NAVIGATING THE DEVELOPMENT OF WRITING PEDAGOGY: SCAFFOLDING TEXT, CONTEXT AND POLITICS By Erin Wibbens A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Curriculum, Teaching, and Education Policy – Doctor of Philosophy 2015 i ABSTRACT NAVIGATING THE DEVELOPMENT OF WRITING PEDAGOGY: SCAFFOLDING TEXT, CONTEXT AND POLITICS By Erin Wibbens Designed as formative action research, this study investigates the semester-long development of writing pedagogy of four interns in an advanced methods literacy course. Through the lenses of Activity Theory, scaffolding, and reflection for learning, the study asks: 1) How do interns navigate internship experiences in the content of their course work and internship contexts with regard to text, context, and politics as they develop pedagogy for writing? and 2) How do I, as a literacy teacher educator/researcher, scaffold pedagogical development in writing instruction while acknowledging the various and varied textual, contextual and political experiences of four interns in my course? Qualitative analysis of intern assignments, reflections on teaching, and conversations about our work in the advanced literacy methods course resulted in six themes as important for teacher educators as they work with interns learning to teach writing: 1) Texts facilitate curricular modification; 2) Texts facilitate the emergence of interns as writing teachers; 3) Attention to context and its proximal resources can support the discovery and use of instructional tools; 4) Attention to context and its distal resources can support the discovery and use of intern/mentor relationships; 5) Translating scripted curriculum is difficult; and 6) Retro-fitting scripted curriculum to meet the needs and interests of students can be a confusing process. Findings ii suggest that designing opportunities for responsive teaching is important during the development of writing pedagogy. Implications for teacher educators, professional development, and policymakers are listed. iii To Dominic my super hero Malina my adventurer and Cecilia my soul mate iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS In a dissertation process as lengthy as this, sometimes fewer words is better. Sometimes, less is more. Thank you, Jim, for your unwavering support and your tireless contribution to my vocation. Most of all, thank you for praying for me, believing in me, and loving me. Thank you mom and dad, and especially Grandpa, for always, always telling me: Of course you can! Thank you to Cheryl and Janine for making me a smarter and more articulate scholar while honoring my innate calling to be a teacher and a mom. And, lastly, thank you to my students- the little ones and the big ones. Because of you, I have found work that is motivating and fulfilling. You have inspired in me an open mind and a steadfast heart. v –Erin PREFACE To be a good writer, you not only have to write a great deal but you have to care… to participate requires self-discipline and trust and courage, because this business of becoming conscious, of being a writer, is ultimately about asking yourself, How alive am I willing to be?” (Anne Lamott, 1994) vi TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES xi LIST OF FIGURES xiii Chapter 1 Introduction and Problem of Practice Study Overview Problem of Practice Little Attention to Writing Pedagogy Little Consistency in Writing Pedagogy Few Experiences and Resources The Dissertation Study Problematizing Varied Contexts 1 1 5 9 15 16 17 17 19 Chapter 2 Review of Literature and Theoretical Framework Learning to Teach Role of Teacher Education in Learning to Teach Learning to Teach Writing What Teachers of Writing Need to Know Subject matter knowledge Conceptualizing good writing Pedagogical content knowledge Research based best practices Situated knowledge Text, context, and politics Text Knowledge of products Knowledge of process Context Politics Navigating Writing Instruction During the Internship Navigating politics and mandated writing curriculum Impact and implications of mandated writing curriculum Navigating the instructional context for writing instruction Conclusion Theoretical Framework 26 26 28 30 33 37 40 41 43 45 46 48 50 50 52 53 56 58 vii 59 61 63 66 67 Activity Theory Activity setting Tool use within activity settings Conceptual tools Practical tools Scaffolding Learning through Reflection Chapter 3 Design and Methodology Research Questions Design Role of the Researcher Setting The internship Course Text Context Politics Field Classroom Text Context Politics Participants Blake: Units of study at University View Middle School Text: The writing unit Context: School and classroom Politics: School and district policies Renee: Mystery writing at Arrowhead Middle School Text: The writing unit Context: School and classroom Politics: School and district policies Olivia: Tall tales at Arrowhead Middle School Text: The writing unit Context: School and classroom Politics: School and district policies Dana: Units of Study at Topfield Elementary School Text: The writing unit Context: School and classroom Politics: School and district policies Data Sources and Collection Data Analysis Qualitative Analysis Coding viii 69 70 73 74 74 76 78 80 80 81 81 84 86 86 88 89 89 90 91 92 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 99 100 102 102 103 104 105 106 107 107 109 109 113 114 114 Coding for text Coding for context Coding for politics Reliability and Validity Findings 117 119 120 121 122 Chapter 4 Navigating Text: Writing Facilitates Adaptation and Emergence of a Writing Teacher The Significance of Text Writing Facilitates Adaptation Writing text led to adaptation Reflecting on text led to adaptation Adaptation Led to Pedagogical Development Writing Facilitates Emergence of ‘A Writing Teacher’ Taking control of text Students give life to “the writing teacher” Writing Teachers Emerge What Texts Reveal to Teacher Educators Text as a teaching tool Scaffolding practical tools Scaffolding conceptual tools Relationships as conceptual tools Making Instructional Moves Based on Text 123 Chapter 5 Navigating Context: Resources and Mentors Contribute to Pedagogical Development The Significance of Context Renee’s Experience with Proximal Resources: Tools to Support Teaching Identification of resources Adaptation of resources Adapting instructional methods Adapting instructional materials Proximal resources influence pedagogical development Olivia’s Experience with Distal Resources: Building Meaningful Relationships Identification of mentors The teacher down the hall Literature to support writing instruction Distal resources influence pedagogical development What Contexts Reveal to Teacher Educators Context as a teaching tool 182 ix 123 127 132 139 141 142 144 148 151 153 157 159 166 171 178 180 182 185 188 192 195 196 199 200 201 205 206 207 210 212 213 Scaffolding proximal resources Course assignments Scaffolding distal resources Structuring pedagogical support Making Instructional Moves Based on Context 215 216 220 223 225 Chapter 6 Navigating Politics: Curricular Mandates Influence Pedagogical Development Translating Scripted Lessons Retrofitting Scripted Lessons What Politics Reveals to Teacher Educators Scaffolding adaptation Scaffolding practical tools Scaffolding conceptual tools Making Instructional Moves Based on Politics Research specific to Lucy Calkins’ Units of Study 228 Chapter 7 Implications Fostering Responsive Teachers Responsiveness Reconceptualizing the Development of Intern Writing Pedagogy Scaffolding adaptive expertise Implications Teacher education Professional development Policymakers Future Research Conclusion 260 260 263 264 268 271 274 275 279 282 285 287 APPENDICES Appendix A: Timeline of Course Topics Appendix B: Interview Protocol Appendix C: Full Text of Inquiry Assignments Appendix D: Code Book Appendix E: Dana’s Lesson Revision Appendix F: Renee’s Original Handout Appendix G: Renee’s New Graphic Organizer 290 291 295 297 340 344 347 348 REFERENCES 349 x 228 232 237 243 244 245 249 253 254 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Text, Context and Politics of each Activity Setting 94 Table 2. Coding for Text: Becoming Writers 118 Table 3. Coding for Context: Utilization of Resources 120 Table 4. Coding for Politics: Influence of Language 121 Table 5. Dana’s Lesson Changes 135 Table 6. Comparing Renee and Olivia’s Fifth Grade Writing Curricula 160 Table 7. Scaffolding Renee and Olivia 163 Table 8. Scaffolding Practical Tool Use 168 Table 9. Scaffolding Conceptual Tool Use 176 Table 10. Inquiry One: Context Description, Instructional Resources 217 Table 11. Influences on the Navigation of Writing Pedagogy 221 Table 12. Dana’s Translation: Listening for Significant Seed Ideas 235 Table 13. Blake’s Retrofitted Lesson 241 Table 14. Course Assignment as Scaffolding for Adaptation 247 Table 15. Topical Schedule of Roundtable Discussions 252 Table 16. Potential Problems with Units of Study 255 Table 17. Timeline of Course Topics 291 Table 18. Literacy Field Guide Checklist 302 Table 19. Inquiry One Rubric 310 Table 20. Michigan’s Grade Level Content Standards (K-8) 312 Table 21. Teaching Overview 322 xi Table 22. Outline for a Daily Lesson Plan 324 Table 23. Inquiry Two Rubric 326 Table 24. Assessment Analysis 332 Table 25. Inquiry Three Rubric 337 Table 26. Code Book 340 Table 27. Dana’s Lesson Revision 344 Table 28. Renee’s New Graphic Organizer 348 xii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Internship Dual Activity Setting 71 Figure 2. Blake's Revised Lesson Plan 150 Figure 3. Writing Instruction Task Card 225 Figure 4. Reconceptualization of Theoretical Framework 270 Figure 5. Investigating Literacies 300 Figure 6. Mystery Elements 346 xiii Chapter 1 Introduction and Problem of Practice The call to better prepare teachers for writing instruction at all levels, kindergarten through post-graduate work, has become prevalent in recent years. Touted as the “forgotten R,” the “absent R,” the “neglected R” and “virtually nonexistent,” writing holds a less popular position behind its more researched peers- reading and mathematics (Cutler & Graham, 2008; Gilbert & Graham, 2010; Graham & Perin, 2007; Magrath et al., 2003; Nagin, 2006). Though underresearched, writing instruction in America’s schools is crucial, and the demand for teachers with growing proficiency in writing pedagogy is high (Cutler & Graham, 2008; Gilbert & Graham, 2010; Grossman et al., 2000; Magrath et al., 2003; Nagin, 2006). Writing outcomes for students in grades 4, 8, and 12 have remained far below grade-level on the most recent measures of writing proficiency as measured by the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) in 1998, 2002, and 2007. Only one third of eighth graders are writing at a proficient level (Salahu-Din, Persky, & Miller, 2008). The most recent measures indicated no significant change in the percentage of proficient writers in grades eight or twelve since 2002 (Salahu-Din et al., 2008). Writing by our students “is not what it should be,” presumably because writing instruction in our schools is not what it should be (Magrath et al., 2003). Attention to writing instruction, though, may be changing with increased attention and focus on the subject matter due to the 1 adoption of the Common Core State Standards, within which writing plays a role (CCSSO, 2010). One approach to resolve America’s writing dilemma is developing an intensified focus within preservice teacher development in writing pedagogy. Previous studies note the lack of writing methods instruction in teacher preparation programs at all levels (e.g., elementary, middle, and high school teacher preparation) and the National Commission on Writing in America’s Schools and Colleges recommended that teacher preparation programs pay special attention to the pedagogical development of teachers by offering courses in writing pedagogy for all preservice teachers, regardless of their discipline (Cutler & Graham, 2008; Gilbert & Graham, 2010; Grossman et al., 2000; Magrath et al., 2003). Similarly, Cutler and Graham (2008), who investigated those writing instructional practices that most commonly occur in the primary grades (K –3), and Gilbert and Graham (2010) and Graham and Perin (2007), who investigated the appearance of writing instruction in the middle grades (4 – 8), suggest teachers need to be better prepared to teach writing. Various sources including cumulative research reports and independent empirical studies have recently encouraged stronger literacy methods instruction, including a focus on writing pedagogy, for preservice teachers. For example, empirical studies by Cutler and Graham (2008), Gilbert and Graham (2010), and Graham, Harris, Fink-Chorzempa, and MacArthur (2003) specifically recommended increased teacher education and continuing professional development in writing 2 instruction. In addition, national reports such as Teaching Reading Well (Pimentel, 2007), Studying Teacher Education: The Report of the AREA Panel on Research and Teacher Education (Cochran-Smith & Zeichner, 2005), The Neglected R (Magrath et al., 2003), and Because Writing Matters (Nagin, 2006) all suggest increasing teacher development in writing instruction as well as the reading/writing connection. It is my hope that this study not only contributes to the conversation about how to develop elementary teachers’ writing pedagogy, but might also speak to the question that many teacher educators and professional developers ask: How should we prepare quality teachers? Many are asking whether teacher preparation should move toward greater professionalization or deregulation with alternative certification for teachers. While this study is not meant to answer that question, it is meant to contribute to the conversation about why advanced methods courses are important for teachers who are navigating new pedagogical terrain. I argue tat university methods courses are preservice teachers’ primary source of that intensified pedagogical content knowledge. I would be remiss, however, not to mention that recent literature has questioned the utility and necessity of university-based preservice teacher training including explicit methods courses (Cochran-Smith & Fries, 2001; Zeichner & Schulte, 2001). The disagreement that exists surrounding the utility of methods courses is an interesting question, one that, as a university methods course instructor and field instructor I find interesting. While it is true that this study 3 assumes, to some degree, the utility of the methods course for writing teacher development, I investigate how to bolster the effectiveness of the methods course experience for preservice teachers by carefully examining preservice teachers’ development of situated knowledge. I hope that by providing purposeful opportunities to relate the field experience to methods instruction, I might be able to connect preservice teachers’ developing content area knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge to the context within which they teach. I hope to understand more about how I, as a teacher educator, can help my preservice teachers learn to adapt to the texts, context, and politics that will undoubtedly impact their writing instruction. I also argue that action research accounts such as these are important contributions to the literature in that they study teacher development in real time and work to address the organic issues that arise for beginning teachers and teacher educators. How can methods courses be better structured to honor the complexity that exists within the development of teacher knowledge/practice? In one review of research on methods courses in teacher education, Wideen, Mayer-Smith, and Moon (1998) concluded that teacher educators cannot assume that simply “providing knowledge would lead to desirable changes in teacher behavior.” They encouraged researchers to study the complexity that exists within the interrelations among individual preservice teachers, institutions and schools, and university preparation programs. I am not the only methods instructor/researcher thinking carefully about the intersection of knowledge and practice as a place for high quality teacher 4 training to occur (Weaver & Stanulis, 1996; Denyer & Florio-Ruane, 1995). All of the studies above noted that preservice teachers struggle to connect content methods coursework to actual teaching experiences, especially when conflicts or doubt arise. But, what I intend for this study, and what this study offers, is an investigation into the intersection of knowledge and practice for beginning writing teachers. As a methods instructor and researcher, I worked to conceptualize teacher learning as the development of three specific types of knowledge (subject matter knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and situated knowledge) that intersect not only during practice but within the space that I create as a teacher educator. This study opens just one window into why the creation of opportunities for preservice teachers to learn, reflect, and discuss their pedagogical development is both necessary and potentially beneficial as preservice teachers navigate their inaugural teaching experiences. Study Overview This study was designed to examine teacher development in writing instruction and adds to current research literature by systematically investigating an advanced literacy methods course in teacher education entitled, Advanced Methods: Literacy Teaching and Learning (pseudonym) for ways in which it scaffolded the development of preservice teachers’ writing pedagogy. Scaffolding is conceptualized in this study as the purposeful support of intern teacher learning including teacher educator moves such as thinking aloud or modeling instructional practices. In this study, writing pedagogy was conceptualized as the active 5 engagement of preservice teachers with instructional text (including writing curriculum, unit and lesson plans), teaching context (including resources such as instructional materials and routines, and mentor and peer support in writing), and political influences on writing instruction (when scripted curriculum is politically mandated). Pedagogical development in writing during the course under study focuses on interns’ knowledge of, experience in, and reflection on writing instruction. This study draws on sociocultural learning theory, which views learning as a socially constructed act that best occurs when combining teaching practice with instructional and reflective conversations about teaching. In order to unpack my work with interns within this methods course, I specifically examined the situated knowledge that preservice teachers developed as they navigated writing pedagogy. Engstrom’s activity theory (1999) highlights the use of cultural tools that reflect the broader culture (or text, context, and politics) within which specific teaching acts (e.g. planning for and enacting writing instruction via curricular text or political mandate) take place. As a teacher educator, who works closely with preservice teachers as they are in the midst of intense internship experiences (4 days/week for 8 months), it became clear that the interaction of preservice teacher with internship was a powerful place for learning more about those cultural tools (Engstrom, 1999) that influence pedagogy. I chose sociocultural theories, which I further unpack in Chapter Two, because they view and value aspects of learning that include interaction with pedagogical decision-making and reflection on teaching practices. 