copying and it‘s always the teacher's topic or, "We have to find the definition of these words the teacher chose." This is their topic, they chose to write poems or songs, they did everything. . . . And they got to show everybody, ”This is what we got to do in our special group, this is my special piece of writing." So there was a real sense of ownership, I think. During the pre-term interview Jackie had discussed the importance of authentic literacy activities. Her instructional emphasis on students authorship also reflected this concept, such as when she compared the students to real life authors and their writing to published texts. However, Jackie's pre—term discussion of this issue set instruction within a "community of learners." And while the students shared their work with each other, they did not actually work together or assist each other with their writing. Summary Jackie's initial participation in a second grade classroom reflected her pre-term conceptions regarding 137 the importance of situating instruction in authentic, meaningful activities. She described the student teacher's seat work and spelling test as "time killers," while planning her own instruction around real literature and activities which the students could apply to their writing. Jackie also incorporated students' prior knowledge in these early lessons, reflecting statements made during the pre-term and post-term interviews regarding the importance of making connections to what students already know. During the post—term interview Jackie had also discussed the importance of motivating students to read by exposing them to interesting children's literature. Her later participation in the second grade classroom reflected this concept. She focused on student interest and motivation to read informational text when the teacher read aloud, not mentioning the teacher's attempts to make connections to the students' prior knowledge or authentic, real life situations. During the post-term interview Jackie had also emphasized the concept of student authors. Her writing instruction focused on developing feelings of ownership and authorship in the students through authentic, purposeful activities. However, by the end of the term her implicit definition of "authentic" seemed to exclude her earlier emphasis on cooperative learning. Instead of building the community of learners who relied on each other as resources as she had discussed during the pre-term interview, Jackie 138 now seemed to regard the students' classmates as an audience for individually composed writing. Jackie's pre-term and post—term conceptions of literacy instruction for diverse learners were primarily extensions of her conceptions of literacy instruction for all students. Her participation in the classroom did not reflect any special considerations for these students. O... 09 Lo .0. l 0. o. . ‘ 9 5.0 ‘ ‘o. o 90 29-. ‘g 9,!- Da a C 1e One: in " anD'e " rimi al Jackie sat in front of the computer with Brock and Joey, playing "Where in the U.S. is Garmen SanDiego?". They were uncovering clues which would lead them to the discovery and arrest of a dangerous criminal. Jackie read the clues they had so far, which included "Lake.Michigan" and "biking." Brock thought for a moment, and then selected the "Historical Society“ for further clues as to the criminal's present location. "‘Chicago, Denver, Portland, Wilmington, washington D.C.'" Jackie read. "we should look at a map and see which places are close to Lake Michigan, and where someone might go biking." Jackie opened the game's reference book and located a map. "See, here's Lake Michigan, and here's washington D.C.," she pointed out. "Where's a good place to go biking?" Brock wondered. He pointed to Denver. "The mountains would be good." ”But look where Denver is," Jackie protested. "It's far from Lake Michigan." Brock decided to travel to Denver anyway, but it was the wrong choice. "Should I try Chicago?" he asked Jackie. "Let's look up Chicago in the book," she suggested, turning the pages. "Here’s Lake Michigan, that's good." Brock decided to travel to Chicago, and they eventually captured and arrested the criminal they were pursuing. "It's a good thing we have this book!" Jackie commented. During the pre-term interview Jackie had discussed effective literacy instruction as occurring within the 139 context of purposeful, authentic activities. Her perception of "Where in the U.S. is Carmen SanDiego?" reflected this concept. She viewed this game as an effective way to teach the locations of cities and geographic landmarks, which students learned incidentally as they engaged in their primary goal of catching the criminal. Acquiring this knowledge was the only way for students to win the game: It's a really good geographic game ... but as far as Brock and Joey, they wanted to catch the thief. But they have a strategy, they have to try to put the clues together. Brock would look at the map. . . . So they're learning a little bit about structure. And hopefully they're learning that, you know, Hawaii is way down here and little geographic stuff. Jackie emphasized the use of the reference book in locating cities and landmarks. She often referred to it herself, and directed Brock to use it even when she knew the answer e.g. Chicago's proximity to Lake Michigan. In later games, Jackie became less directive in an attempt to encourage the boys to use the book on their own: I really, really helped a lot on the first game. . . . I was repeating the clues and I was looking up stuff in the book, and so when we played the second time, I didn't. . . . I said, "Well, here's the book if we need to look things up.“ I was hoping they would use the book a little bit more or at least ask me to help them use the book. efc 140 In the context of playing the game Brock and Joey were able to immediately apply new knowledge. They had personal reasons and motivation for learning. Data Cvcle Two: Decision Making on the "Oregon Trail" Jackie and Marco, an eleven year old boy from Mexico, sat in front of the computer playing "Oregon Trails." The object of this game was to successfully complete a journey by wagon across the country, dealing with a variety of situations and obstacles along the way,.Marco had already typed in his own name, Jackie's, and the names of family .members as travelers. Jackie had helped him purchase the recommended amount of supplies, and now they were on their way. As they started on their journey, the computer screen described various features of the landscape, the health of the travelers, and the food supply, They approached a river, and had to decide how they would cross it. "‘One and a half feet deep,'" Jackie read on the screen. TNOt bad, but it is wide." Marco chose the option which involved caulking the wagon and floating it across. They successfully made it to the other side of the river, and continued on their journey. They encountered various obstacles such as other rivers, landmarks, thieves, low food supplies, and illness. Marco dealt with each situation by selecting from a number of options. At one point the computer had a new'message: "Ybu are 12 miles from Fort Lorraine. Silvia is tired. What do {you want to do?" "I want to stop to rest," Marco stated. "My sister is tired." "Or you could just change your pace and slow down,” Jackie suggested. "we’re close to the fort." .Marco, however, was concerned for his sister and decided to stop. After a rest period, they continued on their journey, EVentually, several of the travelers died. But Marco's father and sister finally made it to Oregon, and Marco was pleased. During the pre-term interview Jackie's discussion of effective literacy instruction had included building a community of learners who viewed each other as resources. Her enjoyment of playing "Oregon Trails" with Marco reflected this concept. She referred to how they worked together nste ..as 1 team 'Ore for had when She 141 instead of relying on her own knowledge, stating that "he was really, really easy to interact with" and that it was "a team effort right from the beginning." During the pre-term interview Jackie had also discussed the importance of authentic activities. She perceived "Oregon Trails" as providing a personally meaningful reason for Marco to engage in decision making. She noted that Marco had enjoyed the game and had been thoughtful and reflective when considering the many relevant factors and possibilities. She also noted that the game's built in consequences enabled him to immediately experience the results of his decisions: It was just a matter of decisions and choices. Like, oh I think I need to hunt now, I think we need to rest now he'd review [his options] and he'd check the map to see where he was ... taking the steps and making sure everything is in order. There's a skill there. And organizing, and keeping constant track of [everything]. He was making good choices, and he knows if he makes good choices he'll get to Oregon. . . . There's consequences and then there's success if you've done it right. You know, you'll make it. So I think that's good. Jackie was pleased and somewhat surprised at the level of Marco's personal involvement in the game. She noted that he appeared sincerely concerned when his "sister" became tired on the journey. Jackie was touched by Marco's closeness to his family and his sense of responsibility: Jack othe 142 He got really personally involved, it seems like, 'cause he used the members of his family, and if something would happen to Silvia, which was his sister, he'd be like, “Oh.“ It was like Silvia was suffering from exhaustion. I think he honestly [felt], that's his sister. His family ties are right there, and that was really neat to watch. Interacting with Marco around "Oregon Trails" enabled Jackie to gain insight into his personal life which she otherwise would not have acquired. r - ' ' rn " Ci H 1 Jackie and Tiffany, an eight year old.African-American girl, watched the computer screen as Tiffany "parked" the car at the restaurant. They were playing "Jenny's Journey," and had successfully arrived at their destination without running out of gas. "That was great!" Jackie encouraged Tiffany. "Do you want to go to one more place?" "Yes." Tiffany restarted the game, and watched as the desired destination was reported: City Hall, 411 North Street. Tiffany reached for the map in the game's folder without prompting from Jackie. She checked her location on the computer screen, and feund it on the map. "Okay, here we are," she told Jackie. "we have to go to City Hall. Where is that?" "Here's.North Street," Jackie pointed out to her. "Okay, I see it.“ Tiffany’placed her finger on the appropriate square and traced the path between the two locations with her finger. "we have to turn this way, then go up this street to here, and then turn again. Then there we are!" "Okay, let's do it," Jackie said. Tiffany turned back to the computer screen which displayed the street from which they were starting. She typed in a left turn, and watched as the street scene changed. Jackie held the map and demonstrated their progress. Soon they arrived at City Hall. During the pre-term interview Jackie had discussed the importance of situating learning within meaningful contexts. Her inst com; lea: 143 Her perception of "Jenny's Journey" as an effective instructional tool reflected this concept. Tiffany learned to read a map by actually doing so, and her successful completion of a journey was evidence to Jackie that she had learned this skill. Jackie noted that initially Tiffany required a great deal of guidance in order to reach her destination, but that she was able to gradually decrease this assistance. The aspect of the game which Tiffany did not master was physical manipulation of the map which would enable her to determine the correct directions in which to travel. Consequently, Jackie maintained control over this aspect of the game. She did not remove the support which remained necessary for success: The first time [we played] I had helped her out a lot. And then she got a lot better. . . . It's hard, because once you turn the corner, you need to turn the map, so I'm holding the map and I had my finger going down the edge of the map the entire time, and when I gave it to her, she didn't turn the map. She always kept it so she could read the words, and I think that was hard because she would keep turning left and she was going around the block. So I tried to show her to turn the map but she didn't catch on to that too well. So I would turn the map and I'd say, "Okay, we're here now. Where do you think we should go?" And she would know right to left, and then I would turn the map again. So at first I was f‘f‘ 144 doing it all. By the time we got to the third game I ‘was just turning the map for her and she was doing it. . . As long as I was turning the map she could figure out where she was going and she did it really systematically, so that was good. "Jenny's Journey" required Tiffany to read street and building names on a map, and to negotiate the route to her destination. Jackie's assistance enabled her to complete her journeys successfully. r ' u I n Jackie found paper and markers for Tiffany, who was [preparing to draw a picture as a follow-up activity to "Jenny”s JOurney." Tiffany had already used a map to find her way to various locations on this computer game, and was now ready for the next step. Jackie handed her the art supplies, and Tiffany started drawing a blue sky. WNOw Iflm going to draw the bank,” she told Jackie, referring to one of the destinations. “No, I'll put Jenny at the dairy. .No, what's that called? City Hall. I'll draw City Hall." Tiffany concentrated on drawing several buildings with windows and doors, and labeled the tallest "City Hall." She drew stairs, and then explained her picture. "You come in here up the stairs. There's a door here and here, and you can go in at any floor. " "I like that, that's fancy," Jackie complimented. She pointed to City Hall. "So is Jenny inside here?" tNo, Jenny is in the car, here, with me." Tiffany' pointed to blank space beside the building, and drew a car with herself, Jackie, and ”Jenny" inside. "The aunt is in the building," Tiffany said, and drew a face looking out a window in City Hall. Then she wrote "Jenny”s JOurney" on the top of the picture, copying the title from the game's folder. She paused, and looked inquiringly at Jackie. "What's a ‘journey“?" she asked. "A trip. It means the trip you took in the car," Jackie explained. "Oh." Tiffany sat back and smiled, satisfied with her picture. 