6 The methods I employed included a careful study of interns as they navigated this internship experience as it intersected with the development of writing pedagogy, and, specifically, my course’s interaction with that development. I utilized review of intern assignments, lesson plans, reflections, course assignments and expectations, as well as one-on-one interviews with interns in order to gather information about how they came to understand and utilize the textual, contextual and political influences in the development of writing pedagogy. I also carefully considered my own scaffolding of writing pedagogy within more formal course assignments as well as less formal conversations with interns surrounding writing instruction. Specifically, I asked: How do interns navigate internship experiences with regard to text, context, and politics as they develop pedagogy for writing? And, how do interns come to understand and utilize textual, contextual, and political features such as writing curriculum, coursework, peer interaction and those instructional expectations present within the internship experience (RQ1)? I also asked: How do I, as a literacy teacher educator and researcher scaffold pedagogical development in writing instruction while acknowledging the various and varied textual, contextual and political experiences of interns in my class (RQ 2)? From my perspective as an “insider,” this naturalistic action research (Lewin, 1948, Herr & Anderson, 2005) study investigated my experience as the literacy teacher educator of four intern teachers: Dana, Blake, Renee and Olivia, as they planned, taught and reflected upon their experiences learning to teach writing during the fall months of a year-long internship. It was through studying interns 7 within individual (and disparate) experiences as beginning writing teachers that I aimed to understand how each navigated his/her developing pedagogy for writing. I worked to understand how interns came to understand and utilize sources of effective pedagogical support in the form of textual, contextual and political features. Furthermore, I sought to uncover sources of effective support for writing pedagogy within the university methods course. Designed as action research and committed to the investigation and production of both local and public knowledge (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993), the purpose of this study was to address the call to increase support for beginning writing instruction through specific attention to classroom text, context, and politics represented in and through the organic and localized experiences of preservice teachers in elementary classrooms during their internship year. Specifically, I examine how I scaffolded intern teachers as they navigated writing instruction within their individual classrooms. The remainder of this chapter includes a description of my problem of practice within which I articulate the series of teaching events that prompted my interest in how beginning teachers navigate writing instruction during their internship year. While the specifics of this problem of practice exist in my own teaching experience, I contend that they are not unique, and commonly exist in literacy teacher preparation programs. Below, I describe my teaching and research experiences that led to the design and completion of this study. Because this study is action research, it was an important step for me to reflect and, in a transparent 8 way, report the observations and actions that led me to this dissertation study. I conclude with an overview of subsequent chapters. Problem of Practice Because action researchers tend to study ongoing actions that are undertaken in a specific setting in order to pragmatically address a problem of practice, it is important to outline the history of the problem under study and the trajectory of the research that has led me to study my own experience with literacy methods instruction in a course focused on literacy (including writing) pedagogy. This study specifically investigated a Master’s level, advanced literacy methods course designed to support internship experiences. The course under study follows two prior courses in literacy assessment and methods. My problem of practice arose as I both taught the Advanced Literacy Methods course studied here and supervised interns in the field as they acted on and reacted to what they were learning. As interns began to navigate their own pedagogical development as it related to their real work in classrooms, they began to ask questions, both of me and of their fellow preservice teachers. Often, these questions spurred impromptu conversations about instructional planning, decision-making and classroom context. It was this organic display of learning through talk (sociocultural theory), inspired by the act of teaching (activity theory), which prompted my further investigation. To put it simply, each week I entertained many questions (both in person and through e-mail) that pushed interns to merge university learning and classroom 9 experience. I wanted to learn more about how to help interns navigate tools that might make that merge a more successful one. As an experienced instructor who had been observing and teaching literacy methods courses in a Midwestern University for the last five years, I found myself interacting with numerous preservice teachers who, while sharing a similar developmental trajectory in writing pedagogy, struggled with deconstructing those varied classroom contexts in which they began to plan for and teach writing. Time and time again, I witnessed interns who neglected to attend to the curricular texts, instructional resources and routines, and the political influences that existed within the schools and classrooms where they spent a year learning to teach. I began to ask questions about intern development in writing pedagogy and how I might scaffold intern development in that area. Interns grappled with how to take what they were learning about writing instruction in the university methods course and find a way to implement it within their own unique classrooms. These observations led me to identify and reflect upon my concept of what it meant to scaffold interns’ pedagogical development, specifically in writing instruction. My experience as a literacy teacher educator has reiterated the need for more focused attention on the development of pedagogical practices in writing instruction for elementary teachers within university courses including, but not limited to, literacy methods. I have consistently noticed what I can describe as a sense of increased caution or hesitation on the part of interns when planning and teaching writing instruction. Interns do not always witness writing instruction in their 10 mentor teachers’ classrooms. And, because interns recognize that writing may be taught differently from their own experiences as students and include more of a focus on the process of writing (including writing process and student/teach conferencing), they are often at a “loss” for how to implement it. My observations revealed that while intern teachers spent valuable time reading, writing about, discussing, observing, and eventually practicing reading instruction, significantly less time and attention were devoted to writing instruction. These observations led me to plan a series of small studies/investigations (prior to this dissertation study) into the navigation and development of writing pedagogy as interns progressed through their internship year. Subsequently, I began to examine more carefully the literacy methods course I taught, including careful attention to those texts, assignments and experiences meant to more explicitly teach writing pedagogy. My conclusions over the course of this series of studies/investigations led me to design and create the course experience, including course texts, assignments, and discussions, that this dissertation study is based upon. Because this dissertation study is a formatively designed action research study (Argyris & Schon, 1991; Herr & Anderson, 2005), it is important to acknowledge that I recognized the complexities within each intern’s classroom. Because of this, I attempted to understand each classroom, what I will define later as its text, context and politics, represented in this study. By utilizing formative design, I was able to maintain reflection and flexibility during instructional decision-making throughout my course. Formative design allowed for the natural 11 adjustments necessary to accommodate student thinking and learning. Because action research is a cycle of questioning, investigating, and adapting practice, it is important to note that my investigation of interns’ development of writing pedagogy did not begin with this dissertation study. It began with my own questioning and study of interns’ interaction with writing instruction as they began to teach literacy. Below, I outline my own steps in the action research process. Because action research is just that, a process, it is important that I document the history of smaller studies and their findings that resulted in my design of this dissertation study. I began my first study of preservice teacher development in writing pedagogy by exploring interns’ experiences with writing pedagogy as part of a “practice study” assigned during a qualitative methods course. Through observations and informal conversations as a field instructor in elementary literacy classrooms, I found that interns reported “fear, worry and neglect” in teaching writing (Wibbens, 2007). For example, some interns noted they were reluctant to teach writing because they did not know how to go about it. Others claimed they had neglected to see any writing instruction during their time as preservice teachers. Semi-structured interviews with interns following the internship year revealed three themes: 1) interns felt unprepared to teach writing; 2) interns were not confident writing teachers; and 3) interns reported few resources for writing instruction. Three out of four preservice teachers felt unprepared to teach writing, saying they felt they knew “very little” about how to plan for writing, or how to “add writing into literacy time.” Secondly, 12 intern teachers were not confident writing teachers. All preservice teachers interviewed mentioned feelings of inadequacy in more than one area of writing instruction (e.g.: writing assessment, writing conferences, writer’s workshop), which differed when compared to other areas of literacy instruction such as comprehension or phonics. Lastly, preservice teachers felt they had few resources for writing instruction and attributed the resources they did have to classroom experience alone. Upon asking preservice teachers to discuss those experiences that taught them how to teach writing or where they believe their knowledge of writing pedagogy originated, very little was said about university coursework. Instead, the majority of comments were made about field experiences and cooperating teachers. The above findings were in many ways not surprising. Research studies by Stigler and Hiebert (1998) and Saka, Southerland and Brooks (2009) note that intern teachers commonly attribute their knowledge for teaching to the experiences they had in classrooms, rather than university-based methods courses. After viewing literacy methods course assignments and syllabi, it was apparent that writing pedagogy took a much smaller role in literacy methods courses than did reading fluency and reading comprehension. This imbalance is at least partially due to a statewide requirement from the Department of Education mandating six semester hours of “reading methods” as part of all elementary teacher education, and no such requirement for hours allocated to writing. Teacher education is fraught with obstacles that get in the way of the balance between pedagogical knowledge, prior experience, and the contexts in which beginning teachers find 13 themselves teaching (Cochran-Smith & Zeichner, 2005; Shaw, Dvorak, & Bates, 2007). The findings here demonstrate that preservice teachers, at the close of their literacy coursework, did not believe they knew enough about writing pedagogy. I concluded that more thoroughly investigating what preservice teachers currently experience regarding writing pedagogy during their time in teacher preparation would assist teacher educators in the planning of literacy methods courses to include a more healthy balance of reading and writing pedagogy. After carefully considering the above findings, it became clear that from the perspective of the four preservice teachers studied, little writing pedagogy was encountered over the course of literacy methods instruction. In order to more systematically investigate this claim, I designed an integrative content analysis of preservice teachers’ experiences with writing pedagogy (Wibbens, 2010). As my practicum study, I examined and analyzed one elementary teacher preparation program’s course materials for messages relating to writing pedagogy throughout a three-year literacy strand that consisted of a ten credit sequence covering teaching methods for all of the language arts; six of those credit hours are specifically devoted to “reading instruction.” This study’s multiple data sources revealed information about the opportunities (or lack there of) that exist for preservice teachers to develop knowledge in writing pedagogy. Additionally, this study extended previous research by moving beyond preservice teacher reports and reactions to literacy teacher education and, instead, identifying the messages being sent by the curriculum we teach and the experiences we provide to preservice 14 teachers (Clift & Brady, 2005; Lanier & Little, 1986; Wideen, Mayer-Smith, & Moon, 1998). In a review of the course materials, I found that: 1. Writing pedagogy is attended to much less frequently than reading pedagogy within the literacy methods strand. 2. The course that intended to teach writing had the least consistent (both little coherence and volume of content) writing content when compared to two other literacy courses within the literacy methods strand. 3. Few resources (e.g. few class days specifically dedicated to writing methods, no common text dedicated to writing methods) and structured instructional experiences exist for preservice teachers to draw upon when facing planning for and teaching writing (Wibbens, 2010). Little Attention to Writing Pedagogy When I considered the development of pedagogical content knowledge as Schulman (1986) defined it, it was imperative that I consider teachers’ development of professional knowledge of children as developing writers. I concluded that preservice teachers develop understandings about learning to teach in particular content areas through exposure to materials, discussions and experiences in particular content areas. And a particular content area, such as writing, can and should be taught in particular ways. Without such experiences, knowledge of pedagogy in a particular content area may be relegated to a preservice teacher’s 15 “apprenticeship of observation”(Lortie, 1975) or chance encounters during field experience. For example, more than one intern who was placed in a kindergarten classroom during the course of her observation and internship experiences said, “I never saw writing, kindergarteners don’t know how to write” (Wibbens, 2010)! Inconsistent experiences and interactions with limited exposure to writing pedagogy over the course of a literacy methods strand may send the message that writing instruction is neither important to discuss nor practice in literacy learning contexts. Nor does limited exposure to writing pedagogy assist preservice teachers in developing a research-based repertoire for future instruction. Little Consistency in Writing Pedagogy In order for teacher education programs in elementary literacy to affect positive change in the teaching of writing to elementary school students, consistent messages must be available in preservice teacher course content, resources, and in the experiences those programs provide to preservice teachers regarding the teaching of writing (Darling-Hammond, 2006; Grossman, Hammerness, McDonald, & Ronfeldt, 2008). In coming to this problem of practice, I learned there is room for teacher education to increase its interaction with writing pedagogy on several levels: in the materials we provide as resources for preservice teachers, in the quantity and quality of discussions we have regarding writing pedagogy as an important part of literacy pedagogy, and in the experiences we provide to preservice teachers allowing for the practice of, and reflection on, writing instruction. It is important that during the series of literacy courses (three literacy methods courses 16 were required at the university where these studies took place), teacher educators consistently include writing pedagogy in literacy methods instruction. These ideas led to my development of this dissertation study. Few Experiences and Resources From the perspective of social learning theory, activity theorists claim learning happens best through action, or practice in a real-world contexts (Nardi,1996; van Oerts, 2008). As “guests” in classrooms, preservice teachers often enter a complex situation, sometimes contexts support the pedagogical work propagated by the University, sometimes it does not. When preservice teachers are not required, or able, to act on their developing knowledge of writing instruction and pedagogy through course assignments or discussions, they are less likely to develop a foundation for building pedagogical content knowledge. Preservice teacher education programs in literacy that marginalize interaction with writing pedagogy minimize preservice teachers’ experiences in planning and teaching as “writing teachers.” Such marginalization may lead to preservice teachers who are less likely to enact and recognize different socially situated identities, such as viewing oneself as a writing teacher (Gee, 1991, 2005). Similarly, when preservice teachers experience little content or reflect on minimal experience in writing pedagogy, their teaching efficacies are likely to be lower, due to minimal interaction (Pajares, 1996). The Dissertation Study 17 Based upon my previous research conclusions, I began to think about ways in which I might infuse my literacy methods course and subsequent interactions with interns with purposeful exposure to writing pedagogy. I began by designing an action research study intending to reflect upon and analyze my decisions about literacy methods instruction (e.g. assignments, course activities and conversations) and my response to intern development of writing pedagogy over the course of the semester. However, as I began to teach the course, I realized that certain aspects of the internship experience were more or less strongly influencing the development of (and my response) to interns as they encountered writing instruction both within our course and in the field. Three aspects, the interns’ classroom contexts, texts in/for writing instruction, and political directives directed at writing instruction, surfaced as extremely influential in their pedagogical thinking and development. Previous research alerts teacher educators to the idea that the university classroom and field experiences rarely perfectly coalesce to create a seamless conceptualization of teaching and learning (Bickmore, Smagorinsky, & O’DonnellAllen, 2005; He & Levin, 2008; Horn, Nolen, Word, & Campbell, 2008) and that field experiences prove to be extremely influential in teacher development (Stigler & Hiebert, 1998; Saka, Southerland & Brooks, 2009). While I, as a teacher educator, had no control over those contexts, I was curious as to how I could support/scaffold intern teacher development in writing pedagogy knowing that the classroom and school