145 Jackie was unsure if Tiffany learned anything from the follow-up activity, which was to draw a picture of one of the destinations. She noted Tiffany's excitement over the task, and stated that perhaps the picture made the concept of a journey more concrete. She was surprised that Tiffany had played "Jenny's Journey" several times without knowing the meaning of the word "journey." Drawing and labeling the picture motivated Tiffany to ask Jackie for clarification: I don't know if it really helped her, but she was really excited to draw the picture. . . . After she was drawing the picture and she wrote "Jenny's Journey" on top, she asked me what "journey" meant. So here she'd been playing the game the whole time and she didn't know what journey meant, and so, I don't know if it made it more concrete for her. . . . It might have made it more concrete that it was a trip or something. Through playing "Jenny's Journey" and completing the follow—up activity, Tiffany learned about the concept of "journey" in a concrete way. While Jackie noted this, she did not elaborate on it or appear enthusiastic. Summary Jackie's participation in La Clase Magica, an alternative educational site, reflected her pre-term conceptions regarding the importance of authentic, meaningful activities within a community of learners. Children used a reference book to discover geographical information which would aid in the pursuit of a criminal; made decisions which affected the outcome of traveling by wagon to Oregon; read maps a pi coop thei grad cont La C CODC 146 maps in order to reach a predetermined destination and drew a picture to solidify that knowledge. Jackie worked cooperatively with students, encouraging them to realize their own and their peers' knowledge and abilities. Her gradual removal of support from the activities also contributed to their feelings of control. Jackie did not discuss aspects of her participation at La Clase Magica which reflected any of her post-term conceptions, such as the importance of interesting activities in motivating students to learn. In fact, Tiffany's enjoyment of the art activity did not appear to influence Jackie's assessment of that activity. Jackie also did not make any specific references to instruction for diverse learners, although she did note that she acquired personal knowledge of Marco which surprised and pleased her. : . I] . TU . I] : . E I 1. , I I . . :1 i . H _3 1 1 3 ll' 9 Studeut_§gutrel_Df_Learuiug Jackie's comparisons of the two sites during field interviews often focused on the differing degrees of control which students had over their own learning. In the classroom, Jackie perceived the students as basically following the teacher's explicit directions. At LCM, she noted that students took on responsibility for completing a variety of activities. Jackie stated that she believed this responsibility added to a feeling of accomplishment: 147 There's also the responsibility. Kids in the classroom will do things they're told. . . . The teacher's, "This is what we're going to do in spelling today. You need to get out a piece of paper." I don't see much room for decision making. . . . At LCM, I noticed they take the initiative. They take the responsibility in playing the games and filling out [the forms] and doing the activities and crossing off on their maze, and there's just a lot more responsibility. I think they feel more in control and maybe that's why Tiffany thinks, "Oh, I'm learning something here." . . . They know "I can accomplish this, I can accomplish the next thing, my next goal." . . . They have a real sense of ownership that they did it. Jackie perceived the environment at LCM as motivating students to participate in activities, while the classroom environment did not. She discussed allowing students more freedom of choice in the classroom, and how this would probably cause some temporary problems while students explored their limits. Ultimately, however, Jackie expressed the belief that this change would benefit the students: [At LCM] maybe Mark, I could see him running around at the beginning just to exercise his freedom so to speak, like, "Someone going to stop me?" You know, that type of thing, and then once he realized that there's a point to this and "I can just do what I need to do to get done on my own time,“ and then I'd think he'd settle down. So I 148 think if you change the classroom, it would be really bad at first, there would be a little dip, but I think, after it straightened out, it would be so much more worth it. Jackie attempted to duplicate the students' sense of ownership and control which she observed at LCM in her own classroom instruction. She often discussed the concept of authorship in her small writing group, reminding students that the choices they made while writing and revising were their own. Jackie also reminded them to consider audience as they made those decisions: I talk a lot about authorship with them. "Okay, you're the author, you can write about whatever you want." . I try to talk about [how] audience is the factor [in] making your choices, but I keep talking about authorship and it's your choice. . . . I talk a lot about [how] they get to make the choice if they want to change something and then, like when we talked about revising, that there might be some changes that you need to make so that the person who's reading can understand what you wrote. Jackie's continued emphasis on promoting student control and ownership of their learning reflected her statements during the pre-term interview regarding the importance of literacy instruction which is meaningful and has purpose. Her inclusion of audience awareness during writing activities also reflected this concept. 149 f l ' ' ° - 0 er ' n and n i id ' m Jackie's observations and instruction both in the classroom and at LCM focused on meaningful, purposeful activities. Jackie noted that classroom assignments often lacked real purpose, such as students learning how to spell words without using them in writing and alphabetizing lists of words. In contrast, Jackie perceived students at LCM as using literacy skills for personally meaningful reasons, such as pursuing - _ \ nun—.-- a the criminal in "Where in the U.S. is Carmen SanDiego?": [Literacy] seems a lot more meaningful at LCM. They're using their language in the reading and the writing for clues and for goals, for figuring things out. It seems that at [school], like with dictionary skills, it's more of a time filler. They're using their alphabetizing skills so they can get this paper done and turn it in, and they're not learning the geography. They're not learning anything about it other than the fact that there's four letters in the word "Ohio" and they come in this order so they're here in the dictionary. Jackie valued the cooperation and working together which she observed at LCM. When she attempted to duplicate this in the classroom, she was initially surprised at the difficulty the students had in working together. Jackie then realized that cooperation involved skills which might have to be taught: In LCM I see them being a lot more cooperative and scaffolding each other and then encouraging each other. 150 . . . At the elementary school when I did my math lesson, I had them work in partners. And that was just really hard for them. . . . . There's a real skill there in working together that I took for granted before. At LCM, Jackie viewed herself as being part of the cooperative learning which she observed among the students. She demonstrated to the students her perception of them as knowledgeable: I've seen [children at LCM] playing a game together and then Mary (another preservice teacher) and I kind of took a step back and let them work together. And then they would talk to us, and so it was like we were more four equals all working together as opposed to, "Ah, I'm going to help you now." Jackie continued throughout the term to notice and value the cooperation between students working together with each other and with her at LCM. In the classroom, however, her emphasis on student ownership of their writing seemed to promote individual learning. Although Jackie encouraged students to share what they had written, her focus on student authorship and decision making promoted personal choices and learning. This was reflected in Jackie's post—term interview, when she no longer referred to the importance of students working together and viewing each other as resources as she did during the pre-term interview. 151 The Case of Janelle Janelle was a junior in the alternative teacher education program when I first approached her about participating in this study. She responded positively in a calm and matter—of-fact manner, seeming to regard her participation in the study as simply another aspect of her educational experience at the university. During our interviews her discussions often focused on characteristics of the children with whom she worked; she appeared to make sincere attempts to get to know and understand each child as an individual. Janelle was friendly with the children, with her classmates in the program, and with myself—~she was agreeable and supportive of others' comments and ideas. Janelle was assigned to a second grade classroom in the same elementary school as Jackie, one which enrolled almost six hundred students and provided extensive special education services. Janelle's placement occurred at the same time as Jackie's; in fact, her classroom was adjacent to the one in which Jackie was assigned. They were located within the same large room, along with another second grade, and separated only by bookshelves which reached half-way to the ceiling. Janelle commented that occasionally she could hear noise coming from Jackie's second grade, which she found somewhat disturbing. Like the students in Jackie's classroom, the ethnicity of Janelle's students were fairly representative of the general student population, which was approximately sixty percent White; twenty-five percent African-American; ten in: Spt 152 percent Latino; three percent Asian; and two percent American Indian. 20‘ ‘. 9‘0 ‘ ' ._ 0! ‘9 0a 0 ' ‘_- _9- 'on Fifty percent of Janelle's pre-term responses to the CLIQ and the subsequent interview questions reflected an information processing perspective of literacy learning, specifically the interactive theory. Fifty percent of her pre-term responses reflected a socio-cognitive perspective, predominately the social constructivist theory (Figure 10). Approximately thirty-seven percent of Janelle's post—term responses reflected the information processing perspective of literacy learning, still specifically the interactive theory. Approximately sixty-two percent of her post-term responses continued to reflect a socio-cognitive perspective, predominately the social constructivist theory (Figure 11). The literacy perspectives and theories reflected in Janelle's responses to the CLIQ served as a starting point in constructing her conceptions of literacy instruction. Her discussion of the CLIQ items during the pre-term and post- term interviews explained her thinking about the depicted literacy situations, portraying the reasoning behind her selections. These discussions, which were sometimes not congruent with the theories reflected in her responses, were the basis for constructing the following pre-term and post- term portraits. Ere;1erm_geneeptigue Prior to her field experiences in the classroom and alternative site, Janelle's discussions of 153 ormation Processing Interactive Constructivist Figure 10. Janelle’s Pro-Term CLIQ Responses 154 Processing Socio-Cognitive Interactive Constructivist Post—Term 5% 62.5% Figure 11. Janelle's Post-Term CLIQ Responses 1i of th pr so a : TV 155 literacy instruction centered around the affective responses of students in regards to learning and to herself. She stated that she would consider students' interests in literature and preferences in grouping primarily so they could experience some control: I think it's important to look at the children's interests. . . . Give them some authority on their interests and maybe different ways of doing some things. Like, would they like to do it in pairs, or groups, or as a whole class. . . . I don't want to be authoritative, like my teachers were. . . . I want them to respect me, but I don't want them to be afraid of me. Janelle discussed grouping structures further, stating that students "can learn from each other," and expressing opposition to ability grouping. She implied that ability .grouping was detrimental to lower group members' self esteem: What I would do is definitely not ability group because I don't think that's right, because for one thing it's labeling and for the lower groups, they know what that means. Janelle planned to begin instruction with material which was familiar to students also for affective reasons. She stated that “if you can make connections to what they already know, they'll feel like they're progressing" and "it will help get them.interested." Janelle did not appear to consider that relating new material to students' prior knowledge would help them comprehend the text, and instead 156 separated the two processes: "Before they can apply it to themselves, they have to understand what the story's about." Janelle continued to focus on students' affective responses when she discussed literacy instruction for diverse learners. She planned to use culturally relevant materials so "different kids can think, ‘Oh yeah, that's like my family,'" and because "making them feel like they belong is important." Janelle also stated that it would be important for her to learn about a culturally diverse student's background, so she could better communicate with him: I think the important thing is communication and if he is not relating well to me, then I see that as my problem. . . . Maybe [I'd] find out a little bit more about his background and the way he thinks about things. Janelle was unsure of how to respond to the CLIQ item which referred to students' use of non-school literacies in a school setting. She wanted to allow the students to express themselves in their own ways, but was concerned that the use of regional dialects would reflect poorly on herself as a teacher. Although she conceived of appropriate occasions for personal and community literacies, Janelle stated that she would definitely teach the students "correct" ways of speaking and writing: I don't know. I would want them to just send it the way they were, but then that would be a bad reflection on me, like, "Oh, this teacher can't even teach them the right English.” It's so hard, because it's like what I 157 want to do is different than what they want them to do. But I would definitely teach them correct ways to write and correct ways to speak in front of people, but I want to allow them to speak in class and in other situations, the way they want. . . . I want them to prove to me, though, that they can write correctly. Janelle's discussion of non-school literacies indicated .....1 a strong valuing of standard English, along with some consideration of the role of regional dialects. ! £9et;1erm_§eueeptieue Following her field experiences in the classroom and alternative site, Janelle's conceptions of literacy instruction continued to include some concern with the affective responses of the students. Now, however, her discussions centered around motivation: "If they're not interested, they're not motivated. It's simple to me. All books are going to help them, it doesn't matter what, if it interests them it's even better, it motivates them, too." Consequently, Janelle planned to focus instruction around books and activities which the students found interesting. Janelle also continued to discuss the importance of students comprehending the stories they read, stating that the "focus should be on comprehension ... what they get out of it and the big picture, and then the small details." Now, however, instead of considering various grouping structures which would enable students to ”learn from each other," Janelle emphasized the importance of allowing students to individually progress at their own pace: 158 You can't make them all go at the same pace, if you slow one group down to catch up with another, that's not fair, and if you skip some stuff with this other group because, "Oh well, you're not getting it, let's move on," that's not fair, either, so allowing them to progress at their own pace is important to me. Janelle stated that actual instruction should involve "connecting discussion with writing and just all the literacy activities." She expressed the belief that comprehension would be facilitated by asking students to "apply things more and maybe it will make it more real for them and they can understand it better." During the post-term interview Janelle again expressed concern with the students' affective responses when she discussed literacy instruction for diverse learners. She planned to utilize children's literature which reflected the ethnicity of the students in her classroom, to model interest in and respect for other cultures: I'll read a book that's Hispanic or whatever it may be, Black, whatever, just so that they don't feel like the only things I care about are white people stories. I want to show them that I'm respecting everybody, and that will teach them to be [respectful], too. During the pre-term interview Janelle appeared conflicted in her response to the CLIQ item which referred to students' use of non—school literacies in a school setting. During the post-term interview Janelle appeared much more 159 confident of her views on this issue. She now stated that the question of language use was definitely dependent on audience, and would teach this to students: I don't want to single out anybody with a dialect saying "you're wrong," but I'm going to sort of insinuate that there's a time and a place to use it and when we have an ‘audience like the mayor, we need to kind of, I hate to say conform, but conform to his way of grammar and stuff. Janelle now seemed to have the language to describe her views on this issue, which also added assurance to her statements. Summary Figure 12 depicts the change between Janelle’s pre-term and post-term responses to the CLIQ items. At the beginning of the term, her conceptions of literacy instruction centered around students' affective responses. She was primarily concerned with granting students some control over their learning, seemingly for the purpose of alleviating fear; with varying grouping structures to avoid labeling of lower ability students, as well as so students could learn from each other; with starting with familiar material so students would experience progress and interest; with utilizing culturally relevant materials so diverse learners would experience a sense of belonging. Janelle also emphasized the importance of students comprehending the story line of a text before moving on to other aspects, such as relating it to themselves. 160 Social Consiruciivisi I t e ..— 1 Top Down 4 1 hieraciive . Boliom Up ITEMS + Pro-Term —+— Post-Term Figure 12. Comparison of Janelle's CLIQ Responses 161 At the end of the term, Janelle's previous concern with students' affective responses was still evident in her emphasis on using materials which interested students for the purpose of motivation. She also continued to discuss the use of culturally relevant materials, now emphasizing the need to demonstrate interest in and respect for other cultures. However, Janelle's post—term conceptions of literacy instruction included a greater focus on actual instruction. She continued to emphasize the importance of students' comprehension of the story line of a text, but stated that instruction should incorporate all aspects of literacy in ways which were applicable to the real world. She was also concerned with individual progress rather than with promoting self-esteem or learning from peers through group work. Janelle's discussions during the pre-term and post-term interviews of literacy instruction for diverse learners indicated that she had a sense of the value of diverse cultures. However, her appreciation for diversity seemed limited to concern for students' affective attitudes. Even in regard to students' use of non-school literacies, Janelle stated during the pre-term interview that she would prefer to allow students to express themselves however they liked but felt constrained by public expectations. During the post— term interview Janelle indicated that this position was justified because of the important role of audience. Janelle's participation in the classroom and at the alternative site illustrated the relationship between her 162 theoretical concepts of literacy instruction and her practical decisions. ..‘_ 09 01‘ .0. '0 c.1- ,t‘ ‘ .o._‘ ,-. 1.1- -n0 e e- n wr in an Answerin esti ns Janelle sat with Juan and Carrie at a table in the small room adjoining their second grade classroom. She was in the .process of interviewing them about their ideas concerning writing, in preparation for starting a writers' workshop. "HOw could you improve as a writer?" Janelle asked Carrie. ”I could read," Carrie earnestly replied. "What do you mean?" Janelle probed. "I could read the directions better," she elaborated. "What if you write a story?" Janelle prompted. "I could read it over, and copy the answers better," Carrie explained. Janelle smiled and turned to Juan. THow could ypu improve as a writer?" she asked him. "I could draw a picture," Juan answered. "What about figuring?” Janelle repeated. JUan hesitated. "I could look at the picture," he said, VAnd get a better idea what it's about." "Yeah, that right," Carrie eagerly interjected. "I look at the pictures too." "Are you a good writer?" Janelle asked them both. "Yeah," carrie confidently answered, "Because I get lots of1practice." "Sometimes I have to write it over because my writing is messy," Juan sheepishly admitted. ”That was very interesting," Janelle told them. "Let's go back to class now." During the pre—term interview Janelle had discussed the importance of allowing students to pursue their own interests for the purpose of enabling them to feel some control over their learning. During the post-term interview Janelle focused on the role of student interest in providing motivation. Her interpretation of this student interview reflected her concern with students' interests in the area of developing creativity. 163 In questioning Carrie and Juan, Janelle discovered that they conceptualized writing as "handwriting and answering questions." She noted that in their classroom experience, "if they understood the directions they could write it, and if they didn't understand they asked their neighbor." During the interview, Carrie and Juan did not refer to any writing which involved creative thought. This did not surprise Janelle, who had observed only two or three creative writing assignments in their classroom. Even then, the students were restricted by topic: I know for a fact they don't have much creative writing experience. I've been there all year, and as far as I've been there, they've written two, maybe three things. I know for sure two, and both times, they all had a topic, and then it was put together as a book. Basically, they all write a lot of the same thing, they just look and see what so-and-so's writing and they write something the same. They're not creative, she doesn't push them to use their imagination, which I would really like to try to do. During the post-term interview Janelle had also discussed the benefits of students working at their own pace. Encouraging students to write creatively on topics of personal interest, instead of on teacher selected topics, appears related to this concept. In this way, students are not dependent on what their classmates are doing but are able to work independently. 'U ex Co 164 Data Dyele Tue; Makiug genuectione te Lizards Janelle sat on a chair behind the students gathered on the carpet, listening as they took turns reading aloud from their basal readers. The teacher occasionally interrupted the story to ask questions about Jamie and "Izzard," the lizard he had found and kept as a pet. After several students had read, Mrs. Hellerman followed up on a student's comments. {Michael said that Izzard thinks Jamie is his mom. Listen to me read these couple of lines, and think about how Jamie is like your mom. ‘We went to visit my grandmother for the summer. I worried about Izzard. WOUld she forget me? would she be okay without me?'" Mrs. Hellerman waited for the students comments, but none of them touched on the point she wanted to make. Finally, she explained the connection between Jamie and their own.mothers. "If your mom is away, she would worry too: Is Joanie eating right? Is Tony brushing his teeth?" "Yeah, my mom would worry!" a girl agreed. The students discussed various possible causes for worry, and continued reading the story, As they reached the conclusion, Mrs. Hellerman was called out of the room and Janelle took over the lesson. Janelle briefly discussed the ending and then asked, ”Did any of you ever have a pet, maybe a pet lizard?" Amid the chorus of voices calling out various kinds of pets, Janelle detected one lizard. "Tell us about your lizard, Martin," she encouraged. Martin proceeded to describe his pet. A few minutes later Mrs. Hellerman returned and started a new lesson. During the pre—term interview Janelle had discussed the importance of relating new information to students' prior knowledge. She noted that the classroom teacher often did this during reading class, which she agreed was "really good." Janelle also encouraged students to connect characters and events in stories to their own lives, stating that she "tried to relate it to, if they've had a pet, or even a lizard. Just to tie it into their own life." Janelle expressed her belief that this connection made the story more comprehensible to the students: 165 It's good to relate it to themselves, so they can kind of empathize with the kid in the book. . . . If you know something about it and relate to it, it makes more sense than if you are just reading a story and she doesn't ask anything like, how did you feel or anything like that. Janelle was confident that the students who discussed their own pets, "especially the ones that said they had a “N _— o lizard," made this connection between the story and their own lives. Her assessment of the lesson focused on whether the r. students made this connection, and so she was unsure if the lesson was effective with those who did not discuss their pets. Janelle did not refer to the necessity of students first comprehending the story line independently of relating to it personally, as she did during the pre-term interview. Janelle was ambivalent about the oral reading aspect of the lesson. She realized that some people, herself included, had better comprehension during silent reading. At the same time, Janelle perceived oral reading as enabling the classroom teacher to monitor the students' progress. Janelle deferred to the classroom teacher's expertise in making this decision: She had them read aloud, she does that once in a while. That gives her a chance to see how their reading is coming along I think. At the same time, that's not a real good way, because some people read, I can read a lot better to myself than aloud, but I'm sure she looked at that too. 166 The whole class reading lesson did not conflict with Janelle's statements during the pre—term interview regarding her opposition to ability groups. It was, however, in contrast to her discussion during the post-term interview regarding the importance of allowing students to progress individually at their own pace. page dele Three: Drgauiziug Pgetry Ideae Janelle sat with her five writing group students in the small room adjoining their second grade classroom. Each . student had selected a topic for a poem, and Janelle was a ,preparing to show them how to organize their ideas. "Putting ideas together for your poems will help you remember what you were going to write about. Here's a sheet to help you organize your ideas. we'll work on this together." Janelle passed out a worksheet, and then picked up a book of poems. She read aloud several poems, then picked up a different book. "Another example of a kind of poem is one that uses the five senses," Janelle told the students. "Each sense would be a category." She opened the book and read aloud several ,poems that involved taste, smell, sight, sound, and touch. Janelle next directed the students' attention to the worksheet. Using her pet rabbit as an example, she asked the students for words which described the rabbit using the five senses. She wrote their responses on the paper. "Okay, we've organized our ideas. It's easier to write a poem now about rabbits. Think about what to write in your poem. Sometimes you get stuck, it's okay to ask me or your neighbor for help. Remember you can use the five senses or anything you want." "Can it start with ‘1'?" Christina wanted to know. "Anything you want, it's your poem," Janelle told her. "Next week we'll write a draft." During the pre-term interview Janelle had discussed her plans to become a nonauthoritative teacher. Her writing lesson reflected this concept in that she encouraged students to write anything they wanted and to ask each other for help. Janelle also did not make her instructional goals explicit. She told the students that recording their ideas would help 167 them to remember what to write about, while her objective was to demonstrate how those ideas were related to each other and to the topic: I'm hoping that seeing it on the page helps them to realize that we have a topic that we're writing on, but all these other ideas make up the poem. . . . I want them to learn how things are related. During the post-term interview Janelle had discussed the importance both of motivating students and of integrating literacy related activities. Her reading of poems at the start of the lesson reflected these concepts, serving to interest students in poetry and to demonstrate the relationship between reading and writing. To provide further ‘motivation, Janelle modeled organization of ideas on her pet rabbit: So we did that one together using my rabbit. . . . They love me to talk about my rabbit, so sure, I'll use that. So we talked about that and they seemed to understand and they gave me good ideas. Janelle assessed the lesson's effectiveness on the appearance of the students as they wrote, reflecting her discussion during the pre—term interview regarding the importance of the affective responses of students. She assumed that they understood the relationships between their ideas because of their concentrated efforts at writing: It looked to me like they were going to town on their things, and I didn't read them yet. I'm going to give 168 them all the time they need and I'll read them Friday. So they wrote really well, I thought. . . . They knew exactly what they were writing, because they were understanding what to put in there. The students appeared interested and focused in their writing, and so Janelle judged them to be successful even though she had not yet read what they had written. DQLé_QYQl§_EQHI;_B§¥i§iDQ_D£§iL§ As the students prepared to revise their poems, Janelle reminded them to "say something nice when you give suggestions" and to focus on "if the poem makes sense." Carrie paired up with Juan and started to read his poem to H herself. She paused, then read a line aloud: "‘I wish I had lots of clocks.’ I thought you wanted one clock," she questioned. "Yes," JUan agreed. Carrie crossed out "lots of clocks" on his paper and wrote in "a clock." She continued reading silently until she came to another line which she questioned. "‘At 3:30 I go to the Y.’ Do you go to the Y everyday?" she asked. TNo," Juan replied. "Then this doesn't make sense," Carrie told him. "What do you do every day?" ”Ride.my bike," JUan said. "Okay, we'll change this to ‘ride my bike.'" Carrie made the correction and handed JUan his paper. .Next JUan read the poem carrie had written. Instead of making suggestions for revisions, however, he sat back and shrugged. Janelle then called the students to come back together as a group and asked about the changes they had made. "I didn't change anything," Carrie said. "I changed ‘lots of clocks‘ to ‘a clock,'" Juan said, checking his paper. "I changed ‘it was real fun' to ‘really fun,'" Christina explained. "Instead of ‘I like computers because they are colorful and rough,’ I put ‘I like the way computers are colorful and rough,'" James read from his paper. "I like the way you made changes," Janelle told the students. "I am really pleased." 