contexts of my interns were powerful sources of influence and varied greatly. More specifically, it became clear that I needed to access additional information 18 from study participants. I wanted to learn more about how interns navigated their developing writing pedagogy within individual classroom contexts. Problematizing Varied Contexts Similar to the idea that Gee (1999) articulates in his work regarding situated meanings, that meaning-making is often contextually based and is built upon and by action and conversation in particular contexts, I define contexts as “dynamic streams of overlapping and integrated discourses, spaces, sociocultural practices and power relations” (Kamberelis & de la Luna, 2004, p. 254). And, I began to expand upon my ideas regarding what dual teaching/learning contexts, one being my course and the other being an intensive classroom experience, afforded interns during their pedagogical development in writing. The school-based classroom internship experience included a 9 month internship where intern teachers engaged in a combination of full-time teaching accompanied by four Master’s level courses (including my own) over the course of two semesters. Interns spent four days teaching in elementary schools and the fifth day in class at the university. Different from a “field experience” that might be consist of weekly hour-long visits during the course of a university-based course, the internship experience, because of its intensity and duration, had greater opportunity for scaffolded work in writing pedagogy over time. While all of my interns were reading and discussing similar ideas about writing instruction within my course context, their conceptualizations of writing instruction differed drastically due to diverse classroom experiences. Each intern teacher was placed in a cooperating teacher’s classroom within a grade level, 19 school, and district that envisioned and practiced writing instruction in particular (and varied) ways. These contextual variations led interns to voice specific teaching dilemmas in the area of writing instruction. For example, some interns named a lack of curricular direction or time to teach writing (not enough guidance, materials, or scheduled minutes) as problematic. Others struggled to account for the interests and abilities of the students in their classrooms, feeling tied to a particular curriculum or pacing guide. Still others named an imbalance in writing instruction as problematic, speaking about those aspects of writing (e.g. writing process, grammatical structures, certain genre) that were neglected or missing altogether. While I knew I had the ability to adjust course content to present the value and possibilities for elementary writing instruction, how could I scaffold educative experiences that respected the contextual variations that existed within my intern teachers’ emerging instructional experiences? On a macro level, I was aware of the complex political climate mandating certain aspects of literacy instruction (favoring reading, for example, while affording little time to teach writing) along with an increase in the popularity of writing curricula prescribing elementary classroom pedagogy (Allington, 2002; Grossman et al, 2001; Pardo, 2006). This became particularly problematic because beginning teachers are notoriously influenced by policy, and, at the same time, often unable to navigate policy mandates confidently (Pardo, 2006). How, I began to wonder, might I scaffold my interns’ abilities to articulate, through word and deed, their own developing pedagogical experiences in writing in a variety of contexts and over the 20 course of one advanced methods course? Am I, a university teacher educator, able to scaffold pedagogical decision-making when contexts are so varied? Because teaching/learning contexts create opportunities for ideas and developing competencies to play out, acknowledging these contexts was of utmost importance both for me, as the course instructor, and for my interns (Barton, 1984; Gee, 1999). I began to consider my course, itself a context for teaching and learning, in a way that might work to meaningfully connect the diverse experiences of my interns to the coursework they simultaneously experienced. Through my own responsive instructional planning, I worked to create opportunities where interns could think about certain topics, ideas and experiences related to writing instruction. And, as my investigation continued, I began to pay increased attention to those aspects of my course that I believed had the potential to influence interns’ ideas surrounding pedagogical decision making: course discussions, assignments, instructional resources, and support and reflection on teaching. I wondered whether the environment I aimed to create in my university classroom provided opportunities to scaffold my interns to negotiate the writing pedagogy they believed to be best for their students within a context where they were being judged simultaneously by university representatives and classroom cooperating teachers. Was I providing adequate and ample support in the form of pedagogical content knowledge and resources for interns to enact writing instruction utilizing tools and pedagogies in contexts where neither they, nor I, had complete control? 21 I knew that teacher educators before me had wrestled with similar dilemmas. Teacher education, claimed Grossman and colleagues (2001), should provide preservice teachers with the mindset and abilities to identify predicable dilemmas in the teaching of writing in order to assist in the navigation of such bumpy terrain. Laura Pardo (2006) advocated for a focus on context in preservice teacher education, expressing a need for beginning teachers to go beyond managing the dilemmas of writing instruction, such as adequate time to teach and learn writing or utilizing classroom resources and best practices, and instead begin to sort out and understand the various interconnections between and among the aspects of one’s own teaching context (p. 389). Ultimately, I began to see my “job” as helping interns identify and understand contextual factors such as instructional materials and routines, writing curricula, school and classroom requirements for writing instruction, as well as student and school community data that affect writing instruction in their classrooms. Armed with this information, interns should be better able to put context into conversation with plans for high quality writing instruction. It is important to note that my study evolved as I taught and interacted with interns. I worked to keep my course relevant to interns by responding to experiences such as: mandated writing curriculum, difficulties adapting writing instruction to meet the needs of students, and struggles to find adequate mentors in writing instruction. As we moved through the semester, I followed the tradition of action research in that my course, and my response to interns, was a naturalistic 22 progression of teaching and inquiry. As I moved through the course, I realized that my interns’ experiences with writing pedagogy required course responses scaffolded by me and directly related to their individual classroom experiences. These scaffolded responses could not be separated from intern work and varied depending on specific wants/needs of my interns and their specific contexts. I continued to pay careful attention to the decisions I made in responding to interns’ coursework/teaching experiences as well as my own decisions in planning for class time (e.g. how do I elicit reflective responses on teaching experiences? What experiences did I choose to provide during class time that focused on writing instruction during course time that still honors individual classroom contexts?) Because intern input was vital to the learning process, I realized I was learning alongside interns- rather than simply “teaching” them. My research became more directive and I began to focus this dissertation study on the following two research questions: 1) How do interns navigate internship experiences with regard to text, context, and politics as they develop pedagogy for writing? And, more specifically, how do interns come to understand and utilize textual, contextual, and political features such as writing curriculum, coursework, peer interaction and instructional expectations present within the internship experience? And 2) How do I, as a literacy teacher educator/researcher scaffold pedagogical development in writing instruction while acknowledging the various and varied textual, contextual and political experiences of interns in my course? Through careful attention to my interns’ experiences navigating writing instruction and my own scaffolded 23 responses to that navigation, I hope to focus attention on the development of elementary level writing teachers. My goal as teacher and researcher is to generate local knowledge (that is, knowledge I can use in my future work with interns and writing pedagogy) and public knowledge (that is, knowledge I can share with others who, like me, work with beginning teachers in their development of literacy pedagogy) to support and improve pedagogical development in writing. Ultimately, this study reflects my own thoughts and actions in response to teaching a course that was meant to help interns develop writing pedagogy. It is also responsive to larger ideas about the development of knowledge for teaching- and how to best scaffold that development. I learned that depending on context, interns came into contact with different textual and human resources (or tools) for teaching writing that profoundly shaped their learning and practice. This study will show that some interns seemed to navigate mandated curriculum, school context, and relationships with other teachers more successfully than others. This study will also show why and how a teacher educator can be sensitive to the differing experiences of those preservice teachers in each methods class. All of this to say, without a methods course, preservice teachers might not have the necessary learning opportunities to navigate their developing pedagogy in ways that honor both their individual instructional context and effective writing instruction. The subsequent chapter, Chapter Two: Literature Review and Theoretical Framework, presents what we know about being a good writer- and what teachers of writing should, therefore, understand and know how to teach. I close Chapter 24 Two with a description of this study’s theoretical framework. It depicts my conceptualization of teacher learning and, specifically, teacher learning within the advanced methods course including learning from practice, reflection, talk and scaffolding. Chapter Three, Research Methods and Design describes my framework for action research and its component pieces as well as the research questions that grew from my work alongside my interns. It details the research settings, participants (including myself), and course. Chapters Four, Navigating Text: Writing Facilitates Adaptation and Emergence of a Writing Teacher, Five, Navigating Context: Resources and Mentors Contribute to Pedagogical Development and Six, Navigating Politics: Curricular Mandates Influence Pedagogical Development relate the stories of each of four beginning writing teacher’s pedagogical development as it related to classroom text, context and politics. Chapter Seven, Implications, describes this study’s implications for literacy teacher education and future research resulting from this study. 25 Chapter 2 Review of Literature and Theoretical Framework Along with the imperative for research on writing pedagogy, there is a similar and parallel need for research that investigates the development of writing teachers and the role of teacher educators. From my perspective as a universitybased teacher educator, the call for such research should investigate the appropriate development of knowledge for writing teachers, acknowledging the task as a careful balance of work within the more formal methods classroom and the more practical elementary classroom. In particular, little is known about those experiences and settings that assist teacher educators in developing and supporting preservice teachers as they navigate their way through learning to teach writing and more specifically, narrative writing. Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1999) asserted that “different conceptions of teacher learning lead to very different ideas about how to improve teacher education (p. 249).” At its heart, this study is about my efforts to improve how beginning teachers can learn to teach writing. I did this by focusing primarily on what Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1999) refer to as knowledge in and for practice. My ideas about the pedagogical development of writing include the development of subject-matter knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and situated knowledge. Furthermore, this study contributes to research in teacher development by considering how, when, and to what extent teacher educators, like myself, can and should interact with beginning teachers in their contextualized initial pedagogical experiences. Designed as action research, this study investigated the 26 preparation, support, and development of four elementary preservice teachers as they began to navigate the design and teaching of writing within their schools and classrooms. I begin this review of literature broadly by reviewing literature on learning to teach. I then review the literature on learning to teach writing, specifically. Next, I summarize what research has said about the role of teacher education in developing writing pedagogy, and move to what research suggests teachers of writing need to know. In this section, I feature recent literature that depicts the binary that exists among the activity settings highlighted in this study (e.g. the methods course and the field classroom). I next include a definition of high quality writing instruction that incorporates the development of three kinds of knowledge: subject matter knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and situated knowledge. Because my study focused on the development of situated knowledge including attention to three constructs within each activity setting--text, context, and politics—I discuss the research base regarding teacher education and the development of those three constructs as it pertains to learning to teach writing. I next consider what previous research has said about how intern-level teachers navigate writing instruction. The chapter ends with a detailed description of this study’s theoretical framework. I outline how I, as a teacher educator, view learning to teach as a sociocultural process involving action, scaffolded work, and reflection. 27 Learning to Teach Research into preservice teacher learning depicts a dynamic learning process where messages about learning to teach come from many and varied sources. The process of learning to teach has been researched and documented by Dan Lortie (1975) and, more recently, by Debra Britzman (2003). Both maintain the design of teacher education courses is such that preservice teachers often struggle to combine varied sources of pedagogical theory, personal experience, apprenticeship of observation, and informed, purposeful instructional practice (Britzman, 2003; Lortie, 1975). It is important to note that preservice teachers often have a difficult time connecting multiple experiences (often, experiences with formal and practical knowledge) in order to build comprehensive and contextually appropriate pedagogical strategies. Given the strength of preservice teachers’ prior experiences, teacher educators must work to allow preservice teachers experiences that can allow them to analyze, synthesize, and revise writing instruction based on current research. Preservice teachers learn through a combination of coursework, fieldwork, and observations, all of which can sum to compartmentalized knowledge and fragmented experiences (Britzman, 2003). It is often said that theory should inform practice as practice should inform theory. This is easier said than done. Preservice teachers find great difficulty with the balance between more theoretical coursework and the more pragmatic classroom experience (Grossman, Smagorinsky, & Valencia, 1999; Grossman et al., 2000). Often referred to as the 28 university/classroom divide, interns struggle with disconnected experiences presented while actively engaged in dual activity settings: the university and elementary classroom (Bickmore, Smagorinsky, & O'Donnell-Allen, 2005; He & Levin, 2008). For example, while the university setting might promote writing instruction utilizing an instructional model such as ‘Writer’s Workshop,’ classroom internship experiences might not condone writing instruction in any way other than teacher-directed and assignment-driven assignments such as the five paragraph essay or, might focus on assessment-driven curricula (e.g. 6+1 Traits, (Culham, 2003)) rather than around process or genre, the latter of which are promoted by university methods instruction. He and Levin (2008) reiterate the need for legitimate connections between university teacher educators, cooperating teachers, and preservice teacher ideas, such as an articulation of beliefs about teaching and learning, instructional methods, and classroom organization, in order to assist preservice teachers’ abilities to envision practice in real world classrooms, rather than disconnected experiences. Because disconnected experiences may not be beneficial for preservice teachers as they build their instructional repertoire (Darling-Hammond, 2006; Grossman et al., 2008), preservice teachers may benefit from intentional opportunities to question the pedagogy at play in their internship setting as well as the freedom to plan for, and attempt, new instructional models and strategies. Research literature indicates that preservice teacher development is multifaceted and as varied as teacher candidates themselves. Coursework, 29 fieldwork, and teachers’ own experiences in classrooms as students are relevant when learning to teach (Britzman, 2003; Cochran-Smith & Zeichner, 2005; Lortie, 1975). Because these experiences are varied, teacher educators must be flexible in understanding the significant role that the classroom plays in teacher learning and development (Little, 2002). These diverse experiences begin to shape knowledge and beliefs about teaching and learning. Knowledge for teaching is dynamic and involves both knowledge in and for practice (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999). It is developed in classrooms as teachers learn from their students, other teachers, curricular texts, etc. And, it is this dynamic process that I seek to investigate- the interplay between developing knowledge for writing instruction and the application of that knowledge in an authentic context- or classroom situation. Research on teacher education should continue to acknowledge the complexities that exist in teacher development by designing balanced studies- combining investigations of program structure, content and design with the experiences of preservice teachers within a teacher preparation program (Cochran-Smith & Zeichner, 2005; Wideen et al., 1998; Zeichner, 1999). Role of Teacher Education in Learning to Teach Teacher education often occurs in a university setting and within methods courses that are closely tied to field experiences in schools and classrooms where preservice teachers enact literacy instruction utilizing a variety of instructional methods and curricula. The goal of this dual experience is a balance between