169 During the pre-term interview Janelle had discussed the importance of students learning from each other; during the post—term interview she had emphasized the role of audience in writing. Her objectives for this writing lesson reflected these conceptions. Janelle stated that she wanted the students to experience how others could help them with their writing, and for them to understand that the purpose of revisions was to clarify meaning for readers: I wanted them to understand revising and that means making changes in what you've written. We're not talking about capitalization or periods, [but about] making it more clear. That's one thing I want them to get. The second thing is that by cooperating with other people, we can help each other make those revisions instead of just looking to yourself. During the pre-term interview Janelle had also focused on the importance of students' affective responses. This concept is reflected in her assessment of this writing lesson, which she seemed to base on the appearance of the students' interactions rather than on their actual revisions. She perceived her lesson as being especially effective with James and Christina, even though their revisions did little to clarify meaning: I really think it went really well. Especially with James and Christina. I could hear them, and they were doing really well. I was really excited about them. . I know that Christina had James change some wording 170 around and I remember one that he had her change. She was saying "I want to go canoeing again" in her poem, and he had her change it to, "I just like to go canoeing because" of something. Because, in a poem, I guess he saw that "I want to go canoeing again" really doesn't sound right, which to me makes sense. So that was good. They worked really well together. During the pre-term interview Janelle had described herself as a nonauthoritative teacher who would encourage students to think for themselves. However, she expressed dissatisfaction with Juan's poem, characterizing it as unoriginal and Juan as lazy. Janelle perceived the other students' poems as reflecting more creativity and effort, even though they had copied her example of using the five senses. She did not consider that the idea and format of Juan's poem was original, based on his own experiences: And that's another thing, Juan's poem. I don't want to criticize his poem or anything, but it was just kind of another sign of laziness. It was about clocks. . . . He just went through his day at school, "At this time, we do this, at this time we do this, at this..." and I'm not saying that's bad, I'm just saying the other kids came up with their own thing, like Jessica did the five senses using elephants. Janelle did not appear to consider the relevance that Juan's schedule might hold for him, even though she had also ““31 di. te: cle cor thr stu att acc 171 discussed the importance of prior knowledge during the pre— term interview. Summary Janelle's participation in a second grade classroom reflected several of her pre—term and post-term conceptions of literacy instruction. She continued throughout the term to value the affective responses of the students, the focus of her pre-term interview. Janelle also attempted to motivate students and integrate literacy activities, the focus of her post-term interview. Janelle's acceptance of the whole group reading lesson near the beginning of the term reflected her pre-term interview statements regarding her dislike of ability groups, while her writing lessons reflected her post-term interview statements regarding the desirability of students progressing at their own pace. However, there were also discrepancies between Janelle's theoretical conceptions and actual instruction. Throughout most of the term Janelle attempted to be nonauthoritative, a major focus of her pre-term interview. For example, she encouraged students to write on topics of their own interest and to look to each other for guidance. However, Janelle was dissatisfied when a student's poem had a different form than the ones she had modeled. Another focus of the pre-term interview was the importance of connecting instruction to students' prior knowledge. For example, Janelle assessed the effectiveness of a reading lesson on whether the students could relate their own pet to the lizard in the story. Ho'. pe: in. gr bc hc 172 However, Janelle characterized a poem about a student's personal schedule as unimaginative and the student as lazy. Janelle's pre-term and post-term conceptions of literacy instruction for diverse learners were not reflected in her classroom participation. She did not use culturally based materials either to foster students' sense of belonging, as expressed during the pre-term interview, or to model respect ““1 and interest, as expressed during the post-term interview. She did not appear to make efforts to learn about and '3" integrate cultural knowledge of the students in her writing group, which included an African-American girl and a Latino boy. Janelle's focus on audience during the writing lessons, however, did reflect her post-term interview discussions of non—school literacies. She instructed the students in the importance of the readers being able to understand their poems. .-‘. 09 Lo '0. D0. 29‘ c o ‘1.- ‘ ‘-. 090. etc. ‘-. 090 D . I.! I ! I. . II -S] 15 !!. 9 t l n : D' ions ' la in " n n" Janelle sat beside carlos, a ten year old boy from .Mexico, as he played "Conan" on the computer. The object of the game was to manipulate the character through a variety of obstacles, with the level of difficulty continually increasing. Carlos gave his full attention to the game. "What's the object of this game?" Janelle asked him. "To.make it through," Carlos replied without looking away from the screen. "Are there special things you can do?" Janelle asked. "Yes." Carlos started to explain, but suddenly the character on screen was in danger. His attention was immediately refocused on the game, but it was too late. The character did not make it through the maze of obstacles. "The game is over," Janelle observed, "But you can play again. was this the first time you played?" 173 5ND," Carlos told her. He restarted the game and successfully manipulated "Conan" through a forest of trees. "Good!" Janelle commented. "Did you ever get past these trees before?" Carlos shook his head while keeping his eyes focused on the action in front of him. "So where do you go, here?" Janelle asked, pointing to the area above the forest. TNo, I started there," carlos explained. "Oh, and you want to go here." Janelle pointed to another part of the screen. Carlos caused the character on screen to somersault through the air, and he fell into the water. The game again ended, with Oarlos progressing a little further than the time before. "I don't want to play this anymore," he said. "Okay," Janelle agreed. "Let's fill out the forms." During the pre-term interview Janelle had discussed the importance of the affective responses of students and the nonauthoritative role of herself as a teacher. Her interpretation of this lesson reflected these concepts. Janelle expressed concern over what she perceived as Carlos' continued failure at playing "Conan." She worried that he was frustrated at not winning, and wanted to help him succeed. At the same time, Janelle did not want to intrude and was unsure whether nor not Carlos welcomed her efforts: I think he was getting frustrated, I know he was, and I was trying to be encouraging but it's kind of hard, because he didn't get through it. . . . I really want to help him, but I don't want to be pushy, which I feel like I'm being pushy with him now. I don't know if he dislikes it, or maybe he does like me to help him. I don't know. During the pre-term and post-term interviews Janelle had discussed the importance of student interest and motivation, 174 but she did not appear to notice Carlos' involvement with this game. She did not seem to consider that Carlos had already played "Conan" several times before deciding to quit, and had also played this game during previous visits to LCM. Along with his apparent concentration and improved play, this would appear to indicate that Carlos was interested in and enjoyed playing the game. Janelle attributed Carlos' lack of conversation to shyness. She did not appear to consider that perhaps Carlos preferred to focus his attention on the game, which required a quick reaction time, rather than on her conversation. Instead, further reflecting her pre-term interview discussion on appearing nonauthoritative, Janelle attempted to make Carlos comfortable by dressing casually: I feel so bad because he's so shy. He's really shy, at least he is around me, and I try to make it more comfortable. I even try to dress casually when I go there so that I don't look like I'm any kind of authority. During the pre-term interview Janelle had also discussed the importance of learning about students' cultural backgrounds. However, she did not appear to consider the significance of Carlos' first language being Spanish. Janelle did not seem to consider that perhaps his "shyness" was attributable to lack of fluency in English, or that perhaps he could not converse comfortably in English while simultaneously playing the game. Janelle did notice, however, 1.5.7.2“. a p». .. C. Ct 175 that Carlos did not know the meanings of certain words. But she thought that perhaps that was not unusual for a child his age: See that I don't know. 'Cause remember I said yesterday that he didn't know beard from mustache, blond from yellow. But those are things that maybe English kids ‘wouldn't know. Who knows? Janelle also noted that Carlos "doesn't like to tell me he speaks Spanish" because "he's embarrassed." She did not explore other possible reasons, such as perhaps Carlos was unsure of his English or believed that Spanish was appropriate only at home or in his neighborhood. a l Tw - B ' " emo " Janelle and Jamie, a ten year old boy from Mexico, were .playing their third game of "Lemonade" on one of the computers. The object of the game was to make a profit through selling lemonade, but Jamie had been losing.money, Jamie typed in "75 cents" as the cost of a glass of lemonade, and the screen displayed the results. "You did better than last time, but you're still in the hole," Janelle noted. "I don't want to play anymore," Jamie told Janelle. "Okay, let's do the log form then." She pulled out a ,paper, and Jamie started to answer the questions on it. "What level was that?" he asked Janelle, his pencil poised over the blank. "I think ‘beginner,'" she replied. Jamie marked the appropriate box, and asked the next question. "What time did we start?" "About quarter to four," Janelle answered. She looked down at the form and read, "‘What was easy? What was difficult?'" "Selling," Jamie quickly replied, and filled in the blank. Janelle again asked, "What was hard? What decisions did .you have to make?" FMaking signs," he said. "What was hard about that?" Janelle probed. "Deciding on ‘prices?" hi im' 1e te CO un fa ha Dr. 9a] 176 Instead of answering, Jamie wrote ”deciding'prices" on the paper. "Is that right?" he asked. "Yes," Janelle told him. She then placed the form in his folder. During the pre—term interview Janelle had discussed the importance of students maintaining control over their own learning, and had described herself as a nonauthoritative teacher. Her interactions with Jamie reflected these concepts. She did not provide direct instruction as Jamie played the game, even though she perceived him as not understanding the relationship between the various relevant factors. Instead, Janelle expressed the belief that he would have learned through trial and error if he had continued playing: Your goal is to make a profit, but you have to consider how much you spend, the advertisement of it all, making the sign and how much you're going to spend on that, and how much you're going to charge. You have to look at these things and decide what to do for the best outcome. . . . He didn't understand how the things related. . I thought maybe through trial and error [he would learn], but, then he didn't want to play. I think we tried it three times. Janelle perceived that her decision to allow Jamie to proceed as he wanted, even if this meant turning to a new game, was especially appropriate at LCM: It's not supposed to be like a classroom setting, and if he seems like he wants to figure it out, then I'll help him. But I don't want to say, "No, no, no, you're not 177 going to stop this. I'm going to teach you how to do this. Sit down." I was no way going to do that. It's his choice to be there, and if he wants to choose a new game, then that's what he should do. During the pre-term interview Janelle had also discussed learning about the backgrounds of culturally diverse students as a basis for communicating with them. Although Jamie's native language was Spanish, Janelle appeared unaware of the possible influences of language on his participation in the game. She assumed that if he did not already know the meanings of the terms used in the game, he would probably be able to figure them out through playing. However, Janelle did not check Jamie's comprehension, and did not appear to consider the complexity of several of the concepts: If he understood the terms, prices ... that could be a factor of it, but more than that, I think it was just sort of seeing, not necessarily knowing what price means, or profit. I think he could figure it out without having to know the language, I think. Janelle's interpretation of Jamie's responses to the log form reflected her emphasis during the pre—term interview on students' affective responses. She perceived that Jamie had answered the questions successfully, seeming unaware that she had supplied him with the answers: He's really good about those [log forms]. He has no problem with that. . . . I asked him what was hard. Figuring out the prices, I think is what he said, which 178 is basically what is hard. Figuring out which prices are going to be the right ones to make a profit. So, he knew what was hard about it. Janelle appeared to focus on his effort and cooperation rather than on his actual responses. i s h " rk t e" Janelle listened as Maria, an eleven year old girl from Mexico, read the directions to "Marketplace." She had to sell apples for the Cinco de Mayo festival, figuring out the best price to charge. Maria decided to charge 10 cents an apple. She sold 75 apples, earning $7.50. The computer screen informed her that this was not enough. KNOW'what do you think we need to do if we want to make a little more.money?” Janelle prompted. "Charge 15 cents?" Maria tentatively suggested. "Okay, let's try it," Janelle encouraged. .Maria typed in the amount for the next day, and they read the result on the computer screen. She had sold 64 apples for a total income of $9.60. "we want to make more money," Janelle reminded.Maria. "What will you charge?” "14 cents, " Maria decided. "14 cents? Are you sure?" Janelle questioned. ”Last time you charged 15 cents, and we want to make more money this time." "16 cents," Maria suggested. "Okay, let's try it," Janelle said. This time she sold 62 apples and made $9.92. "You can try to charge a little more," Janelle suggested. .Maria continued playing and experimenting with the ,price, charging up to 25 cents for an apple. Eventually she discovered that charging 21 cents was the most profitable. During the pre-term interview Janelle had described herself as a nonauthoritative teacher. While she did not provide direct instruction for Maria, Janelle characterized their interactions as school-like with herself in the position of teacher. She expressed a preference for this 179 over previous interactions at LCM, when the students knew as much or more than she did about a game: I thought that was a really good time at LCM. That will probably be one of my favorite times because we really connected well and I really enjoyed working with her. . . It was a lot more guidance and a lot more help than I've ever given at LCM. My role was a lot more similar to that of school that time. I liked that more, whereas all the other times they're playing games and I'm sitting there and they know what they're doing. I don't have to help. If anything, they tell me what to do in the game. Also during the pre—term interview Janelle had discussed the importance of learning about students' cultural backgrounds. This concept was reflected in her awareness of the possible influence of language on Maria's participation in the game. Janelle expressed the belief that Maria needed extra help playing "Marketplace" because her first language was Spanish. Although she perceived Maria as being a good reader, Janelle felt that she was unfamiliar with many of the terms used in the game: I think she knew how to read really well, the literacy skills [involved] new vocabulary because there were a lot of new words and a lot of new terms that she didn't understand and how they fit into the game. . . . I know that she has a strong Spanish background ... so she 180 needed a lot more guidance than other games would have required. That was fun. Janelle enjoyed providing the extra guidance which she perceived as necessary because Maria spoke English as a second language. Data QIEQJE EQHI° Making a Eithexls Dal: card a: Eh: Janelle watched as Rose, a nine year old, inserted the ”Children's Publishing Center" disk into the computer. They silently read the directions which appeared on the screen. "I want to do it with pictures," Rose told Janelle. Janelle helped Rose figure out the mechanics of the ‘program. After a few false starts, several pictures appeared on the screen. Rose selected the cat. "Do you want to print the picture, or write a little .message or something?