the two because it is during these experiences, both in the university classroom and in 30 the elementary classroom, that preservice teachers continue develop their ideas about literacy teaching and learning (Borko & Putnam, 1996; Putnam & Borko, 2000; Snow, Griffin, & Burns, 2005). Sharon Feiman-Nemser (2001a) claims that teachers move along a spectrum of development as they transition from student to teacher- vacating their position in front of the teacher’s desk and learning to occupy their position behind it. She highlights the importance of “preparing, inducting and developing” teachers who both know their subject matter as well as have a clear vision for teaching and learning (Feiman-Nemser, 2001a). Teacher educators are responsible for guiding preservice teachers along that developmental spectrum, helping to define that vision. And, while the preservice teachers enrolled in our courses are moving along a similar developmental path, their situations are far from standard. The internship context focused on in this study is one where preservice teachers, or interns, are placed in elementary school classrooms for the duration of the academic year and are required to teach all subjects alongside a mentor, or cooperating teacher (CT). While interns do gain a depth of experience that comes with the amount of time spent in the elementary classroom context and with a “more knowledgeable other,” they do fall prey to the danger of imitating a CT rather than walking through a more individual learning experience (Coffey, 2012; Feiman-Nemser, 2001b). Teacher development occurs while interns are navigating simultaneously the university and classroom, an act that forces beginning teachers to contextualize and merge two separate experiences. And, research has shown that optimal teacher 31 development requires a balance between university and field-based experiences (Borko & Putnam, 1996; Putnam & Borko, 2000), a balance that teacher educators can and should acknowledge not only by articulating the existence of dual settings (or that balancing course work and classroom life is difficult), but by providing space for ideas and strategies to develop practicable pedagogy. Susan Florio-Ruane and Timothy Lensmire (1989) discussed the challenges of teaching preservice teachers as they navigated this transition with a specific focus on writing instruction. They claimed that this transition is more perceptively navigated if and when teacher educators “seek worthwhile objects and topics of study,” and go on to say that, “what we teach and learn about must compel our preservice teachers to teacherly action that is both practicable and wonderful” (p. 16). For me, as a teacher educator, this means my course must honor the experiences interns have inside their classrooms while encouraging the development of pedagogy that is student-centered and research-based. Many argue that the creation and expansion of knowledge is important in teacher development (Cochran-Smith & Zeichner, 2005; Floden & Meniketti, 2005; Kennedy, 1998, 2004a, 2004b; Phelps, 2009; Raths, 2004; Raths & McAninch, 2004; Shaw et al., 2007; Shulman, 1986, 1987). For those teacher educators and researchers working under Mary Kennedy’s (2004a) assumption that “there is a justified knowledge base that can be articulated and transmitted to students and, further that this knowledge base can contribute to future practice” (p. 29), we see our work as crafting experiences that aim to contribute to such a knowledge base. 32 Specifically, in literacy teacher education, conclusions based on research do not yet provide “clarity about the optimal design of teacher education” (Kennedy, 2004a, p. 29). This is particularly true in the area of writing instruction, which is researched much less than its literacy peer, reading. Below, I discuss what current research has concluded about learning to teach writing and why a focus on making legitimate connections between writing instruction’s “justified knowledge base” and existing, dynamic elementary classrooms is necessary. Learning to Teach Writing Subject matter can complicate the job of learning to teach, particularly when the pedagogy for that subject matter is evolving, as is true with writing instruction. The research base on learning to teach writing is limited. Much of the existing research on preparing preservice teachers in content specific subject matter has been collected in subject-area methods courses during preservice teacher education (Cochran-Smith & Zeichner, 2005). In a summary of research on literacy methods courses, authors Clift and Brady (2005) found twenty-four studies on English language arts courses and only one study, Grossman et al. (2000), focused on the development of beginning teachers in writing pedagogy. In this longitudinal study of ten beginning teachers spanning the last year of preservice teacher education through their first three full years, Grossman et al. (2000) described the pedagogical tools for writing instruction utilized by beginning teachers in their development of classroom practice. The study suggested that teacher education can and does have an impact on the pedagogical tools and decision making of preservice teachers’ 33 future practice. Grossman et al. (2000) found that beginning teachers spoke about and utilized pedagogical strategies and tools such as writer’s workshop, a process approach to writing instruction, and the idea of scaffolded mini lessons for writing instruction. Furthermore, they attributed the use of these tools to preservice teacher education experiences. While Grossman et al. (2000) highlighted the value of preservice teacher education in writing, more focused research into the nature and support of that pedagogical development at the elementary level is necessary. In this study, I aim to extend Grossman’s work by studying the nature and support of pedagogical development in writing instruction. To do so, I designed specific experiences, such as student-led roundtables, during my methods course to contribute to the discourse preservice teachers had about formal and, most pointedly for this study, practical or situated knowledge (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999). I designed experiences meant to prompt interns to make connections between pedagogical strategies and tools introduced in my methods course and the classroom texts, contexts, and politics within which each intern taught. Researchers have reviewed and researched many methods for writing instruction in elementary classrooms (e.g. process writing, genre theory, writer’s workshop) (Calkins, 1986; Flower & Hayes, 1981; Graham & Harris, 2005a; Graham & Perin, 2007; Graves, 1994; Pritchard & Honeycutt, 2006), but research on how preservice teachers learn to teach writing is more sparsely investigated (Grossman, 2000; Colby & Stapleton, 2006; Pardo, 2006). Wideen et al.’s (1998) critical analysis of studies focused on teacher learning found only eleven studies 34 investigated the learning process experienced by preservice teachers within a teacher education program. Within programs of teacher education, literacy methods courses focus heavily on various methods and strategies for reading instruction, while writing is often limited to one instructional method (e.g. writing workshop), if addressed at all (Pardo, 2006). The development of pedagogical understanding in writing is often a hodgepodge of prior experience, techniques gained during field experience, and information gained from limited coursework. Learning to teach writing, though, is not a clear-cut practice. Due to the changing nature of the subject matter (Graham, MacArthur, & Fitzgerald, 2007; Kennedy, 1998), writing instruction presents a challenge to preservice teachers who grew up in schools where if writing was assigned at all, it was simply collected, graded, and returned. In a study of beginning teachers Kennedy (1998) notes the differing conceptualizations of “writing” that preservice teachers arrive with at the onset of teacher education programs. Field experiences have also been found to play a significant role in preservice teacher development in writing instruction. While studying beginning teachers’ ideas about writing instruction, Florio-Ruane and Lensmire (1989) found that through conversation and practice during teacher education, future teachers’ ideas about writing instruction can and do change and grow. Furthermore, they found that those contexts in which intern teachers are placed, do influence interns’ ideas about writing- be they positive or negative ways. For example, interns who teach in classrooms without identifiable instructional materials or routines for writing 35 instruction often struggle to envision and plan for writing instruction. In a study of two preservice teachers and the development of standards-based writing instruction, Wang and O’Dell (2003) found that not only university-based teacher education, but also preservice teachers’ own beliefs and experiences in field classrooms influenced instructional development. In this study, researchers concluded that university-based coursework in concert with field experiences was most influential for pedagogical development in writing. Valencia and colleagues (2009) in a study of the student teaching “triad” (student teacher, cooperating teacher, field supervisor) note “numerous instances of lost opportunities” for student teachers learning to teach literacy (Valencia et al, 2009; p. 304). Using the methods course to connect ideas and research about writing pedagogy with classroom experiences where that pedagogy can be put in place is necessary, but understudied. The ideas and strategies that interns utilize during the course of their work in classrooms should be aligned with the students and contexts within which they teach (Oakes, Franke, Hunter, Rogers, & Rogers, 2002; Villegas & Lucas, 2002). While this small body of research does explore preservice teacher literacy learning alongside university coursework, it neglects several important and researchable constructs including classroom context and the development of pedagogical knowledge in conversation with contextualized experiences. In sum, we know that preservice teachers can benefit from practice teaching writing on a consistent basis, that preservice teachers require scaffolding in writing pedagogy, and that field experience is influential in learning to teach writing (Colby 36 & Stapleton, 2006; Kennedy, 1998). We know that preservice teachers look for methods courses to be practical and applicable to student teaching and that preservice teacher education does influence future practice as a teacher of writing (Grossman et al., 2000). We know that teacher education programs can and do influence teachers to think about traditional subject matters, such as writing, in new ways (Kennedy, 1998). Research on teacher education has shown that teacher education can and does make a difference in the development of knowledge (Cochran-Smith & Zeichner, 2005; Floden & Meniketti, 2005; Kennedy, 1998; Raths & McAninch, 2004). Because the literature on preservice development in writing pedagogies is somewhat thin, my study has the potential to influence the development and future literacy teaching practices for beginning teachers. My study conceptualizes teacher knowledge as having three working components, each of which contributes to a preservice teacher’s developing understanding of his or her practice: 1) knowledge of subject matter, 2) pedagogical content knowledge, and 3) localized knowledge incorporating knowledge of context. These three components work together to dynamically affect how beginning teachers learn to teach writing. Each component is more clearly explicated below. What Teachers of Writing Need To Know Teacher educators have an opportunity to contextualize their work in methods courses by placing the classroom in conversation with knowledge development and researched-based ideas about writing pedagogy. In this section I 37 discuss the three kinds knowledge development teachers of writing require. I begin with my conceptualization of writing. Drawing on the work of Young (1982), Hillocks (1986) and Freedman (1993), Kennedy (1998) defined writing as a “strategic and purposeful act,” one that includes conceptual motivators based on context and reason for writing and prescriptive standards and rules (punctuation, verb tense). Put simply, writers engage in a strategic and purposeful act meant to accomplish a task (Kennedy, 1998). Applebee (1984) reminds us that, “writing (also) provides a useful tool for refining and extending knowledge” (p. 578). In their compilation of Best Practices in Writing Instruction, editors Graham, MacArthur, and Fitzgerald (2007) define writing as the process of gathering, preserving, and transmitting information and ideas in order to communicate, share knowledge, learn, persuade and explore feelings and beliefs (p. 2). American Journalist and Novelist Joan Didion (1976) describes writing as an exploration of “what I’m thinking, what I’m looking at, what I see and what it means… what I want and what I fear.” All of this to say that writing has a broad conceptualization. A good writer puts words to the feelings and ideas that compel a story to be told. Or, as Anne Lamott (1994) says, “To be a good writer, you not only have to write a great deal but you have to care… to participate requires self-discipline and trust and courage, because this business of becoming conscious, of being a writer, is ultimately about asking yourself, How alive am I willing to be?” In this study, I conceptualize writing as not only grammatical structure and the rules of standard English, taking the time necessary to draft, 38 revise, and edit, but also includes craft, the creative ideas and intentions of the writer him/herself. Alluding to the importance of writing beyond its standard uses, Susan Florio-Ruane and Timothy Lensmire (1989) note the “changing roles” of writing methods courses as teaching writing has become more of a process of “scaffolding or supporting children’s language development in ways that broaden the writer’s expressive possibilities, deepen his/her understanding of written language and text, and socialize the young writer into the role of literate adult” (p. 1). In working with students and interns, I conceptualize writing as Kamberelis and de la Luna (2004) do, as both an ecologically influenced and situated creative activity. Writing includes the understanding that texts, contexts, and politics all influence writing and written products In order to conceptualize high quality writing instruction for preservice teachers, it is important to define high quality writing instruction in terms of teacher development. I argue that the development of high quality writing instruction includes identifying oneself as a teacher of writing and having the ability to articulate and act upon the knowledge necessary for the teaching and practice of writing. Below, I describe my conceptualization of what beginning teachers of writing need to know—this knowledge development is mirrored in the goals of the course under study. The instruction of high quality writing is attuned to: subject matter knowledge and its translation into standards-based instruction, pedagogical content knowledge that includes teacher conceptualizations of research 39 based practice, and situated knowledge including teachers’ efforts to understand the context within which writing occurs. Subject matter knowledge. While research on writing as subject matter knowledge in the preparation of preservice teachers is thin (Floden and Meniketti, 2005), the effectiveness of any teaching, claims Raths, (2004, p. 104) is dependent on some extent to what a teacher knows about a subject matter. Knowledge of subject matter for purposes of this study encompasses more than simply facts or information about writing (e.g. how to write a sentence, what a noun is, or genre elements). It is conceptualized as knowledge of a craft (e.g. writing a personal narrative or persuasive essay) that can be fostered through research, watching, practicing and reflecting (Raths, 2004). This rich conceptualization is meant to assist teachers by moving beyond facts to include practical ideas. For example, preservice teachers read about and discuss writing in the methods course, watch lessons in writing, and reflect on what they witnessed. These reflections, both written and discussed, are meant to assist preservice teachers in their understanding of writing as a craft, its component pieces (e.g. genre, purpose for writing, writing process), as well as the structure of a writing lesson (e.g. writer’s workshop). Research has shown that “effective teachers know more about their subject matter than ineffective teachers and that the effectiveness of any teaching is dependent to some extent on what a teacher knows about the subject matter to be taught (Raths, p. 104). The design of the course under study here incorporates 40 Rath’s (2004) rich conceptualization of subject matter knowledge. It aims to develop elementary literacy teachers who understand and can articulate effective writing instruction, who have clear knowledge of what their students know/need to know, and who can advocate for research based practices and evaluate curriculum as well as articulate a philosophy for creating a literate environment. These are ideas that move beyond simply subject matter knowledge. Conceptualizing good writing. One way that teachers develop a conceptualization of good writing is by examining standards documents and grade level benchmarks. Documents such as these serve to guide and pace instruction. The concept behind standards-based teaching and learning is that students (with the assistance of teachers) should reach specific benchmarks through mastery of certain skills at particular grade levels. Both national institutions, such as the National Center on Education and the Economy and individual state departments of education have drafted “standards” documents delineating those standards necessary for writing instruction/writing achievement. National organizations such as the International Reading Association (IRA) and the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) have also penned standards for writing. In a joint publication, IRA and NCTE wrote The Standards for the English Language Arts in 1996, reaffirmed them in 2012, and stated that the standards document is meant to “compliment other national, state, and local standards” (NCTE & IRA, 1996, p. 1). The New Standards for Primary Literacy (Resnick & Tucker, 1999), a text used by interns in this study during their junior-level literacy course (preceding the course 41 under study), includes a specific section on writing standards, highlighting its importance by saying, “The secret to good writing is a rich literacy program that requires students to read a lot, write a lot and learn about genres and literary conventions…by modeling good reading and writing habits, teachers show students that reading and writing are important activities deserving of their time and attention” (Resnick & Tucker, 1999; p. 41). At the time of study, individual states decided what was important for their students to know and be able to do. The state in which this study took place identified those important skills and processes for English Language Arts for their students in the following categories for writing: genre, process, style, spelling, handwriting, writing attitude. It follows then, that teachers of writing should have knowledge of those skills, purposes, and processes that determine writing mastery in those areas at each grade level. Forty-five states, including the state where this study occurred, have now adopted Common Core State Standards (CCSSO, 2010) that are designed to provide teachers with “consistent and clear understanding” of what students are expected to learn (corestandards.org). While my study was conducted prior to the state’s full implementation of the CCSS during the 2012-2013 school year, it is important to note that the standards, now in place, do include writing. Defined as the development of writing including “vocabulary, syntax and developing and organizing ideas,” the CCSS map out grade level expectations for writing instruction, but leave the pedagogical decision-making up to teachers. 