“ Janelle asked. "Print," Rose decided, selecting this option. "Okay," Janelle agreed. "Ybu can color it or write a .message on it later if you want." The program restarted, and this time Rose selected a ,picture of a centipede. She wrote "Happy Father's Day" and ,printed it. Rose continued this process, selecting several .more pictures and writing brief messages to family members on them. During the pre-term interview Janelle had described herself as a nonauthoritative teacher. However, she stated that she enjoyed working with Rose because she "relied on me a lot to help her out,“ implying that she preferred a position of control. However, Janelle did not provide explicit directions even when she was disappointed that Rose did not write more: She just wanted to print out pictures. And I would say, “Well, why don't you write a little message on there?" And she's like, "No." I'm like, "Well, maybe you can write on it by hand then later or something," but she 181 didn't want to get into writing. I thought it would have been fun, but she didn't want to. Also during the pre-term interview Janelle had stated that there were occasions for use of non—school literacies, and during the post-term interview had especially focused on the role of audience. However, while Janelle referred to "Happy Father's Day" and the other short messages which Rose wrote to family members as "kind of nice," she did not appear to credit them as writing. Janelle appeared to consider this type of writing as inconsequential. Summary Janelle's participation in La Clase Magica, an alternative educational site, reflected her pre-term emphasis on the affective responses of students. She often assessed students' learning based on her perceptions of their reactions, such as noticing Jamie's focus on completing the form.but not realizing that she actually supplied the answers. Janelle also aSsumed that Carlos was frustrated and unhappy over his failure to win at "Conan," not giving credit to his apparent interest in the game even though she had discussed the importance of student interest during the pre—term and post—term interviews. Janelle's participation in La Clase Magica also reflected her discussions during the pre-term interview regarding herself as a nonauthoritative teacher. She attempted to provide guidance without explicit directions, and allowed students to proceed as they wished. For example, she did not press Jamie to continue playing "Lemonade" even 182 though she believed he quit too soon. However, even though Janelle allowed students control over their environment, she was most satisfied when she had control over the knowledge they needed to be successful at the games. Janelle's discussions during the pre-term and post-term interviews regarding literacy instruction for diverse learners, which focused on using culturally based materials ~71 to promote feelings of belonging and to model respect for other cultures, did not appear relevant to her participation r a. .-.- at this site. However, during the pre-term interview Janelle had also discussed the importance of learning about the various cultural backgrounds of students as an aid to communication. At the beginning of the term Janelle did not appear to consider the impact that speaking English as a second language might have on Jamie's comprehension of "Lemonade" and on interactions with herself. Towards the end of the term, however, she realized that Maria probably needed extra help understanding certain terms used in "Marketplace" because she was a native Spanish speaker. And although Janelle stated during the pre-term interview that there were occasions for non-school literacies and during the post-term interview that audience was the key in determining this, she did not recognize Rose's messages to her family as writing. 183 t' n Th - Wh i m a is n of Janel ' Iuterpretatiens ef Teaehing and Learning During Literaey i n ' l n in on- ch 0 t in ? The Rule ef Authgrity and Decision-Maker Janelle perceived the students at La Clase Magica as having more freedom to make decisions and more control over their learning than did students in the classroom. Janelle appeared to respect the students as authorities at LCM, and did not attempt to impose her own agenda on them. Her perception of the students as being in control reflected her pre-term interview statements regarding herself as being nonauthoritative and allowing students some freedoms: I just think that at LCM they have more freedom. Things are not as structured. . . . They just seem a little more independent at LCM, which makes sense because it's not school and they know what they're there for and it's their choice to be there. They play what they want to play, they stop when they want to stop. . . . Like with Carlos, I wouldn't push it because it's his choice to be there and I'm not going to make him do something or try something he doesn't feel comfortable trying. In the classroom, however, Janelle perceived herself as being in control. In contrast to her pre—term interview descriptions of herself as nonauthoritative, she viewed herself as the authority and decision maker and the students as following her agenda: 184 Well, they don't have as much choice in the classroom. . . If someone didn't understand, then I showed them. Whereas if they would just say, "Well, I don't understand how to do this, I want to do something else," that would not go over. I would help them until they did understand. . . . I decide when we start something new and when we finish, and when we have to hand hsomething in and when we just work on it throughout the Raj week or something. ,- Janelle crossed the line between the two settings, however, patterning her writing group instruction after her perceptions of the LCM environment and stating that "when I worked with Maria, it was a lot more similar" to school. She noted that the students in the classroom were unused to the freedom she afforded them: The writing group for them was a lot more different than anything they did in class because it was a lot more independent. They kept looking to me, "Is this right?" And I'm.like, "Whatever you want is right." . . . That's similar, I think, the writing group and LCM. In both settings, whether Janelle perceived herself or the students to be in control, she continued to focus on the affective responses of the students. This was a major focus of her pre-term interview discussion. Ihe_Ieaeher;Stufieut_Batig Another difference which Janelle noticed between the two sites was the way students reacted to her help. She expressed surprise that Carlos did 185 not appear to appreciate having her full attention at LCM, while a boy in the classroom wanted her attention so much that he pretended to need help. Janelle was unsure of how to respond to either situation: I was walking around [the classroom] helping them do subtraction by carrying. . . . Rob knew how to do it, but he'd call me over. We'd do them, he'd do them, I'd walk away, he'd [say], "I don't know how to do it." He just did four problems for me and there's other people that need my attention, too. Whereas Carlos has my complete attention one-on-one, and he doesn't ask questions. He doesn't come to me for help, and doesn't want my help, and that's just totally the opposite situation. I don't really know how to handle either one. Janelle reflected on this situation, and conjectured that perhaps the higher teacher-student ratio at the school prompted Rob to seek out individual attention. At the same time, this relative anonymity in the school may have caused Carlos to be uncomfortable with the individual attention he received at LCM: It makes sense, because there's a one-on—one interaction at LCM and there's one-on-who knows how many at the elementary school. So, maybe Carlos [is] not used to having full attention on him like that, and he doesn't know how to handle it. And maybe Rob doesn't get enough 186 attention, which I don't think is the case, but, I don't know. Although Janelle perceived the students at each site as reacting differently to her help, she observed similarities between their interactions with their peers. Janelle noted that both in the classroom and at LCM students helped each other by answering questions and explaining procedures: The only similarity I can see which would probably be in any child-child interaction, would be they help each other a lot. I've seen Michael help Carlos in a game, I've seen Carlos help his brother, and I see kids at the school helping each other, too. . . . They'll tell answers, or where are they, and they'll show, "Well, we're on this problem, we're on this page." Things like that. Janelle's perceptions of students at each site helping each other reflected her pre-term interview discussion regarding the importance of students learning from each other. Common Themes Across Cases Although the four research participants engaged in differing experiences both at LCM and in their classroom placements, two major themes emerged which were common across cases. All of the participants reflected on and struggled with the significance of the differences in literacy instruction between the two sites. For all of them, the critical point lay in the matter of authority, or who was in 187 control of the learning environment. The other common theme related to the literacy instruction of diverse students. This section examines the participants’ interpretations of these two issues in relation to each other. Of the many differences which existed between literacy instruction in the classroom and literacy instruction at LCM, all four participants repeatedly referred to the locus of power and control at each site. They all noted, in their own terms, that the teacher was the authority in the classroom while students were the authorities at LCM. Each participant expressed differing interpretations of this perceived situation in terms of both its validity and its significance to students' literacy learning. Sill;e_luterpretatieu Bill appeared to consider this difference in authority as an inherent characteristic of each site. He did not challenge what he perceived to be the teacher's authority in the classroom or the students’ authority at LCM. Rather, Bill attempted to conform to the role he envisioned as appropriate for himself at each site. This was the case in the classroom.even when his instruction consequently conflicted with his theoretical conceptions of literacy instruction, and at LCM even when his intervention 'would have significantly aided literacy learning. Bill interpreted his role as a classroom teacher as one of decision maker, expert, and leader. He attempted to add elements of interest to his literacy instruction, which he 188 stated was crucial to student motivation but often intrinsically missing. In contrast, Bill noted that the students were naturally interested in the activities at LCM; that they were in fact free to pursue those activities in which they were most interested. In spite of Bill’s emphasis on the importance of student interest, his interpretation of his role in each site was so clearly demarcated that he did not even conjecture how the type of literacy instruction which promoted student interest at LCM could be adapted for the classroom. Sarah;e_1uterpretatieu Sarah, too, noted that the teacher was the authority in the classroom while students were the authority at LCM. Unlike Bill, however, she questioned the value of this in the classroom. Sarah attempted to shift authority from the teacher to the students during her classroom literacy lessons by granting students some decision making power and by encouraging them to learn from each other. She placed herself in the role of cooperative learner at LCM by being a partner to the students as they engaged in the activities. At both sites, however, Sarah guided and directed the students in the direction she wanted them to go. Similar to Bill, Sarah perceived student interest and enjoyment as key to motivation. Also similar to Bill, although not to the same degree, she too considered student motivation as being a critical element of effective literacy instruction. Sarah, too, noted that students were not as 189 interested in classroom lessons as they were in LCM activities. She conjectured that this was at least partly due to the sense of control and ownership which students enjoyed at LCM. Unlike Bill, Sarah reflected on and experimented with ways in which to bring student decision making and cooperative learning into the classroom. Qaekie;a_1nterpretatien Jackie, too, perceived the teacher as the authority in the classroom and students as the 11 authority at LCM. Her interpretation of this was similar to a Sarah’s in that she, too, expressed the belief that classrooms should encourage the student ownership and responsibility which she observed at LCM. However, while Sarah focused on the motivational aspect of students enjoying control over their environment and learning from each other, Jackie's discussion of this issue focused on student empowerment. She conjectured that unlike literacy instruction in the classroom, the responsibilities which students experienced at LCM prompted them to become aware of and take control over what they were learning. Jackie attempted to promote these feelings of control and ownership in her classroom writing instruction. She continually emphasized the concept of authorship by reminding the students that all writing decisions were theirs alone to make. Unlike Sarah she did not encourage the students to rely on each other, but instead promoted individual responsibility. 190 W Janelle was the only participant who appeared uncomfortable with the role of students as authorities at LCM. She attempted to conform to her interpretation of what this meant, but expressed feelings of uselessness and dissatisfaction when the students did not appear to need her expertise. Janelle discussed the benefits of the teacher being the authority, particularly in regards to setting agendas and ensuring that students learned what she decided to teach. Like Bill, she appeared to assume that this was the teacher’s natural role. Unlike Bill and similar to both Sarah and Jackie, however, Janelle also attempted to allow students some of the authority which she observed at LCM. She modeled her classroom writing instruction after her LCM experiences, and encouraged students to make their own decisions. Janelle appeared to find value in the literacy instruction both in the classroom and at LCM, and struggled with how to integrate the two methods. L' str ' i s The research participants were enrolled in an alternative teacher education program which focused on the instruction of diverse elementary students; the populations of both field placements included diverse students. University course work and both field settings also included literacy instruction for those students. Consequently, the research participants appeared to have both the framework and the opportunity to reflect and act on issues regarding 191 literacy instruction for diverse students. While there were commonalities across the four participants, each interpreted their experiences with this issue somewhat differently. Bill;e_luterpretatieu Bill's classroom literacy instruction contradicted his theoretical conceptions as stated during the pre-term and post-term interviews. For example, he had opportunities to use culturally relevant . . _‘——i.l children's literature and independent seatwork, both elements an: of his conception of effective literacy instruction for diverse students. However, he elected to use textbook materials instead, and did not perceive the students’ independent seatwork as educationally productive. Bill's perception of his role as a classroom teacher appeared to influence these decisions. In contrast to his elementary classroom experiences, Bill valued the independent activities of students at LCM. He also accepted and valued a student’s non—school writing, another aspect of his theoretical conceptions of literacy instruction. Again, Bill's interpretation of literacy instruction in this setting appeared to be influenced by his perception of his role there. Sarah;e_1uterpretatien Like Bill, Sarah did not enact her theoretical conceptions of literacy instruction in the elementary classroom. Unlike Bill’s experience, however, the opportunity to do so did not appear to materialize. Sarah did not have the occasion to adapt her literacy instruction specifically for diverse students, which she had described 192 during the pre-term and post—term interviews as primarily an extension of her conceptions of literacy instruction in general. Instead, Sarah appeared to focus on more general, overall instruction. Sarah was the most verbal of the research participants in regard to this situation. She stated that LCM afforded her more opportunity to interact with diverse students, even gfififi though her classroom population was also diverse. She especially had the occasion to consider issues of linguistic T“ diversity. It appears that the low teacher—student ratio provided this opportunity for Sarah. Her interpretation of literacy instruction for diverse students was perhaps also influenced by the nature of the LCM activities. laekie;e_lnterpretatien Jackie’s interpretation of literacy instruction for diverse students was similar to Sarah's and Bill's in that she, too, did not enact in the elementary classroom the theoretical conceptions she had expressed during the pre-term and post-term interviews. Jackie was most like Sarah in that she also conceptualized literacy instruction for diverse students as primarily an extension of literacy instruction for all students. Like Sarah, Jackie did,not appear to have the opportunity to adapt her classroom instruction for this population. Unlike Sarah, however, Jackie did not discuss the opportunity to do so at LCM. The only explicit mention she made of a diverse student was surprise at his sharing of personal information, implying that this Opportunity for 193 personal relationships with students was not present in the classroom- Jackie appeared to focus on literacy instruction in general in both settings, not giving particular notice to issues of diversity. Janelle;e_luterpretatieu Janelle was most like Bill in her classroom literacy instruction for diverse students. She had opportunities to enact the theoretical conceptions she had expressed during the pre-term and post—term interviews, but did not do so. For example, she did not use culturally based materials or attempt to integrate the cultural knowledge of her writing group students into her literacy instruction. Of the four research participants, however, Janelle demonstrated most clearly that she had learned about the influence of language in literacy instruction. At the beginning of the term Janelle discounted the impact that speaking English as a second language might have on literacy learning. By the end of the term she recognized that a student who spoke English as a second language might have different instructional needs than a native English speaker. OI CHAPTER V IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS The purpose of this study was to examine the perceptions and interpretations of teaching and learning held by four preservice teachers who participated in literacy experiences in multicultural school and non-school settings. Pre-term and post—term interviews were designed to determine the participants' theoretical conceptions of literacy Ti .. i“ v. instruction. Observations of their field experiences, LL followed by interviews, revealed their reactions to various literacy instructional practices. Case studies were constructed, and consistent patterns within and across cases were identified and discussed. This chapter discusses theoretical implications and conclusions, and presents instructional suggestions based on the results of this study. First, the potential of non- school settings for providing contexts which complement classroom field experiences is addressed. In these settings preservice teachers can build personal relationships with students and gain understandings of their communities and diverse ways of knowing. Next, suggestions for integration of non—school experiences into standard teacher education curricula are presented. These include: (a) attention to the nature of the activities; (b) opportunities for reflection and comparison with conventional classroom experiences; (c) inclusion throughout various stages of professional development; and (d) institutional commitment. Finally, non- 194 195 school settings are discussed as a supportive context for enacting the ideals of multicultural teacher education, highlighting the socio—political nature of instruction. Non-School Field Experiences The preservice teachers’ participation at LCM represented one form of non-school field experiences. These types of experiences, known as service learning, focus on participation in local communities (Porter & Paulson, 1989). Programs differ in their inclusion of multiple literacies (Gallego & Hollingsworth, 1992); conventional school usages of literacy as well as personal and community forms of literate expression are evident in varying dimensions and degrees. The potential benefits to program participants vary according to specific circumstances. Perhaps most similar to typical classroom instruction are tutorial types of programs which focus on the development of school literacy. Participation in these field experiences consists of preservice teachers instructing students in problematic aspects of their classroom assignments. The preservice teachers act as the authorities, helping students acquire knowledge and skills necessary for classroom success. The benefits of this type of non-school field experience for preservice teachers may include greater understandings of the school environment, of school subject matters, and of school behaviors. The typical one-to-one or small group interactions may enable preservice teachers to become acquainted, perhaps for the first time, with someone F . 196 culturally different from themselves. This context prepares preservice teachers for classroom instruction by replicating school field experiences in a smaller, more manageable form. However, students' personal and community literacies are frequently not acknowledged or employed in these settings. In contrast, personal and community literacies are emphasized in field experiences which are far removed from 531 the school context. For example, participation in Big Brother or Big Sister programs or in neighborhood soup 3‘ kitchens focus on interpersonal relationships within community settings but exclude school books and homework assignments. In many cases interactions are extended to include family and community members, providing preservice teachers experiences which promote better understanding and acceptance of diverse students and their communities (Larke, Wiseman, & Bradley, 1990; Souers, 1979). In addition, preservice teachers are able to observe students who may perform poorly at school excelling in other areas and become aware that children already know a great deal, and continue to learn a great deal, outside of the school setting. However, the lack of a direct connection to schools and school literacy makes learning from these experiences in order to develop more effective classroom instruction difficult. Preservice teachers may not be able to capitalize on these new understandings within the school context. Field experiences which combine the benefits of school like and non—school like interactions provide a balance among 197 personal, community, and school literacies. The LCM project described in this study is an example of a setting which aimed to incorporate these multiple literacies. The focus on literacy and the use of computers resembled school, while the actual activities and the decision making role of the students differed from classroom instruction. The benefits of this type of non-school field experience for preservice teachers, elaborated in this study, included participants' observation of elements of literacy and literacy instruction not observed in their classroom settings. They experienced, interacted with, and influenced students’ non-school literacies in ways unlikely to occur in school settings. They developed personal relationships with children who were culturally different from themselves. At the same time, LCM included enough similarities to school that the participants were able to make comparisons to classroom settings. Consequently, they questioned the traditional role of teacher as authority and reflected on the benefits of allowing students decision making power. These experiences have the potential to influence their future literacy instruction, and to encourage them to incorporate non-school literacies into the classroom. Teacher Education Programs Teacher education programs are designed to help preservice teachers move beyond their personal experiences in the teaching and learning of subject matters and in the education of diverse students. However, research indicates 198 that preservice teachers often continue to base their interpretations of teaching and learning on past experiences, especially in regards to the role of the teacher. The results of this study suggest that alternative field placements can enhance these experiences and broaden conceptions of teaching and learning. Traditional classroom field placements often replicate instructional elements found in preservice teachers’ personal and academic histories. An additional field placement in L“ which teacher directed instruction is not the norm can prompt reflection on teacher and learner roles. Preservice teachers may be challenged to contrast school and non-school ways of knowing and to explore the appropriateness of other educational models. Highlighting personal and community literacies in addition to school literacy may also benefit teacher education programs. These field settings are fertile research sites for the study of students' multiple literacies, and provide the context for graduate students and practicing teachers to continue the development of their educational conceptions. Experienced educators' assumptions and implicit understandings can be challenged in the context of genuine inquiry, a necessary characteristic of the “reflective practitioner" (Schon, 1983). The potential benefits of including non-school field experiences in teacher education programs is dependent on several factors. First, the activities in these settings 199 should differ from typical school work. School—like reading and writing reinforce preservice teachers' notions of the teacher role; in turn, students may conform to school based norms. Activities which encourage the use of multiple literacies and alternative interactional norms will prompt preservice teachers to think about teaching and learning differently. In the current study, LCM provided this context --1 by encouraging students to make decisions regarding activities and valuing students' non-standard responses i.e. L. multiple understandings. Second, the comparison of various teaching and learning forms and their relation to the goals and purposes of each setting would be pertinent to the construction of classroom contexts. University courses could capitalize on issues raised through participation in non-school field experiences and strengthen connections between theory and practice. In the current study, the non—school site differed from conventional classrooms in important ways. Participants considered such issues as the use of inventive spelling and the consequences of allowing students in the classroom the right to discontinue activities which did not interest them, situations they frequently encountered at LCM. Third, universities would capitalize on non-school field experiences throughout the various stages of professional development. Because conceptions of teaching and learning continue to develop throughout undergraduate experiences, student teaching, teaching, and graduate school, preservice 200 teachers and teachers bring different levels and types of concerns and awareness to these settings (Fuller, 1969). Consequently, they continue to acquire different understandings from participation in them. Continued involvement in non-school settings would yield growing understandings and further develop dispositions towards becoming reflective life long learners. Fourth, universities must provide financial and academic support. Visible commitment would ensure continuation of non-school field experiences as well as signal to preservice teachers the importance of these issues. Currently, many multicultural teacher education programs receive outside funding and are consequently in existence for only a limited time. Additionally, such programs are often limited to a select group of preservice teachers. The non-school setting of the present study, funded by a private foundation, offered a limited number of preservice teachers the additional field placement through a literacy course taught by the program director. Integration of such programs into the standard curriculum is essential to providing all preservice teachers 'with opportunities to experience students' personal and community literacies in addition to school literacy instruction. In summary, non—school field experiences provide mutual benefits for preservice teachers, students, universities, and communities. Preservice teachers learn about the literacies of diverse students and various instructional approaches, 201 while students experience guidance and attention as they engage in authentic literacy tasks. The university receives the cooperation and support of community leaders, while the local community receives worthwhile activities and instruction for its children. Multicultural Teacher Education Preparing preservice teachers for the effective instruction of all students involves incorporating an appreciation for diverse cultures and knowledge of diverse ‘ways of knowing into the standard curriculum, and developing an understanding of the socio-political nature of such instruction. Sleeter and Grant (1988) describe multicultural education as a form of social action. They contend that children should learn about a cultural group in the context of its “relationships with other groups, how a group has made sense of its own status, and how it has attempted to compete with other groups" (p. 186). They also note that students should learn how struggles to change sociopolitical circumstances often result in cultural change. In addition to content knowledge, preservice teachers must acquire the skills and dispositions which they hope to impart to students. Sleeter and Grant (1988) suggest that these include (1) practicing democracy; (2) analyzing the circumstances of one's own life; (3) developing social action skills; (4) coalescing; and (5) commonalities with previous approaches. I. 202 Unfortunately, multicultural goals are often more easily realized in non-school settings than in conventional classrooms. Classroom constraints such as required curricula, standardized testing, administrative pressures, and teacher expectations based on personal and academic histories obstruct efforts toward change. In contrast, non- school settings such