42 Pedagogical content knowledge. Known as pedagogical content knowledge, and coined by Shulman as “the blending of content and pedagogy into an understanding of how particular topics, problems or issues are organized, represented and adapted to the diverse interests and abilities of learners, and presented for instruction” (Shulman, 1987; p. 8), the development of knowledge for teaching writing is largely unstudied. While researchers like Grossman (Grossman, 2005; Grossman et al., 2000) and Pardo (2006) have studied preservice and beginning teachers’ utilization of new pedagogical content knowledge, neither studied the developmental acquisition of such knowledge and how it can be fostered and supported by the university setting. For purposes of this study, my course design assumes that pedagogical content knowledge for teaching writing will be acquired through purposeful contact with methods for teaching writing (e.g. knowledge of subject matter, curriculum knowledge, instructional models) including exposing preservice teachers to a thorough understanding of cultural backgrounds, prior knowledge and experiences of their students. For purposes of this study, the concept of writing pedagogy is defined as preservice teachers’ development of a specific kind of pedagogical knowledge pertaining to the teaching and learning of writing. Based on Schulman’s definition of pedagogical content knowledge as a specific type of knowledge that goes beyond knowledge of subject matter to the dimension of subject matter necessary for teaching (Shulman, 1986, 1987), the knowledge base for teachers teaching writing moves beyond the ability of preservice teachers to write and focuses on “the ways of 43 representing and formulating the subject matter in ways that make it comprehensible to others” (Schulman, 1986; p. 113). Research has identified three aspects of pedagogical content knowledge including: the organization of course content in its logical pieces (e.g. stages of the writing process, skills necessary to write, parts of speech), the ability to offer explanations and definitions, and the ability to offer examples and non-examples (Raths, 2004). Developing writing pedagogy in preservice teachers includes knowledge about the development of writing in learners who are unique in their identities, experiences, and abilities, planning for writing instruction, instructional models and methods for instruction in writing, and the assessment of writing. Raths (2004) claims that developing pedagogical content knowledge moves beyond the requirements of a university preservice classroom. It is a developmental process that includes, for example, integrating knowledge sources including students’ abilities and interests, curriculum, and subject matter to create a plan for teaching a specific group of students in a particular time and place. Furthermore, preservice teachers, says Kennedy (1998), may need time and experience to understand that writing instruction is simultaneously a generative and strategic process that demands attention to both context in which one teaches as well as the conventions one aims to teach. When teaching writing, generative and strategic ideas include a teacher’s ability to create units, lessons, and mini lessons that are at the same time focused on appropriate standards and flexible to the needs of students and the resources apparent within an individual school or classroom context. 44 Research based best practices. Teachers of writing need to know and understand methods and pedagogy for instruction. Research institutions such as the Alliance for Excellent Education and the National Commission on Writing for America’s Families, Schools and Colleges use empirical data gathered from research studies to compile reports that suggest research-based “best practices” for teachers and students. The purpose of reports like Writing Next is to “offer a number of specific teaching techniques that research suggests will help 4th- to 12th- grade students in our nation’s schools (Graham & Perin, 2007). The eleven recommendations made by Writing Next include: use of writing strategies, summarization, collaborative writing, specific product goals, word processing, sentence combining, prewriting, inquiry activities, process writing approach, the study of models, and writing for content learning. The authors are careful to remind the audience that while these eleven instructional strategies have been found to effectively improve adolescent writing as measured by writing quality, they do not constitute a full writing curriculum. Similarly, data compiled by Roberts and Wibbens (2010) suggests best practices for primary grades, including collaborative writing, strategy instruction and process writing. Additionally, independent researchers have asked the question: What are the “best” or most common ways to teach writing to a variety of students at different levels and of different abilities? (Cutler & Graham, 2008; Gilbert & Graham, 2010; Graham & Harris, 2005b; Graham et al., 2007). Researchers continue to investigate those practices teachers must teach in order for their students to write well. The intent of this research was 45 to inform teachers of those best practices that might lead to mastery of those benchmarks set forth in local, state, and national standards. While subject matter knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge can often be learned through reading, watching and discussing writing content and methods, contextual knowledge is different. Its dynamic nature provides a challenge for many preservice teachers and teacher educators. Situated knowledge. Usable knowledge, claim Snow, Griffin and Burns, is knowledge embedded in practice (2005, p. 12). Embedding knowledge in practice means understanding the abilities of students in an individual classroom paired with the articulation of learning goals appropriate for those students. For example, a fifth grade student with strong ideas, but little organization might benefit from a teacher whose learning goals in writing include a prewriting phase where the student has an opportunity to list or map all relevant ideas in an organized format. Intern teachers who move from genuine knowledge of their curriculum and students into the development of ideas about subject matter in order to orchestrate a unit on the fantasy genre have taken steps to combine their subject matter knowledge with pedagogical content knowledge. Featuring solid instructional decision-making, including the planning of a writer’s workshop complete with mini lessons on genre elements and stages of the writing process and assessment via one-on-one writing conferences, such a unit showcases a combination of subject matter knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge. Preservice teachers who are able to place this instructional planning into conversation with the needs, abilities, and sometimes 46 restrictions of the classroom context in which they teach have begun to arrive at usable knowledge. These preservice teachers have begun to exercise adaptive expertise, or as Darling-Hammond and Bransford (2007) define it: “the ability to restructure ideas with the realization that beliefs and practices must change depending on each teaching environment” (p. 49). Few studies have investigated the development of adaptive expertise and situated knowledge of preservice teachers in the area of writing instruction. One study by a team of researchers who studied ten beginning teachers from their final year in teacher education and into their first three years of teaching calls attention to the importance of preservice teachers’ responses to those classroom contexts in which they practiced the teaching of writing. Grossman et al (2000) found, “The classroom context did not always support the practices elementary preservice teachers had learned in methods courses” (p.657). But they also found that teacher education provided tools and a “vision of ideal practice” for preservice teachers. Furthermore, research findings suggest that the curriculum materials that preservice teachers encounter in various classroom contexts “drastically influence their teaching and learning” (Grossman et al, 2000; p. 655). Research is slim on how teacher educators can support intern teachers with varying internship contexts. While researchers like Kennedy (1998) and Grossman et al. (2000) identified the methods course and field context as influential in preservice teacher development in writing instruction, no published research has specifically investigated the developmental process of preservice teachers with a 47 particular focus on the navigation of those factors necessary (subject matter, pedagogical content, and contextual differences, political demands) to plan for and teach students in varying schools and classrooms. While it is true that preservice teachers often have the same experiences in the university-based methods courses, the classrooms in which they intern differ greatly. It is important for teacher educators to understand how to account for this variation in order to encourage the production of usable knowledge. My study is focused here, on the development of interns’ situated knowledge with a focus on their classroom experiences. I use Kamberelis and de la Luna (2004)’s conceptualization of text, context, and politics as vital for understanding writing to guide my thoughts and analysis. Text, context, and politics. Teachers of writing need to know and understand that high quality writing is largely determined by the world within which they teach. This includes an understanding of the local environment such as students and curriculum, but also the broader world including the politics (e.g. federal education policy such as Reading First("No Child Left Behind," 2001)) of the time. An appropriate pedagogical understanding must acknowledge the cognitive demands, linguistic experience, and interplay of social and cultural influences upon the writer (Beard, Myhill, Riley, & Nystrand 2009). These factors vary depending on the district, school and classroom where a teacher finds herself. While writing has been defined as a situated activity including texts, contexts and politics (Kamberelis, de La Luna, 2004), it is also an activity that is profoundly and 48 intimately connected to the writer and whatever situation (context) he or she finds him/herself. In order to understand the development of writing pedagogy, it is important to note how I as the teacher educator/researcher define high quality writing instruction. Because I believe that writing is a social-cognitive-cultural-historical practice (Kamberelis and de la Luna, 2004), it was important to me to define high quality writing instruction from a vantage point that was malleable enough to allow for flexibility that occurs in various learning contexts. Therefore, I chose to employ a framework for high quality writing instruction articulated by Kamberelis and de la Luna (2004) in which they honor writing as both an ecologically influenced and situated activity. Later in this chapter, I detail how work by Kamberelis and de la Luna contributed to the theoretical framework that I employed over the course of this study. Specifically, teachers who plan for high quality writing instruction have an understanding of the following components: Texts: Those products, processes, and practices (knowledge of the formal semiotic features of written products- what teachers are aiming to produce/model) that both support and take place the writing that occurs in an individual classroom or during a particular writing unit. Contexts: The forces that exert effects on writing practices and products. These include students, curriculum, and support systems. Politics: The situated power relations involved in writing instruction (Kamberelis, de La Luna, 2004). These include status of the 49 teacher/learner as well as teaching and learning mandates, and standards set forth by school, district, state, or federal powers. It is important to note that these components are not mutually exclusive, but are intertwined and contribute simultaneously to the learning environment where teachers and students do their writing work. Classroom text, context and politics are those situated components that influence the development of intern subject matter knowledge, pedagogy content knowledge. Research linking these components (i.e. contextual experiences) to the development of subject matter knowledge and pedagogy has been documented through the qualitative study of beginning teachers in an array of subject matters (Agee, 2004; Barty, 2004; Danielewicz, 2001; Kennedy, 1998; Pardo, 2006). And, while the research has established this connection, little is known about the work that preservice teacher educators can do to initiate and sustain experiences that can lead to successful writing instruction. Text . Any written piece that is written with a specific structure, for a specific audience, produced in specific settings and for specific purposes (Kamberelis & de La Luna, 2004; Bakhtin, 1986) can be defined as a text. Textual knowledge and practices include the knowledge of products (e.g. knowledge of and exposure to genre) and the knowledge of process (e.g. knowledge of and exposure to the writing process (e.g. prewrite, draft, revise, edit, publish) (Pritchard & Honeycutt, 2007; Graham & Perin, 2007). Products, in terms of this study, include only graphically represented pieces (lists and organizers, partial sentences/paragraphs, draft 50 material). High quality writing instruction acknowledges the products by providing guidelines and examples of finished products AND guidelines and examples of how writing happens. Knowledge of products. In this study, it happened that all four participants taught writing unts focused on the narrative genre. A genre can be described as a “socially constructed language practice” that serves specific purposes (Halliday & Hasan, 1991). Bruner (1986) characterized the narrative genre as a way for writers to represent and organize events and ideas. A “family of discourse” defined by a writer’s (or speaker’s) reference to a series of events, narratives encompass both fiction and “real-life” stories or events (Hicks, 1991). The development of the narrative genre in children typically begins in their primary “language learning environment” (typically the home) where they are commonly exposed to stories (Hicks, 1991). Narratives are very common in the elementary classroom (Beers & Nagy, 2011; Calkins, 1986; Troia, Harbaugh, Shankland, Wolbers, & Lawrence, 2013). And, young writers’ concepts of narrative matures as they both read and write texts that include fictional narratives, such as fantasy stories, and nonfictional narratives, such as the more autobiographical personal narrative (Calkins, 1986). It is important to note that the curriculum, Units of Study (Calkins, 2006), used by two of the four interns in this study focused specifically on the personal narrative, which is. It is also important to note that the narrative may be prevalent in elementary classrooms because most assessments of writing achievement utilize the narrative genre (Troia et al., 2013). So, in this study, it 51 would be necessary for interns to have a solid understanding of what a narrative looks like. It would also be imperative that intern teachers have an understanding of and access to a variety of high quality narrative models (published text) that they intend to share with their students. Knowledge of process. In this study, writing is defined as a process: iterative and recursive work that encompasses all of those things writers do when prewriting, drafting, revising, editing and publishing. In addition to the physical and thought processes involved in putting words and paragraphs together, the process of writing also includes a writer’s consideration of purpose and audience. In the Handbook of Writing Research (MacArthur, Graham, & Fitzgerald, 2006), Prichard and Honeycutt (2006) report that current literature “reveals that writing and the writing process are best understood as complex phenomena that include not only procedural strategies for going through the writing process to generate text, but also a multitude of other strategies to develop specific schemata (p. 285). These schemata can be understood as mental structures for understanding genre, or specific purposes for writing. Attending to the purpose for writing will often determine the genre of the piece. Chapman emphasizes genres not as simply structural classifications, but as “ways of participating in a community” or in terms of “communicative purposes” (Chapman, 1999). Chapman defines genre as, “an integration of content (what we want to express), form (ways of organizing our words and ideas), function (purposes for writing), and context (the setting which is multidimensional and includes a range of factors from global to specific (Chapman, 52 1999; p. 470). From a sociocultural perspective, genres are not static, and their form and function evolve in relation to the author’s purpose. For example, writers may write a narrative to share a story or entertain; a biography to inform; or a recipe to direct readers. Lucy Calkin’s Units of Study is a more lock-step program of study combining the writing process and genre (Lucy Calkins, Units of Study, 2006), to direct writing instruction. A program like Units of Study outlines for students (and interns) the steps that writers take to produce texts. Instruction typically includes the modeling and practice of skills “real writers” use while writing; things like prewriting, expanding small moments (revising), or revising for character development are taught using specific and often scripted lessons within the curriculum guide. While not all teachers follow a curriculum like Units of Study, many do teach writing as a process. And, “best practices in the teaching of writing,” claim Pritchard and Honeycutt (2006) “include not only improving writing products but also developing positive dispositions, social behaviors, problem solving, and other skills that have value (p. 285)”. In short, a process approach for writing instruction attends not only to how writers move from original idea to published work, but also includes the development of confident and knowledgeable writers capable of writing a variety of genre depending on their own literary needs. Context. Contexts have been described by Gee (1999) as dynamic and overlapping integrated discourses, spaces where the exchange of ideas takes place. The classroom environment is largely responsible for contextual influences on 53 writing instruction. And, writing that occurs in a classroom develops with a host of influences—in a sociocultural and ecological sense (Barton, 1994; Gee, 1999). Specifically, classroom environment includes creating a sense of urgency or motivation in students to write (Chapman, 1999; Pressley, Mohan, Fingeret, et al., 2007; Boscolo & Gelati, 2007), an authenticity component comprised of authentic tasks and purposes for writing (Duke et al., 2006; Purcell-Gates, 