as the one described in the current study are free of these constraints and provide opportunities for social change, although alternate constraints such as limited space and resources restrict other possibilities. Using Sleeter and Grant's (1988) model, LCM provided several aspects of social action education. First, teaching and learning was democratic as illustrated by students' and preservice teachers' equal contributions to the interactions. Students made decisions regarding choice of activities and the nature of their involvement in those activities, and preservice teachers provided encouragement and guidance. The research participants noted that student choice was not a typical aspect of classroom activities. Second, LCM provided the participants opportunities to analyze the circumstances of their own lives in relationship to the lives of the students. The preservice teachers noted that they were not able to become so personally acquainted with students in their classroom placements, and commented on differences between students and themselves e.g. lifestyles and languages. This led to the third element of multicultural education, the development of social action 203 skills. As one participant commented, "Sometimes I think I learn more than they do [at LCM], not so much about literacy but social stuff. Social skills and society, I learn about there." Fourth, the participants and students experienced a coalescing of diverse groups at LCM. African-American, Asian, Latino, and White children from various socio-economic circumstances worked together as partners on computer activities. The participants were able to interact with these small groups as they worked together towards a common goal. The final suggested element of multicultural education, commonalities with previous multicultural approaches, was present at LCM in the form of the participants' alternative teacher education program. This program's focus on effective instruction for diverse students, which included field placements in diverse classrooms, was designed to provide methods and strategies appropriate for multicultural education. This factor, in addition to participation at LCM, influenced the development of their conceptions of teaching and learning. Summary School literacy often differs significantly from the personal and community literacies of diverse students. Instead of addressing these differences, teacher education programs frequently focus on the surface characteristics of minority groups and sometimes provide field experiences in 204 multicultural classrooms. When attempts are made to expand preservice teachers' conceptions of teaching and learning to include diverse ways of knowing, they often fail. Preservice teachers are influenced by their own histories of literacy use in school and non-school settings, which often differ from.students' backgrounds. Instruction which recognizes and values diverse non-school literacies often conflicts with what preservice teachers have personally experienced for many previous years. Participation in non-school learning environments can provide varied experiences which challenge these narrow conceptions. Inclusion of non-school field experiences is one response to culturally and socio-economically diverse public schools. The current study documented preservice teachers' evolving understandings of literacy, diversity, and the teacher's instructional role. More research is needed to better understand how non-school experiences influence preservice teachers' notions of teaching and learning. Further knowledge regarding which elements of non-school learning environments are useful for teacher education will inform the development of programs which include attention to students' personal and community literacies and diverse ways of knowing. This study provided a strong beginning in understanding the potential of non-school field experiences. The four research participants perceived and interpreted teaching and learning differently in the non-school learning environment than they did in elementary classroom settings. Participation Ia .el 205 in both types of settings furthered their understandings in these areas and often prompted reflection on educational issues. Their responses to the teacher's instructional role, diverse students, and literacy are significant to the further development of education which is multicultural and serves the needs of all students. LI ST OF REFERENCES '3 3' LIST OF REFERENCES Adams, B.S. Pardo, W. E. & Schniedewind, N. (1991/1992, Dec. — Jan. ). Changing "The way things are done around here. " Educational_LeadershipJ 37- 42. Applebee, A. N. (1984, Winter). Writing and reasoning. Review of_Educational_Besearch, 54(4), 577-593. Au, K.H., & Mason, J.M. (1982). Cultural congruence in classroom participation structures: Achieving a balance of rights. Discourse_£rocesses. S. 115-167. Banks, J.A. (1991). Teaching multicultural literacy to teachers. Teacher_Educatipn. 4(1). 135-143. Baptiste Jr., H.P. (1979). Multicultural agngggjgn. B eynepeier Washington, D. C. University Press of America. Bawden, R., Buike, S., & Duffy, G.G. (1979). (leather . E 1' i I] . . El inetruetion (Research Series No. 47). E. Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, Institute for Research on Teaching. Bennett. C. (1988, April). Ihe_effects_of_a_multicultural “q. a :01 o .‘ o 9-1 ‘1 ' - ca 1‘ ' . ' 0‘ , knowledge_and_beharinrs Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans. Bennett, C., Niggle, T., & Stage, F. (1990). Preservice multicultural teacher education: Predictors of student readiness. Teaching_and__Teacher_Educatinn, 6(3). 243- 254. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). An attainable version of high literacy: Approaches to teaching higher— order skills in reading and writing. gurrigulum Inquiry 11(1). 9- 30 Beyer, L. (1991). Teacher education, reflective inquiry and moral action. In B.R. Tabachnick & K. Zeichner (Eds.), 206 207 5 ct' 'n ' i - riente e her edueatiep (pp. 113-129). Bristol, PA: Falmer Press. Britzman, D.P. (1986). Cultural myths in the making of a teacher: Biography and social structure in teacher education. Haryard Edueatienal Reyieu, SS(4), 442—455. Burstein, N.D., & Cabello, B. (1989, Sept.-Oct.). Preparing teachers to work with culturally diverse students: A teacher education model. Qeurnal gf Teacher Edueatieu, 9-16. Cazden, C. B. & Mehan, H. (1989). Principles from sociology and anthropology. In M. C. Reynolds (Ed. ), Kuguledge base_for_the_heg1nning_teacher.(pp 47- 57). New York: Pergamon Press. Center for Educational Statistics (1987). Digeet_gt educational_statisticss Washington. DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Cole, M. (1990). Capitalizing en diyersi 1ty; A prgpeeal for a_d1str1buted_literacr_consortium. (Report No 91- -5215) La Jolla, CA: Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition. Cole, M., & Griffin, P. (1983). A socio-historical approach to remediation. h a Ne Laboratorr_of_Qomparatire_fluman_cogn1tion. 5. 69-74. Cole. M., & NicolopoulOU. A. (1991) Creating_sustainahle new_form__of_educational_actirity_in_afterschool eettinge. Final report to the Spencer Foundation. Cook-Gumperz. J. (1986). Ihe_social_construction_of literaey. New York: Cambridge University Press. Cummins, J. (1986, Feb. ). Empowering minority students: A framework for intervention Harrard_Educational_Beriew. 55(1), 18- 35. Cushner, K., & Brislin, R. (1986, Nov.-Dec.). Bridging gaps: Cross-cultural training in teacher education. Quurual_gf Teacher_Education. 51-54- DeFord, D.E. (1984). Classroom contexts for literacy learning. In T.E. Raphael (Ed.), The egntegte ef schoolzbased_literacy (pp. 163-180). New York: Random House. 208 DeFord, D. E. (1985). Validating the construct of theoretical orientation in reading instruction. Reagiug_3eeearga Quarterly 2Q. 351- 367. DeLawter, J. (1990). h' i r - From cl rk explgrer (Report Series 5.1). Albany, NY: State University of New York at Albany, Center for the Teaching and Learning of Literature. Delpit, L. (1991). A conversation with Lisa Delpit. Language m5: fig: 541-547. DeVos, G. (1983). Ethnic identity and minority status: Some psychocultural considerations. In A. Jacobson— —Widding (Ed ). WW1 (pp 124- 158). Upsala: Almquist & Wiksell. Deyhle, D. (1985). Testing among Navajo and Anglo students: Another consideration of cultural bias. qurual_gf BMW 5. 119-131. Eisenhart, M.A., & Cutts-Dougherty, K. (1991). Social and cultural constraints on students' access to school knowledge. In E. H. Hiebert (Ed.), Literagy_fgr_a, 9: ‘,_‘ S9 'e ' "_.9‘ c 9 . ‘ <99 99 i f-s (pp. 28-44). New York: Teachers College. Elbow, P. (1986). 'n n ' o ' 'n WW9. Oxford University Press Erickson, F. (1987). Transformation and school success: The politics and culture of educational achievement. W. 1.8. 335-356. Ferdman, B. M. (1990, May). Literacy and cultural identity. WW 511(2). 181-202. Feiman-Nemser, S. (1983). Learning to teach. In L. Shulman & G. Sykes (Eds.), W (pp- 150-170). New York: Longman. Feiman—Nemser, S., McDiarmid, G.W., Melnick, S.L., & Parker, M. (1989). chan91n9_b_eginnin9__tea9hers__c_on_cep_t_i_ons_:_A 9‘ :9 199 9_ .9 ‘9 99 9s. ‘a 9‘ ‘9- a :9 9 7 (Research Report 89- -1). E. Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, National Center for Research on Teacher Education. Field, M.L., & Aebersold, J.A. (1990, March). Cultural attitudes toward reading: Implications for teachers of ESL/bilingual readers. qurual_gr_3eaaiug4 406-410. 3‘ 209 Freire. P. (1981). Pedagogy_of_the_oppressed, (M. B. Ramos. Trans.). New York: Continuum. Freire, P. (1985). l' i f du ation- lture, n i e i n. (D. Macedo, Trans.). Granby, MA: Bergin & Garvey. Freire, P., & Macedo, D. (1987). i r ' Rea i e wor and the wgrlg, South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey. Fuller, F. F. (1969). Concerns of teachers: A developmental conceptualization. e rc Journal. 6(2). 207- 226. Gallego, M.A. (1993a). i n 'o h 'fth I c 99 ‘2 99 z - - _‘ 999 ‘ ‘ -.r9 9 euyirgume_t. E. Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, Julian Samora Research Institute. GallegO. M. A (1993b) La_Clase_Magioai__An_ayenue_for understan91n9_multiplo_litoraoies E Lansing. MI: Michigan State University, Julian Samora Research Institute. Gallego, M.A. (in press) La_Clase_Magioai__An_alternatiye ‘9 ! 9 ‘ ...QJ‘! 0 ‘v. 9‘ ‘0 -. 0!. - -Q‘Il -nd community_ohildren1 E Lansing. MI: Michigan State University, Julian Samora Research Institute. Gallego, M., & Hollingsworth, S. (1992, March). Research directions: Multiple literacies: Teachers' evolving perceptions. Language_Artsl 99. 206-213. Gay, G. (1986). Multicultural teacher education. In J. Banks & J Lynch (Eds. ). Multioultural_oduoation_1n Western_sggieties_(pp.154—177). New York: Praeger. Gomez, M., & Tabachnik, B.R. (1991, April). Preparing prosory1oo_toaohers_to_toaoh_diyorso_learners. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago. Goodman, J. (1985, Nov.-Dec.). What students learn from early field experiences: A case study and critical analysis. Journa1_of_leaoher_Bduoation. 42-48. Goodman, K.S. (1976). Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game. In H. Singer & R. R. Ruddell (Eds.), Ihegretieal models_and_prooesses_of_roading (2nd ed.). Newark. DE: International Reading Association. 210 Goodman, K.S. (1970). Behind the eye: What happens in reading. In K.S. Goodman & O.S. Niles (Eds.), Readiug: Ergee§e_aug_prggram; Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Goodman, Y.M., & Goodman, K.S. (1992). vygotsky in a whole- language perspective. In L.C. Moll (Ed.), yyggteky_aud ‘9. a 99' 9 t-. '99: :u9li . '99- 1 9 -991i 5 i99 of_sooiohistorioal_psyohology. (pp. 223-250). New York: Cambridge University Press. Gough, P.B. (1972). One second of reading. In J.F. Kavanagh & I-G. Mattingly (Eds.). Language_by_ear_and_eye, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Grant. c. (1989). Culture_and_toaoh1991__flhat_do_teaohers need_tg_kugu2 (Conference Series 89-1). E. Lansing, MI: .Michigan State University, National Center for Research on Teacher Education. Grant, C.AJ, & Secada, W. (1990). Preparing teachers for diversity. In W. Robert Houston (Ed.), Haudbggk_gf .researoh_in_teaoher_oduoation, New York: MacMillan. Grant, C. & Sleeter, C. (1985). The literature on multicultural education: Review and analysis. Bduoational.Beyiew. 31(2). 97-118. Grant, C., Sleeter, C., & Anderson, J. (1986). The literature on multicultural education: Review and analysis Educational_Studies. 12. 47- 71 Green, J.L. (1992). Multiple perspectives: Issues and directions. In R. Beach, J. L. Green, M.L. Kamil, & T. Shanahan (Eds. ). Mult1d1soiplinary_porspeotiyes_on literaey_reeeargu_(pp. 19-33). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Gumperz, J. (1986). Interactional sociolinguistics in the study of schooling. In J. Cook- -Gumperz (Ed. ), The soo1al_oonstruotion_of_litoraoy.(pp 45- 68) Cambridge. .MA: Cambridge University Press. Haberman, M. (1991). Can cultural awareness be taught in teacher education programs? Teaching_Bduoation. 4(1). 25- 31. Hadaway, N. L. & Florez, V. (1987/1988, Fall/Winter). Diversity in the classroom: Are our teachers prepared? Ieaoher_Bdnoation_and_£raotioe. 25- 29. Fran 211 Heath, S.B. (1982a). What no bedtime story means: Narrative skills at home and school. Language iu Society, ll, 49— 76. Heath, S.B. (1982b). Questioning at home and at school: A comparative study. In Dgiug the ethnography gf h ' - ' lo 'n ti n (pp. 102- 131). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Wilson. Heath, S. B. (1983). wi n ua 1i nd ugrk in gem upitiee and elaesrggms. New York: Cambridge University Press. Heath, S. B. (1985). Being literate in America: A sociohistorical perspective. In J. eA. Niles & R.V. Lalik (Eds. ). A r rs i e (Vol. 1). Chicago: National Reading Conference. Herrmann, B. A. (1989). The evolution of preservice teachers' knowledge structures. In S. McCormick & J. Zutell (Eds ), ee 0 - e‘_ -e‘ ‘ e -.. W (pp 511- 519). Chicago: National Reading Conference. Hodgkinson. H.L. (1985). W Washington, DC: Institute for Educational Leadership. Hollingsworth, S. (1988). Making field—based programs work: A three level approach to reading education. figurual_ef Teaohonfiduoaoign. 19(4). 28-36. Hollingsworth, S. (1989). Prior beliefs and cognitive change in learning to teach W Ward. 2.6(2). 160- 189. Holt-Reynolds. D. (1991. Dec.) 121W -.99 99. ‘ 999v... 9 ‘ h‘ ‘ ‘ 9‘ -.-‘ WWW hifiLQIi§§1 Paper presented at the National Reading Conference, Palm Springs, CA. Ishler, P., & Kay, R. (1981). A survey of institutional practice. In C. Webb, N. Gehrke, P. Ishler, & A. Mendoze (Eds L W edugatigu_(pp.15-22L Washington, DC: Association of Teacher Educators. Johnson, J. (1988). The relationship between preservice teachers' instruction of reading and their emerging conceptions of reading. In J.E. Readence & R.S. Baldwin 212 (Eds.), D1a1ggue§_1n_1iteracx_researgh.(pp. 355-361). Chicago: The National Reading Conference. Jordell, K.O. (1987). Structural and personal influences in the socialization of beginning teachers. Teaghing and Teacher_Edngatign. 1(3). 165-177. Kennedy, M. M. Jung, R. K. & Orland, M. E. (1986). ngerty, 1 ‘ ‘u‘! - a 1‘ 9 9 59D 9 omo- - 9 gdggatigg_§§tyigg§_(Interim report from the National Assessment of Chapter 1). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Ladson-Billings, G. (1991, April). ' r n e s 9' a- ‘ ' 1 ‘ '9’- 9! a ‘1 -r ‘9 - '99 S _e ‘9| fgr_sgnn1er1ng_student_resistance_tg_diyersity. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago. Langer, J.A. (1987). A sociocognitive perspective on literacy In J A Langer (Ed ). Language1_literacz1_a_g cnltnre1__Issues_gf_sgcietx_and_sghggling (pp 1- -20). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Larke, P. (1990). Cultural diversity awareness inventory: Assessing the sensitivity of preservice teachers. Act19n_1n_Ieacher_EducatignJ XII(3). 23- 30. Larke, P.J., Wiseman, D., & Bradley, C. (1990, Fall). The minority mentorship project: Changing attitudes of preservice teachers for diverse classrooms. Agtigg_in Isacher.Educatign. XII(3). 