2002; PurcellGates, Duke, & Martineau, 2007) as well as a literate environment where students are surrounded by the written word and encouraged to read and write for a variety of purposes. Imagine a classroom where children are working in small pods, their desks close to each other. They have opportunities to exchange ideas, to share their topic choices, and perform their compositions in all their drafts. There is a healthy space for giving peer feedback and encouragement. There is student-to-student talk and teacher-to-student talk. Curriculum also plays an important role in the contextual piece. Curriculum for writing instruction includes standards and guidelines set in place by federal, state and local governing bodies regulating the what, by what means, and the when of writing instruction. Writers and writing teachers create purposeful space (time, assignments, activities, routines) where writers interact with the world around them. “An ecological approach takes as its starting point this interaction between individuals and their environment” (Barton, 1994; p. 234). And, meaning is provided by the context within which the texts are produced, distributed and consumed (Kamberelis & de la Luna, 2004). Similar to the ideas that Gee (1999) articulates in his work 54 about situated meanings, contexts can define how learners think about certain topics, ideas and experiences. For example, a unit on historical narrative in conjunction with a social studies unit on the Underground Railroad can build elementary students’ skills as writers while influencing their opinions on the value of liberty and democracy. Additionally, contexts (such as an advance literacy methods course, or a writer’s workshop) can create “space” for ideas and developing competencies to play out. High quality writing instruction acknowledges that context (e.g. who students are, where they live, what discourse they participate within, curriculum, classroom environment, etc.) has an effect on writing instruction and student learning (Colby & Stapleton, 2006; Brindley & Schneider, 2002, Pardo, 2006). For example, teachers in urban centers might adjust their writing instruction to include urban-focused mentor texts or writing assignments on the importance of pubic transportation. It is important for beginning teachers of writing to understand and acknowledge the contexts/discourses in their classrooms. In this study, I acknowledge that more than one context/discourse may be influencing intern teachers and their developing pedagogy in writing instruction. I, therefore, hoped to investigate this process and understand it more fully. Pardo (2006) notes that a “variety of knowledge sources” exist for beginning teachers in writing. Interns are simultaneously navigating a classroom context (with unique students and predetermined ideas about writing instruction), a course context (with other ideas about writing instruction), and whatever ideas about writing instruction that already exist in an individual’s experience. "Learning happens in particular 55 contexts, these contexts make a big difference to learning, and it is difficult to transfer learning to new contexts… Authentic experience is essential to genre and discourse learning” (Duke et al., 2006/2007; p.345). Furthermore, context is something that intern teachers simultaneously investigate (field context/university context) and create (classroom context/writing instruction and assignments). In this way, interns are working to navigate a classroom context that embodies some of the aspects of high quality writing instruction taught at the university while honoring the contextual reality of the students and curriculum with whom they work every day. Politics. The historical/political environment in which a teacher finds herself affects writing instruction (Brindley & Schneider, 2002; Pardo, 2006). For example, in the 1980’s writing instruction was largely language arts based, focused on grammar and paragraph construction, with little time spent on the writing process. And, before that, writing simply meant the ability to write one’s name. As Hawkins and Razali (2012) note in their historical review of the last 100 years of writing instruction, writing instruction has moved from a focus on the physical aspect of writing (e.g. putting pencil to paper) and has moved toward the process of writing (e.g., writing process). And, with the growing popularity of the National Writing Project in the 2000’s, writing instruction became largely influenced by the work of “authors” as they work through the process of writing to tell their individual stories. “The various discourses that define what it means to be a particular type of teacher in the United States are rooted in the social, cultural, historical and 56 political contexts of each school community” (Miller Marsh, 2002; p. 454). Contributing factors including state and national writing standards, recent research on best practices and various preservice and professional development all affect the what and how of writing instruction. Additionally, writers (and writing teachers) position themselves in relation to other people and groups in strategic ways (Dyson, 2003; Pardo, 2006; Kamberelis & de la Luna, 2004). For example, during the assessment of writing, writing teachers set up particular expectations while writers are forced to negotiate their own ideas with an assessment’s influences and expectations (Calfee & Greitz Miller, 2007; Graves, 1994; Gee, 1999). During the planning and teaching of writing, teachers negotiate their ideas about writing instruction with standards and curriculum in place in each school and context. Political underpinnings such as “role” and “status” affect what teachers teach and how students relate to learning. The negotiation that occurs on behalf of teachers and students affects both what is taught/learned and the methods of instruction. Students and teachers may not always teach or write what they “want to” or “believe in.” They negotiate their written work or writing lessons with what is expected by the cultural context (situated meaning) that dominates the situation. Teachers may negotiate what they teach based on ideas of best practice with curriculum and district mandates (e.g. mandated use of six trait writing/assessment). For example, two intern teachers in this study were forced to negotiate their ideas about engaging and motivating writing instruction with a mandated, scripted curriculum. Similarly, students 57 negotiate what they write based on expectations of their teachers and writing environment (e.g., authentic assignments, motivation to write). Navigating Writing Instruction During the Internship In the case of writing instruction, interns must focus not only on the what of teaching: subject matter and high quality writing, but also the how: pedagogy and how it is related to writing as a textual, contextual and political entity. I contend that learning to teach writing- developing pedagogy for writing- is a complex experience heavily influenced by external factors often misaligned with the methods course and its conceptualization of pedagogy of best practice. Like Britzman (2003), I believe that tensions exist “between knowing and being, thought and action, theory and practice, knowledge and experience ” (p. 2) and that it is from within this complexity of relationships that preservice teachers require the shepherding of reflective practice in order to fully give voice to their own developing pedagogy- a set of instructional methods, resources and tools honoring the individual context of instruction. The above, complex, and contextually based vision of teacher development is not held by all stakeholders in teacher education and pedagogical development. Some researchers, policymakers, along with state and local school boards and governing bodies, have come to believe that more scripted and lockstep curricula can best help teachers understand the subject matter knowledge and pedagogical knowledge necessary for literacy instruction ((Coburn, 2001; Slavin, 2006; Slavin, Lake, Chambers, Cheung, & Davis, 2009). Navigating writing instruction with a 58 scripted curriculum is a very different experience than navigating writing instruction without one (Bifulco, Duncombe, & Yinger, 2005; Coburn, 2001; Pardo, 2006). In the following section, I review the research on the influences of politics and mandated curricula in the development of writing pedagogy. Navigating politics and mandated writing curriculum. Kamberelis and de la Luna (2004) characterized politics in writing instruction as any mandated influence on the teacher and learner. They defined such politics as “the way in which people and groups positions themselves in relation to other people and groups” (p. 246). Kamberelis and de la Luna (2004) also highlight interrelationship between politics and discourse. Gee (1996) characterizes Discourses as the ways in which we interact with others and our work. Discourses allow interns, for example, to position themselves both as a beginning writing teacher in some situations (e.g., when they are learning from their mentor teacher) and as writing teachers in others (e.g., when they are teaching a lesson to the students in their classrooms). In this way, Discourses lead to varying “subject positions;” the positioning that accompanies such discourses (e.g. moving from in front of the desk to behind it) leads to “limited agency” in an intern teacher’s work (Kamberelis & de la Luna, 2004). I conceptualize agency as an intern teacher’s active desire to discuss, through course assignments and activities, and act on individual or new ideas for writing instruction (Fairbanks et al., 2010; Hammerness, 2002; Sexton, 2008; Sloan, 2006). For purposes of this study, politics can and did include those policies put into 59 effect by districts and/or schools intended to drive the instructional decision-making of teachers in writing specifically. Alongside teachers and students, policy has become a significant actor in schools and classrooms. The institution of both state and federal learning standards as well as state and locally mandated curricula are responsible for much of policy’s influence on actual classroom teaching (Coburn, 2001, 2006). Writing, as a subject matter, has become progressively more politicized as policy-makers, school leaders, and teachers become increasingly concerned with the pace of learning and the achievement of elementary students in writing (Graham et al., 2007; Graham & Perin, 2007; Shanahan, 2006). Such concern has resulted more and more in the adoption of scripted writing curricula meant to both enhance student learning and keep teachers and students on track for successful test scores. Research has shown that policy does influence the instructional decisionmaking occurring in classrooms. Instruction often “depends on policy to frame action and offer resources” (Cohen, Moffitt, & Goldin, 2007, p. 521). The adoption of curriculum in general, and scripted curriculum in specific, relies on teachers to simultaneously utilize and manage both the material and students’ interaction with it. Beginning teachers, such as the interns in this study, are in a precarious position. They face a steep learning curve and are confronted with merging their own ideas about teaching and learning with curricular mandates all while working within a mandated curriculum that does not account for individual teachers and the differences that exist in school and classroom contexts (Pardo, 2006). 60 Impact and implications of mandated writing curriculum. Research by Grossman and colleagues into the influence of policy on beginning teacher instruction and teacher education in literacy found that the settings in which beginning teachers teach (e.g. classrooms with mandated curricula) do influence beginning teachers’ understanding of practice (Grossman, 2000). Furthermore, teachers do use and learn from curriculum materials, and those they encounter “powerfully shape their ideas” about teaching and classroom practice (Grossman, 2008). Grossman and colleagues (2008) argue, “new and aspiring teachers need opportunities to analyze and critique curriculum materials beginning during teacher education” (p. 282). While Grossman and colleagues make important conclusions, their work focused on secondary preservice teachers. In this study, I extend Grossman et al.’s (2008) work by focusing on elementary preservice teachers. In a narrative policy analysis (Roe, 1994) that sought to expand the “understanding of policy” by employing a case study incorporating real classroom stories, Gerstl-Pepin and Woodside-Jiron (2005) were able to describe the significance of policy in driving teacher decision-making. Their findings upheld the influence of context on instruction. Often missing from a politicized classroom situation, the researchers found, are the roles that context and individual student needs play in the professional responsibility and instruction of a teacher (GerstlPepin & Woodside-Jiron, 2005). Their research found a disconnect between the lived culture of schools (i.e. teachers should use their professional knowledge) and 61 the inflexibility of mandates that require “teachers follow a standardized and scripted format… thus minimizing the professional judgment of teachers” (p. 237). Teachers come to understand new policy ideas through the lens of preexisting knowledge and practices, often interpreting, adapting or transforming policy messages as they put them in place (Spillane, 1999; Spillane & Callahan, 2000). And, teachers need structures and support to push thinking rather than to disengage (simply follow the script) in order to avoid conflict (Coburn, 2001). These structures often come in the form of collaboration and work with other teachers. Similarly, collaborative work between interns, cooperating teachers, and coursework has an effect on the ways policy influences classroom practice. While Fisher and Frey (2007) found that a school-wide literacy framework, such as a commitment to writer’s workshop, can improve literacy achievement in elementary schools, it is more powerful for teachers to focus on learning, allowing for studentcentered objectives and instruction, rather than a script. There is no doubt that these scripts can be useful and powerful tools in helping teachers navigate pedagogy. Coburn (Coburn, 2005a, 2005b) found teachers’ connections with non-system actors, such as scripts, tend to be more consequential for developing classroom practice. And, teachers are more likely to respond to policy messages attached to scripted curriculum, then they are to other teachers’ or administrators’ suggestions (Coburn, 2005a). It is important to note, however, that teacher education can also be seen as a non-system actor. This study considers how I, as a teacher educator, was able to think about how my literacy 62 methods course was positioned among the political players while focusing on intern instructional decision-making and not simply the script. Navigating the instructional context for writing instruction. Not all pedagogical navigation occurs with a mandated script in play. Sawyer (2004) noted the negative impact of mandated curriculum on beginning teachers’ abilities to navigate curriculum in creative and contextually grounded ways. Instructional context, or real classrooms with real students, should impact beginning teacher development and decision-making (Fairbanks et al., 2010). Some teacher educator/researchers have noted the importance of helping beginning teachers to think and act beyond scripted or simply knowledge-based instruction (Fairbanks et al., 2010). Disciplined improvisation, a phrase coined by Sawyer (2004), is a way for teachers to acknowledge a curriculum or curricular structure but maintain the ability to use specific situations and students to inform instructional decisionmaking. “Conceiving of teaching as improvisation emphasizes the interactional and responsive creativity of a teacher working together with a unique group of students” (Sawyer, 2004; p. 13). A proponent of disciplined improvisation in teaching, defined as a collaborative balance between structure, creativity, and flexible discourse, Sawyer named the ability of beginning teachers to recognize teaching as a combination of planning and improvisation as paramount. Interns are challenged to simultaneously place their developing knowledge, both university and experience based, in direct conversation with the needs of their students and the requirements of their internship. In a study by Laura Pardo 63 (2006) on the role of context in beginning (first and second year) elementary teachers’ writing pedagogy, findings highlight the fact that contextual factors do influence the writing instruction of beginning teachers. Her study illuminated the influence of contextual factors such as literacy curriculum, student population, school culture as well as the current political atmosphere (standards for writing instruction, mandated time spent writing, etc.) on writing instruction. Pardo also found that beginning to teach writing was “strongly shaped by how each teacher learned to manage the various conflicting aspects of her individual teaching context” (Pardo, 2006; p. 388). What teacher educators do not know is how that management, or navigation, of context can be learned and supported by teacher education. Pardo names this contextual navigation as “finessing” and defines it as such: “teachers go beyond managing dilemmas to actually sorting out and understanding the various interconnections between and among the aspects of one's own teaching context. The ability to finesse indicates teachers' skillful manipulation of teaching context to shape their evolving practice” (Pardo, 2006; p. 389). Pardo goes on to encourage teacher education to develop perservice teachers who are aware of contextual factors and able to conceptualize this “finessing” of context in order to develop a successful literacy experience for the students they serve (p. 389). Contexts, like students themselves, are unique, and situated in particular times and spaces. And, a situated space brings with it unique and situated meaning. A situated meaning is an image or pattern that we assemble as we communicate in a given context, based on our construal of that context and our past 64 experiences. Situated meanings don’t simply reside ready-made in individual minds; very often they are negotiated (or finessed) between people in and through communicative social interaction (Gee, 1999; p,94). Dyson (2003) speaks to this in her analysis of children’s writing in relation to their immediate environment/context (e.g. super heroes, TV, music artists). Sexton (2008) and Pardo (2006) speak to the negotiation that student teachers do when they wrestle with ideas from teacher education and conflicting ideas that exist either in the field (Pardo) or in their own belief systems (Sexton). High quality writing instruction acknowledges that “high quality writing” has various situated meanings based on teaching and learning contexts, and that both writers and writing teachers must be willing to navigate in terms of their own goals and ideas. As intern teachers begin to develop writing pedagogy by experiencing instruction in unique contexts- they are required to navigate those contexts, finding places where their own knowledge of high quality writing instruction can be actualized. While previous research has concluded that student teaching helps interns develop ideas and practices, missed opportunities for development of literacy pedagogy (like writing) are not uncommon (Valencia et al., 2009). And, while teacher educators may not have the ability to navigate each intern’s context alongside him/her- we can question, and hopefully discover, some ways in which our methods courses can best prepare interns to enter into unique contexts with the tools necessary for navigating high quality writing instruction within oftenunpredictable terrain. 65 Conclusion Literature has made clear the complex nature of learning to teach. Preservice teacher learning in subject matter areas, like writing, often involves several learning structures including content courses, methods courses, complete with texts and assignments, as well as various field experience components (Clift & Brady, 2005; Cochran-Smith & Zeichner, 2005). What we do not know is how these components are mediated by text, context, and politics as preservice teachers learn to teach writing (Wideen et al., 1998). One portion of this growing understanding is to recognize, fully, how writing pedagogy is taught in one course through the systematic analysis of the development of preservice teachers’ writing pedagogy. Methodologically, we know that there is a need for studies that are increasingly ecological in scope, studies that include multiple data sources designed to investigate the interaction of the various components of preservice teacher programs whose goals are to develop efficacious and knowledgeable writing teachers (Clift & Brady, 2005; Wideen et al., 1998). Having witnessed the impact of situated knowledge and the dual setting (university/classroom) on intern teachers, I have adopted an ecological view of preservice teacher development. The theoretical framework that I discuss below has allowed me to study these issues from that perspective. By drawing on activity theory and a sociocultural view of learning, I will examine preservice teacher interaction with coursework, colleagues, and my own scaffolding during the course with a focus on writing pedagogy. 66 Theoretical Framework This study operates under the theory that preservice teacher learning occurs in a socially-constructed manner and best occurs when combining teaching practice with instructional and reflective conversations surrounding teaching. According to sociocultural theories, learning is the combination of both behavior and cognitive processes working together to construct particular skills and beliefs (Bandura, 1977, 1986). Social-Cognitive theory is closely related to the Vygotskian theory of cognitive development and learning- or sociocultural perspective (Vygotsky, 1978). Both Vygotsky (1978) and Bandura (1977, 1986) contend that learning takes place when society and culture promote cognitive growth and active engagement in meaningful, purposeful, and challenging activities (Ormrod, 2003; Rieber & Robinson, 2004). I contend that the internship experience is an exercise in sociocultural, cognitively involved learning. During the internship, interns are engaged in authentic teaching activities that connect their pedagogical understanding with real student learning. In general, social-cognitive development in preservice teachers incorporates classroom experiences with more in-depth analyses of specific teaching and learning concepts. Within the context of teacher education, coursework in writing, for example, should work to combine the sociocultural concepts found in Bandura’s ideas (1977, 1986) by structuring conversations focused on research and literature in writing instruction alongside lesson observation and planning, with the sociocultural ideas promoted by Vygotsky (1978) by providing further in-class 67 opportunities for conversation and analysis of teaching and learning. For example, in the course under study here, interns discussed best practice for writing instruction during university course time and then individually planned and taught a unit in writing instruction. Following their teaching, interns reflected on their practice and on student learning. It follows, then, that preservice teachers learn by experiencing and investigating effective models in a supportive classroom environment while cognitively interacting with the thought and physical processes that lead to a product or depth of understanding. Preservice development in writing pedagogy should also include opportunities to explicitly identify, investigate, and experience teaching writing in the types of classroom settings where preservice teachers eventually teach. Because the interns in this study were responsible for the planning and instruction of one unit in writing during the first semester of their internship, they had the opportunity to have the kind of experiences I note above. Within the realm of sociocultural theory, several more specific theories of teacher learning and development exist. This study utilized three very specific sociocultural theories to guide the planning and development of the course under study as well as subsequent data analysis. These three--activity theory, scaffolding, and reflective practice-- are defined and explored in the context of preservice teacher development in writing below. 68 Activity Theory Activity theory is one lens for studying the sociocultural nature of preservice teacher development in writing. According to activity theory, learning occurs through interaction with a task such as teaching (Engestrom, Miettinen, & Punamaki, 1999; Nardi, 1996; van Oerts, 2008). It is through interaction with a learning context that learners build upon existing, acquired and still-developing skills. Preservice teachers’ experiences are multifaceted and often converge during student teaching when each student must “perform” for him or herself all duties necessary for the role “teacher.” A preservice teacher’s learning is contextuallyembedded and includes influence from both personal references (past and present instructors, collaborating teachers, colleagues, students) and newly developing tools (curriculum, pedagogical strategies, texts) (Nardi, 1996). Activity theory “provides a framework for examining how teachers understand and use tools in their teaching and learning” (Grossman et al., 2000; p. 635). Tools can be identified as either conceptual or practical. Conceptual tools are those intangible teaching and learning ideas that preservice teachers use to guide their planning and instruction (e.g., modeling, student-centered learning, or process writing). Practical tools are identified as those more tangible teaching tools (or methods) that teachers choose to use or enact in order to teach a subject matter (in this case, writing) or skill (e.g. journal writing, grammar, editing). In this study, for example, interns utilized a combination of conceptual and practical tools when they routinely instructed students to identify writing as a process by using pedagogical 69 tools such shared writing and mentor texts to show elementary students how real authors do the work of writing. As a sociocultural concept, “activity theory helps researchers understand the process through which a person learns” (Grossman et al., 2000; p. 634). In this study, activity theory provides a framework, or lens, through which I consider the unique contexts (or personal references) experienced by preservice teachers as they simultaneously interacted with practical and conceptual tools within structured coursework and classroom experience intended to foster the development of writing pedagogy. Activity allows me, as a researcher, to highlight the situative nature of teacher development (Grossman, Smagorinsky, & Valencia, 1999) and the idea that, “A person’s framework for thinking is developed through participation and problemsolving in specific environments” (Valencia et al, 2009). Activity setting. Engstrom (1999), an activity theorist, has defined those unique, and situated spaces within which preservice teacher thinking and development take place as activity settings. Described as the “object oriented, collective, and culturally mediated” (Engstrom, 1999; p. 9) space within which a learner interacts with the learning process, Engstrom’s conceptualization of the activity setting allows me to study each unique experience of the preservice teacher as he/she develops writing pedagogy. It is important to unpack Engstrom’s definition of the activity setting in order to clearly relate it to this study. Engstrom notes that activity settings are object oriented. In this study, this object orientation is toward pedagogical development and those tools that assist a preservice teacher’s 70 development. He notes the collective nature of the activity setting; dual settings influence the development of the preservice teacher (i.e. methods course and field classroom). Varied personal references also lead to the collective experience of the preservice teacher. Lastly, Engstrom notes the culturally mediated nature of the activity setting. In this study, preservice teachers negotiate the visions, expectations, and tools available to them as they develop pedagogy for writing. Interactions within the activity setting contribute to teachers’ development of pedagogy in writing. This study envisions the activity setting for each preservice teacher to resemble the following. University Methods Course • Text • syllabus,assignments • Context • Textbook, articles • Course Instructor • Peers • Politics • University Requirements • Status as student Field Classroom • Text • Lesson Plans • Routines • Context • Curriculum • Cooperating Teacher • Students • Politics • Novice Status "intern" • District/School policies Tools • Conceptual • Practical Figure 1. Internship Dual Activity Setting As shown in Figure 1, I enhance Engstrom’s concept of activity settings by adding the writing-specific work of Kamberelis and de la Luna (2004). In a study on 71 the theoretical influences of elementary student writing, these researchers added a layer of detail to the study of writing development by identifying three specific influences on writing that I believe are important for the study of pedagogical development in writing. As Figure 1 above notes, within the Internship exists a dual setting: the university methods course and the field classroom. Each setting is made up of three characteristics: text, context, and politics that make up the “multidimensional and situated” aspects involved in understanding writing (Kamberelis & de la Luna, p. 227). Theoretically, a preservice teacher utilizes those conceptual and practical tools available from either one or both activity settings to navigate his/her developing pedagogy. Whether or not these tools are available, appropriate, or welcome in either setting is a part of that navigation. Research does not definitively say what this process of navigating, from and within two separate activity settings might look like. Nor do we know, from a teacher educator’s perspective, how to assist preservice teachers in relating the two settings to one another. This study examines how preservice teachers navigate each of these activity settings, and notes how the two separate settings might be interpreted and then responded to in order to produce more complete pedagogical development. Writing and writing instruction can be theoretically understood, say Kamberelis and de la Luna (2004), as occurring at the intersection of knowledge and practice through a variety of contextual forces and textual politics. Activity theory provides researchers with a way to understand the navigation of that intersection by focusing simultaneously on interns working with social and cultural 72 resources on specific tasks within specific activities with definable goals within the activity system. In the case of this study, activity theory can help teacher educators understand how to best prepare interns for navigating their developing writing pedagogy within individualized classroom contexts by and through structured and scaffolded practice. Tool use within activity settings. An important aspect of an intern’s developing pedagogy is use of specific tools for growth and understanding. As discussed above, from the perspective of activity theorists (Engstrom, 1999; Nardi, 1996; VanOerts, 2008), tool use is separated into the manipulation of conceptual tools, or those “tangible teaching and learning ideas” and practical tools, those “tangible tools and strategies” present within both the university and classroom settings. Furthermore, Dewey highlights the importance of experience in education saying, “The belief that all genuine education comes about through experience does not mean that all experiences are genuinely or equally educative. Experience and education cannot be directly equated to each other” (1938, p. 25). By placing the conceptual and practical tools within real classrooms in conversation with university methods courses, interns have the opportunity to develop individual pedagogies for writing instruction. In the following paragraphs, I describe the range of conceptual and practical tools interns might use within the internship’s activity system. The availability of these tools, particularly in the classroom setting can affect an intern’s navigation through pedagogical development AND the teacher educator’s ability to assist in that navigation and developmental process. 73 Conceptual tools. Just as internship settings differ, so too does the availability of conceptual tools for each setting. Conceptual tools, or ideas about how we teach and learn, are often influenced by the context (classroom, school, district) within which a teacher practices (e.g., learning develops through rote practice, learning comes from organic practice, curriculum should be spiral, etc.). Interns often reference the “tangible” teaching and learning ideas, routines, and atmosphere they experience in their field classrooms as contributing factors to their success or failure in beginning writing instruction. Interns also reference the value/lack of value of the Cooperating Teacher relationship in the development of pedagogical ideas. Conversations with peers, other teachers, and teacher educators might also be important for the development of conceptual ideas leading to pedagogical decision-making. Within these conversations and relationships, interns frequently point to the modeling of thinking as most valuable- as well as the sharing of feelings/ideas. While modeled thinking can allow conceptual ideas to become more ‘practical’, the sharing of ideas can also build a “community of teachers” that makes success/failure at navigating writing pedagogy “safe.” For beginning writing teachers, conceptual tools can grow in value when interns have the chance to share their experiences and ideas with others. Practical tools. Interns are often quick to note the practical tools available to them within each activity setting, easily listing the material resources (e.g. curriculum, classroom libraries, and computer technology). These “tricks of the trade” (Lortie, 1975) help beginning teachers by providing a pedagogical practice to 74 rely on (e.g. managing writing instruction). Practical associated with a university methods course might include assignments, blog reflections, texts, and course conversations. Practical tools in the classroom setting are often listed as curriculum. Similarly, a school and district’s cultural and historical background for writing instruction (e.g. mandated instructional frameworks such as writer’s workshop or the five traits) might also be included in talk about those practical tools that hinder/helped navigate writing instruction. Such cultural and historical tools can include pacing guides, time requirements/scheduled time to write, instructional models (writer’s workshop, mini lessons, genre-based instruction), and knowledge of student ability. When I began to consider data analysis through the lens of Activity Theory, it became increasingly clear that while the internship’s activity system consisted of a dual setting (the methods course and the field classroom), particularly problematic for interns (and myself as a teacher educator) was their inability to utilize tools available to them to navigate the contextual factors present the classroom. While I planned to maintain consistency/continuity within the methods course setting, somewhat controlling the tools available to interns as they worked to develop writing pedagogy, I knew I would have significantly less information regarding the contextual factors present in each classroom represented by each interns’ field experiences. For these reasons, I hoped to gather data that might highlight those contextual factors specific to classroom contexts that lend themselves to navigational difficulty as interns develop writing pedagogy. It was my goal to 75 uncover and analyze those specific ideas, actions, and experiences in classroom contexts where university support might make clear the contribution of textual, contextual, and political factors when learning to enact writing pedagogy. Scaffolding Scaffolding, as conceptualized by Bruner (1975), includes the assistance of a learner in order to support an intended outcome. While scaffolding often emphasizes teacher defined notions of intended outcome, in this study I worked to remain mindful of “[interns’] shifting social and intellectual intentions as they engage with text and one another” in order to work toward an intended outcome that was both pedagogically sound and appropriate in an individual school context (Aukerman, 2007, p. 57). Because school and classroom context differed for each intern teacher, scaffolding toward a single predefined outcome seemed inappropriate or as Dyson (1990) notes, “differences in intention make the scaffolding metaphor problematic” (p. 204). In teaching this course, I adopted Auckerman’s (2007) theory of scaffolding, one that notes “meaningful teaching can occur on occasions when there is a common understanding of the problems, the tasks, and the goals that are at hand” (p.64). My theory of scaffolding took into account those who are “constructing the edifice”- the interns (Searle, 1984, p. 482). By treating interns as “possible knowers” (Auckerman, 2007), I acknowledged their input as both necessary and valuable in navigating the writing pedagogy appropriate for their individual context. 