5-11. Lortie, D.C. (1975). Sghggltggghett Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Maddox, H. (1968). A descriptive study of teaching practice. Edncatignal_3exiem. 2Q. 177-19o. Marso, R. N. & Pigge, F. L. (1989). The influence of preservice training and teaching experience upon attitude and concerns about teaching. Igaghing_§nd Isacher.£dngatign4 5(1). 33- 41 McDiarmid, G. w. (1990). What_tg_dg_abgut_differengesz_1a _.. . H - -9. 9‘ 7'. _Q--- the_Lgs_Angelss_un1f1ed_$ghggl_n1str1gt (Research Report 90- 11). E. Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, National Center for Research on Teacher Education. McDiarmid, G.W., & Price, J. (1990). Prgspegtiy§_tggghet§j 1‘1- . 0. ‘ ‘ ‘0. 9‘ ' 4 - .0. 0 I- 99. ._ _an 213 1n_1he_AB£D_prgiegt_(Research Report 90-6). E. Lansing. MI: Michigan State University, National Center for Research on Teacher Education. Michaels, S. (1981). "Sharing time": Children's narrative styles and differential access to literacy. Language in Societxi 12. 423-442. Meloth, M.S., Book, C., Putnam, J., & Sivan, E. (1989, Sept.— Oct.). Teachers' concepts of reading, reading instruction, and students' concepts of reading. Journel gf_Ieacher_EducatignJ 33-39- Michaels, 8., & O'Connor, M.C. (1990). .Literaey_ae_reasgn1ng 9i; .- f9 ‘ 9' 9 ‘ l9 - '9 9 99 i . d ¢ edgeetienel_refigtmt Paper presented at the Council of Chief State School Officers Summer Institute. Michelson, S., LaSovage, J. & Duffy, G.G. (1984). An ‘11.... 9 _.Q 0f .0 ‘ ‘, ‘9. Q‘ ' 0! I! -9. ,Qzl'e dnr1ng_reading_methgds_1nstructign (Research Series No. 146). E. Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, Institute for Research on Teaching. National Center for Research on Teacher Education. (1990). yglnme.11__£rgpgsal_uarratixe, E. Lansing. MI: Michigan State University, Author. 0' Malley, J. M. (1981). h' ' ' s Langnage_m1ngr1tr_ch11dren_mith_11mited_English prof1g1engx_1n_the_United_States. Rosslyn. VA: InterAmerica Research Associates, National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. Padak, N.D., & Nelson, O.G. (1990). Becoming a teacher of literacy: Novice whole language teachers in conventional instructional environments. In J. Zutell & s. McCormick (Eds.), L1terac¥_thegrx_and_researghs Ana1xses_frgm_multiple_parad1gms. (pp. 99-107). Chicago: National Reading Conference. Porter, H. E. & Paulson, S. J. (1989). Bringiplee_ef_gggd prac11ce_fgr_ggmb1n1ng_seryige_and_learning (Wingspread Special Report). Racine, WI: The Johnson Foundation. Ross, D., Johnson, M., & Smith, W. (1991, April). Helping presery1ce_teaghers_gonfrgnt_1ssues_reiated_tg 99¢ ‘Oli ' 1 - '99 - 9n i 9 r ‘ 9. en§_fiielfimg;kt Paper presented at 1the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago. 214 Rumelhart, D. (1977). Toward an interactive model of reading. In S. Dornic (Ed.), en i a e. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Schon, D. (1983). Th re e i rac ' ' r: How profess1gnals_th1nh1 New York: Basic Books. Scribner, S. (1984, November). Literacy in three metaphors. Amer1can_Jonrnal_gf_Edggatign. 6-21. Scribner. 8.. & Cole. M. (1981). Ibe.p§xch219gx_gf_literacxs Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Shade, B.J. (1982). Afro—American cognitive style: A variable in school success? Eeyiem ef Edgcetienal Researghi 52. 219-244. Shannon. P. (1988). Brgken_prgm1ses1__Read1ng_1nstrnctign_1n i - u ' a. South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey. Shefelbine, J.L., & Hollingsworth, S. (1987). The instructional decisions of preservice teachers during a reading practicum. Qgurnal_gf_Ieagher_EducatignJ 19(1). 36-42. Sherr, M. B. (1990, Spring). Teaching the politics of literacy: Notes from a "methods” course. Helietie Educ_tign_Reyiem. 17- 20 Sleeter, C. (1985). A need for research on preservice teacher education for mainstreaming and multicultural teacher education lonrna1_gf_Educatigna1_Eguitx_and Leadershipl i. 205- 215. Sleeter, c. (1988). Eresery19s.;gnrsemgrk_and_fie1d ‘A9‘ "9 ‘. ‘9 . '99° ,19: 99 teag_er_behaxi_r1 Kenosha: University of Wisconsin- Parkside School of Education. Sleeter, C. (1989). Doing multicultural education across the grade levels and subject areas: A case study of Wisconsin Ieach1ng_and11eagher_flducatign.. 5(3). 189- 203. Sleeter, C., & Grant, C. (1987). An analysis of multicultural education in the United States. Heryetd Educational_3eyieu. 51. 421-444. Sleeter, C., & Grant, C. (1988). Making_ehgieee_fgr u ' a '9n ‘ -99 9o 9‘ 9 - e, 911111.1gd_g§n11;. Columbus. OH: Merrill 215 Souers, M.E. (1979, Summer). Opportunity Week: Increasing multicultural awareness in a teacher education program. Teacher_Ed2211211 15(1). 32-36. Stallings, J.A., & Quinn, L.F. (1991, Nov.). Learning how to teach in the inner city. Educational_1eadersh124 25-27- Stanovich, K.E. (1980). Toward an interactive-compensatory model of individual differences in the development of reading fluency. Reading_Researgh_QuarterlzJ 11. 32—71. Stuckey. J.E. (1991). Ihe_yiglence_gf_literacyg Portsmouth. NH: Boynton/Cook. Tabachnick, R., Popkewitz, T., & Zeichner, K. (1979-1980). Teacher education and the professional perspectives of student teachers. IntetehengeJ 19(4), 12-29. Taylor, D., & Dorsey-Gaines, C. (1988). Grewing up 1itezete: Learn1ng_frgm_1nner;gitx_families. Portsmouth. NH: Heineman Educational Books. Trent, W. (1990). Race and ethnicity in the teacher education curriculum Egu_da11gna1_stud1es_1n_Ieacher_Edugat1gn 63- 71. Trueba, H.T. (1990). The role of culture in literacy acquisition: An interdisciplinary approach to qualitative research. u i tu i a 'on, 1(1). 1- 13 Venezky, R.L. (1991). The development of literacy in the industrialized nations of the west. In R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, & P.D. Pearson (Eds.), Hengbggk of_read1ng_researgh_(Vol. 2). (pp- 46-67). New York: Longman. Vygotsky, L. S. (1933/1966). Play and its role in the mental development of the child. Seyiet_£eyehglggy, 12, 6— 18. (A stenographic record of a lecture given in 1933). Vygotsky. L.S. (1962). Thought_and_langnage1 Cambridge. MA: MIT Press. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). M1nd_1n_sgc1e111__1he_deye1gpment_of h1gher_psychological_prgcesses, Edited by M. Cole. V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 216 Weinstein, C.S. (1989). Teacher education students' preconceptions of teaching. figurnal of Teacher Educationl 49(2). 53-60. Weinstein, C.S. (1990). Prospective elementary teachers' beliefs about teaching: Implications for teacher education. Ieach1ng_and_Ieacher_Education. §(3). 279- 290. Wertsch, J. (1985). ' a ' he mind; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Yin. R.K. (1989). Case_studx_research1_nesign_and_nethods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Zeichner. K.M. (1993). Educat1ng_teachers_for_cultura1 diygrsityg E. Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, National Center for Research on Teacher Learning. Zeichner, K.M., & Tabachnick, B.R. (1981, May-June). Are the effects of university teacher education ‘washed out' by school experience? lourna1_of_1eacher_fiducation. 12(3). 7-11. APPENDICES APPENDIX A Conceptions of Literacy Instruction Questionnaire r f s Th ori s u: bottom-up theory interactive theory d: top-down theory c: social-constructivist theory M(TP“U After you read each item, rank the responses in order of preference: number “1" the response with which you most strongly agree; number “2" your next choice, and so on. Then write a brief explanation for your choices. These situations could be handled in a number of ways, so don’t worry about figuring out the “right" answer. 1. You are concerned about the reading level of the new student, Joey. He is far behind the other third graders, and has difficulty reading even simple stories. You decide that for Joey, reading instruction should (h-u) consist of one-on-one emphasis of the fundamental skills he lacks. ( i ) focus on teaching him strategies that will aid in comprehension. (t-d) develop a love and enjoyment of quality literature. 1.51;). emphasize thinking and reasoning with others about the ideas in texts. 2. The local paper has published the standardized test scores of the urban, multicultural elementary school in which you teach fifth grade. The principal is upset about the public’s negative reaction to the low scores, and has decided to re—evaluate the literacy curriculum. In response to his question regarding the focus of literacy instruction in your classroom you respond that you plan to strengthen efforts in the area of direct instruction of fundamental grade level 'materials, so students will do better on standardized tests. including more culture-specific materials, so students can better relate to the material in texts. using children's literature to encourage development of reading ability. using written and oral language in genuine exchanges of information and ideas. EEEE 217 218 3. As part of a social studies unit, your class of third graders is writing letters to the mayor protesting plans to construct an office building on a neighborhood playground. Several children write their letters in regional dialects (e.g. Black English). You believe that these letters (b—u) should be edited, so students learn the correct way to write formal letters as well as correct grammar. ( i ) should be edited, so students learn the importance of audience in writing. (t—d) should be mailed as they are, because they are an accurate reflection of the students’ developmental stage. (s-g) should be mailed as they are, because dialects are as “correct" as standard English, and reflect genuine communication. 4. After graduating from college you get a job in an elementary school in Los Angeles, where you will be teaching urban students of diverse cultural/ethnic backgrounds. In thinking back over your teacher education program, when making decisions about literacy instruction you decide to rely on (p—u) what you learned about teaching techniques. ( i ) what you learned about how students get meaning from books. (t—d) what you learned about children's interests in literature. (s-g) what you learned through collaboration with others. 5. You have been nominated as Reading Teacher of the Year. As you fill out the necessary forms, you notice a question asking about how your teaching style matches the way in which children learn. You write: — I am always clear and consistent when teaching, and allow plenty of time for practice. My instruction starts with the familiar, so students can make connections to what they already know. My classroom contains materials and centers that naturally interest children and thus promote their reading development. I provide instruction which enables students to work slightly beyond their current abilities. HEE 219 6. The literacy levels of the students in your first grade class range from students who are still learning the alphabet to those who are reading and writing independently. In order to provide the best instruction for all, you group students by ability so you can efficiently focus on particular needs. vary whole group and small group instruction so students get what they need. allow students to individually progress at their own pace. pair or group students of different abilities so they can learn from each other. NEE 7. You have spent a lot of extra time and effort working with Juan, whose first language is Spanish. His literacy abilities are quite low, and you have seen little improvement. At the same time you notice that several other children, to whom you have not given extra attention, have improved greatly. As you think about this situation, you decide that the reason for it is that Juan needs still more extra help and practice. that your instruction has not provided Juan with a way to relate to the material being taught. ‘ that the activities the other children enjoy have not been interesting or meaningful for Juan. that there is a communication problem, possibly between both Juan and you, and between Juan and the other children. ME? 8. You and your best friend are talking about the classes each of you are taking. Your friend asks you about the effort you put into readings for your education courses on literacy. You reply: I usually study the details in the text, which the teacher further clarifies. I carefully study the assigned readings; this helps me to form my opinions. I may read the assignments, but what's more important to me is reading interesting, related materials outside of class. I usually read the assignments, but I learn more from discussing issues with the teacher and other students. NEE APPENDIX B Pre-Term and Post-Term Interview The interviewer explained to the participants that they would be asked to talk about their responses to the questionnaire. The interviewer also explained that there were a number of ways to think about these situations, and that responses were not judged as “right" or “wrong." E r:' 1 W 1. Tell me about number ___ 2. Why did you number the choices in this way? 3 Is there an answer not listed here that you would have preferred? 4. Can you tell me more about your thinking? 5 If response is not clear: Why is that important? 6 If response is clear, repeat reasoning for verification. ‘m 9‘ i P 0". Q‘_l’ ‘9 0 9‘ ‘0“). .! -‘, “ Of 1. Item #1, regarding content of literacy instruction for a student reading below grade level: How would you rank these for the other third graders, who are reading at or above grade level? Why? 2. Item #2, regarding instructional focus in response to pressure to improve standardized test scores: How would you rank these if your class had scored high on the standardized test? Why? 3. Item #3, regarding use of dialects in writing to the mayor: How would you rank these for other kinds of writing assignments? Why? 4. Item #4, regarding the knowledge base for teaching diverse students: How would you rank these if you were teaching in the same type of school that you had gone to as a child? Why? 5. Item #5, regarding the match between teaching style and student learning: Do you think this is true of all effective instruction? Can you tell me about that? 220 221 6. Item #6, regarding literacy instruction for students with a wide range of abilities: How would you rank these if your students were all at about the same level? Why? 7. Item #7, regarding the slow progress of a student for whom English is a second language: How would you rank these if the student was a native English speaker? Why? 8. Item #8, regarding effort in literacy courses in the teacher education program: How would you rank these for other teacher education courses? Why? APPENDIX C Field Interview Regarding content of literacy instruction in the claSsroom 1. Let’s talk about what was going on in your classroom when I was there. 2. What was the lesson about? What were the students supposed to get out of it? Is that important? Why is that important/not important? What do you think the students learned? How do you know they learned that? \JmLflbW» °-., oino ‘ 90! 0. ' -7. ° _ '09 '1 9‘ ,1 com 1. How were the students supposed to learn about ? 2. Do you think that was a good way? 3. Can you tell me why you think that? 4. Do you think there’s a more effective way to teach that? I-ooro: o 09 -_ 0 ° .,2 ' _ . '0 a 9‘ 901-. 1001 setting 1. Let’s talk about what was going on at LCM when I was there. 2 What were you working on? 3 What were the students supposed to get out of it? 4. Is that important? 5. Why is that important/not important? 6 What do you think the students learned? 7 How do you know they learned that? "°1_..!' l‘ 3'! °_ . ‘_2 .- '0! at ‘ 01' 9001 setting 1. How were the students supposed to learn about ? 2. Do you think that was a good way? 3 Can you tell me why you think that? 4 Do you think there's a more effective way to teach that? R‘O— 9.9- 9‘ .2 a '09-9'9 9‘ .“1 '7‘ a #9 79- -._r00 - ' 9 WW 1. Do you see any relationship between literacy in the classroom and literacy at LCM? 2. If no: How are they different? 3. If yes: Can you tell me about that? What similarities do you see? What differences do you see? 222 "11111171111“