76 Beyond this idea of intern input, and treating my interns as “co-constructors,” I also adopted the idea of scaffolding as distributed, or inquiry based (Tabak, 2004). This meant that the scaffolding that my course and its assignments, activities, and conversations included supported a “rich learning environment with multiple forms of support provided through different means to address complex and diverse learning needs” (Tabak, 2004; p. 306). This idea of distributed scaffolding includes “synergistic scaffolds” which Tabak (2004) defines as “multiple, co-occurring and interacting supports for the same need” (p. 308). In this study, that “same need” was support for the development of writing pedagogy while the “interacting supports” depended on each intern’s experience of text, context, and politics. Scaffolding, reminds Searle (1984), “hinges on the question of who is constructing the edifice” (p. 482). Too often, the teacher (or teacher educator) is seen as the “builder” and the students (or interns) are expected to “occupy a predetermined structure.” My theory of scaffolding, aligned with Auckerman’s and in accordance with Dewey’s concept of experience, acknowledges the “moving force” (Dewey, 1938; p.14) of experience; its value being what an experience moves an intern toward and into, not on what it imitates (Dewey, 1938). The goal of teacher educators, therefore, must be to embrace? flexible or distributed scaffolding (Tabak, 2004), to guide, as Dewey suggests, without “imposing external control” (Dewey, 1938; p. 15). And, realizing that experience/practice is both the “means and goal of education” as well as something that involves active “contact and communication,” teacher educators should acknowledge contextualized experiences and the unique 77 features of each classroom experience (Dewey, 1938). Ultimately, my goal as a teacher educator is to foster experiences that, as Dewey (1938) suggests, “arouse curiosity, strengthen, initiate and set up desires and purposes that are sufficient to carry a person into the future”- recognizing its anonymity (p. 14). To scaffold such experiences, teacher education must balance experiences in individual contexts with reflection upon practice in order to uncover those realizations within and through experience where growth and understanding occurs. Learning through Reflection In order to develop ideas about teaching and learning, John Dewey believed we as teachers and researchers must be deeply aware of people and context (1902, 1938). Through consistent reflection on course experiences by both preservice teachers and the teacher educator in the curricular area of writing, I sought to “make sense” of not only preservice teacher development, but also my own role in that development (Dinkleman, 2003). Reflection in this study is two fold. First, both my intern teachers and I reflected on our work and growth as teachers of writing. And, secondly, as action research, this study is an act of reflection aimed to improve practice on an organizational level. For, as Hole and McEntee (1999) note, reflecting on our practice, individually or with colleagues, can be “the entry into improving our teaching” (p. 34). It is my goal to reflect on experiences within this course in a way that allows for the exploration of those educative experiences that lead to the development of writing pedagogy among preservice teachers, as well as my own development as a teacher educator. 78 Above, I summarized the current research literature on learning to teach writing as well as my conceptualization of the kinds of knowledge research has shown to be important to developing teachers. I went on to focus my literature review on the concept of situated knowledge and my conceptualization of its development through interns’ interactions with text, context, and politics. I closed the chapter with an overview of the theoretical ideas that shaped my thinking about the development of intern pedagogy in writing. Specifically, I focused on Engstrom’s ideas about Activity Theory (1999) in connection with Kamberelis and de la Luna’s ideas about text, context, and politics (2004) in writing to frame my study. In Chapter Three, I detail my study’s design and methods. I begin by highlighting my research question and the methodological work that I did to answer those questions. I detail my study’s intern participants as well as my data collection and analysis. 79 Chapter 3 Design and Methodology Action research is a methodological response to calls for a “contextual approach” to research, one that reveals the “complexity of learning to teach” (Herr & Anderson, 2005; McIntyre, Byrd, & Foxx, 1996; Wideen et al., 1998). I chose to employ action research because its principles of pragmatism and reflection most closely aligned with my goals as both a researcher and a teacher educator. Like all action researchers, I investigated a situated social activity (learning to teach writing) within a defined setting (the internship) (Herr & Anderson, 2005). Doing so allowed me to focus simultaneously on four interns who utilized resources available in their classroom contexts (Kamberelis & de la Luna, 2004) to complete specific activities with clearly defined goals within linked, and sometimes conflicting, activity systems (i.e. the literacy methods course and the classroom experience) (Clift & Brady, 2005; Engestrom, 1999; Valencia et al., 2009). I begin this chapter by outlining the research questions that guided my study design and methodological decision-making. I next define and describe the research setting or activity system (Valencia, Martin, Place, & Grossman, 2009) where this study took place as well as the components that made up those activity settings (Engestrom, 1999). I then describe four participants- interns who chose to plan, teach and reflect upon writing pedagogy. Lastly, I describe the data sources, collection and analysis. 80 Research Questions In order to address the challenges of preparing elementary preservice teachers’ development of writing pedagogy, I ask the following questions: 1) How do interns navigate internship experiences in the content of their course work and internship contexts with regard to text, context, and politics as they develop pedagogy for writing? 2) How do I, as a literacy teacher educator/researcher, scaffold pedagogical development in writing instruction while acknowledging the various and varied textual, contextual, and political experiences of interns in my course? Design In order to investigate the above questions, I employed a formatively designed action research study (Argyris & Schon, 1991; Herr & Anderson, 2005). As discussed previously in Chapter 1, formative design allows for acknowledgement of the complexities of classroom teaching while offering teacher/researchers flexibility in reflecting upon and implementing instructional interventions in order to “narrow the gap between findings generated by other methodologies and the realities of teaching” (Reinking & Bradley, 2004). In utilizing this design, I was able to maintain flexibility during instructional decision-making throughout my course. Formative design allows for the natural adjustments educators must make as they react to student thinking and learning. Specifically, I felt it important to 81 uphold course flexibility due to the likelihood of diverse situations my interns would experience as they developed their ideas about writing pedagogy. “The goal of action researchers is the improvement of practice through the creation of valid knowledge about practice” (Herr & Anderson, 2005; p. 2). Dinkleman (2003, p. 11) notes this knowledge production as both a source for potential problem solving in the teacher/researcher’s immediate context and teaching situations as well as a professional space for the generation of ideas, activities and approaches made available for teacher educators to draw upon and adapt in other educational settings. Because one of my research questions focused on how I might further support more successful teaching and learning experiences for intern teachers and extend my previous research, I employed action research. It is important to note that this study, like all action research, was deliberately and systematically undertaken and oriented to address my teaching dilemma: fostering the development of writing pedagogy in a context over which neither I, nor my interns had complete control of the developing pedagogy (Argyris and Schon, 1991; Herr & Anderson, 2005). Because my research on the development of writing pedagogy did not begin with this study, it is important to articulate the Action Research Cycle here in order to better understand the position of my thinking and research during the course of this study. This study is housed within the Act and Observe stages of the Action Research Cycle (Herr & Anderson, 2005). While my previous research (as discussed in Chapter 1) allowed me to systematically observe and plan for instruction- this 82 study investigates the actual act of teaching along with investigations into how and what development occurred. Below I explicate the ideas within the Act and Observe stages that led to the development of this research. Act: The action plan that I enacted and implemented is based upon my course planning and teaching. My actions as a teacher/researcher include the activities I planned for my students, the assignments and my explanation, grading and discussing of them, the blog posts I chose to use as prompts, and the questions I posed to elicit reflection. Observe: In this case, observation means more than just watching. Observation leads to reflection. Conversations, activities and assignments led me to think and plan for future class time and activities. Observations directly related to this study and its research questions will inform and assist my future teaching decisions and plans for instruction in writing pedagogy. As a researcher and teacher educator, I was not the first to inquire into bettering my own understanding of teacher education programs, course structures, and contexts for the purpose of bettering my both own teaching and student learning (Kosnik & Beck, 2009; Samaras & Freese, 2006; Tidwell, Heston, & Fitzgerald, 2009). Such research is necessary in order to gain greater understanding of practice that can lead to the articulation of a philosophy of practice meant to improve future experiences of both preservice teachers and teacher educators (McCutheon and Jung, 1990). 83 Role of the Researcher For purposes of this study, I served as both course instructor and researcher. My goal was to study my interns’ learning and practice of writing pedagogy as supported by my methods course. I thought about scaffolding each intern as a means of support and encouragement. I encouraged each intern to respond to his/her context in ways that honored the uniqueness of the context where he/she taught while considering the pedagogical content knowledge discussed during our methods course. I hoped my course might serve as a place of support and instruction equal to the field experience that interns simultaneously had in elementary classrooms. As a teacher-researcher who had taught this class two times previous, I remained curious about how my course could support the development of knowledge in practice and knowledge for the practice (CochranSmith & Lytle, 1999) of writing instruction. Because I had taught the class previously, I understood that as preservice teachers walked through their first experiences planning, teaching, and adjusting writing instruction they would face situations where they would need to grow and adapt, pedagogically speaking. I remained curious about those tools (e.g. the assignments, course activities) that might work to assist beginning teachers to adapt instruction and practice based on the texts, context, and politics in each individual classroom situation. Studying how I purposefully interacted with interns helped me address these curiosities. While I served as the instructor of record for those preservice teachers consenting to 84 participate in this study, analysis of specific preservice teacher data (e.g., lesson plans, teacher narrative) did not occur until after the course was complete. As a former elementary teacher, lover of children’s literature, and writer, I presented this course to interns as an authentic study into interns’ developing practice. On several occasions, I made a point to note that the work of this course, planning lessons and units that incorporate varied lesson structure, high quality literature, and best practice, is the kind of work that “the best teachers I know” do on a regular basis. My duties included planning, teaching, and assessing interns over the course of this semester-long literacy methods course. As it was my goal to investigate intern development through my own reflection and course interactions surrounding the development of writing pedagogy (Dinkleman, 2003; Kosnik & Beck, 2009), the design of this study allowed me to maintain a reflective stance alongside my preservice teachers. Because I had taught this course on two previous occasions, I came to the study with some understanding of the influence of classroom and course text, context, and politics on interns’ writing pedagogy. I also had concerns about interns’ ability to navigate writing pedagogy especially in classrooms where “politics,” such as scripted curricula, seemed to be directing instructional practice. As the course progressed through the semester, I made a point to be responsive to intern experiences with writing instruction. For example, I prompted interns during student-led roundtable discussions to reflect and discuss pedagogical moves that they felt ‘required’ to perform. I also role-played conversations with interns when I acted as “mentor teacher” and interns were 85 practicing articulating their desire to try particular instructional strategies or lesson structures. As a teacher researcher I was curious about how to best help my interns make the pedagogical moves (or enact some adaptive expertise) they felt necessary in order to teach writing in ways that honored the knowledge they were developing in and for practice. Above all, I asked: To what extent were my attempts to scaffold their learning responsive to their individual situations? For example, rather than simply modeling pedagogical strategies, I also modeled how to go about making pedagogical changes in classrooms where those changes were necessary (e.g. moving to a writer’s workshop). To me, this responsiveness was one way I scaffolded (Aukerman, 2007; Florio-Ruane & Lensmire, 1989; Searle, 1984) the development of writing pedagogy. I discuss in more detail my approach to scaffolding in each of the findings chapters. It was my goal to learn from my interns’ experiences and to make my learning available to colleagues who teach similar literacy methods courses, creating an opportunity for dialogue focused on improved support of intern development in writing pedagogy. Setting The internship. The internship, like many student teaching experiences, was one of dual settings. The first was the required university methods course, which, in this case was a Master’s level course in advanced methods of teaching literacy instruction. The second was the classroom experience where intern teachers gradually assumed the duties of classroom teacher. The internship experience occurred during the fifth year of teacher preparation within a large 86 Midwestern University. During this fifth year, interns worked alongside a cooperating teacher (CT) in an elementary classroom four days a week from September through April. The fifth day was spent participating in university coursework. Additionally, the internship contained sustained work in the classroom (lead teaching time) both in the fall (3 weeks in November) and the spring (8 weeks in March and April). Interns completed two courses per semester and completed their internship year with 12 credit hours toward a Master’s degree. To support intern development during the internship experience, interns were assigned a field instructor. Field instructors are university assigned but school-based and meet with small groups of interns within the schools where they teach on a weekly or bi-weekly basis. Meant to connect the university and school experience, field instructors were responsible for observing interns in all subject matters, for evaluating interns as to their progress toward professional standards, and for monitoring the success of the intern/cooperating teacher relationship. While field instructors play an important role in supporting intern teachers and alerting university staff of potential conflict or struggle, field instructors were not responsible for the direct support of intern course assignments. Three different field instructors worked with the four interns under study here. Furthermore, field instructors were independent of one another and supported interns on a variable and varied timeframe. Because the field instructor role is variable and mainly because the intern participants in this study did not refer to the support of their field instructor in writing pedagogy during interviews or course work, I chose not to 87 focus data collection or analysis on field instruction. Rather, I focused on the pedagogical development of interns in writing as it was related to experiences directly related to my literacy methods course, and to what they reported regarding interactions with their students and CT. Each piece of the internship, the course setting and the classroom setting, had its own textual, contextual and political influences on the intern and his/her role. Below, I describe each of the two settings in detail as well as provide definitions and examples of existing textual, contextual and political influences. Course. Advanced Methods: Literacy Teaching and Learning was focused on developing the pedagogies associated with literacy, conceptualized as the teaching and learning of reading, writing, speaking, listening and viewing centered round three goals: 1) Articulating and defending a vision of literacy and goals for students as literacy learners; 2) Understanding the connections among literacy curriculum, instruction and assessment; and 3) Using data analysis, reflection, and writing to contribute to professional learning. By addressing the above goals, this course aimed to allow preservice teachers to consistently interact with the students in their field classroom around literacy teaching and learning. It included opportunities for preservice teachers to research, plan, teach, and reflect upon literacy teaching and learning. While the other language arts (reading, speaking, listening, viewing, etc.) may be included in this study as far as their intersection with the teaching of writing, this study focused most specifically on writing. The 88 four interns under study here were the only four of a group of 25 who individually chose writing as the focus of their literacy units. The course met on a weekly basis for one semester, and each course meeting lasted three hours. Of the ten course meetings, three course meetings were completed on-line to allow interns time to engage in course activities based in their classroom setting. For example, interns used one on-line session to investigate their school and classroom context. During the first three weeks in November, interns were in their field classroom five days a week, as unit lead teaching occurs during that time. See Appendix A for a timeline of course topics and assignments. Text. As mentioned previously, texts, in the methods course, included those “formal and functional” documents meant for some audience and some purpose (Bakhtin, 1986; Kamberelis & De La Luna). In this sense, texts are those written documents produced by interns and include the three course assignments: internship field guide, literacy unit plan, and reflective teacher narrative. Additionally, all documentation of course participation such as on-line blogs and responses to course prompts and activities both on-line and in the university setting are considered course texts. Context. Kamberelis and de la Luna (2004) defined context as “a dynamic area in within which texts are produced, distributed and consumed” (p. 230). They are “dynamic streams of overlapping and integrated discourses, spaces, sociocultural practices, and power relations” (Kamberelis and de la Luna, 2004; p. 258). Contexts are “overlapping and integrated” in that they are influenced by 89 other contextual factors such as culture, traditional or historical roles (e.g. student vs. teacher), and other contexts such as previous schooling, current classroom experience, or other media. Additionally, context includes those “resources and constraints” offered to support intern development. In the methods course proximal resources are those tools “immediately available” to interns such as: course documents, textbooks and assigned journal articles, lived experience, or requirement. The course under study supported the teaching of writing two required textbooks: Mosaic of Thought (Keene & Zimmerman, 2007) and Book Club Plus! A Literacy Framework for the Primary Grades (Raphael, Florio-Ruane, George, Hasty, & Highfield, 2004). Book Club Plus! was the only text to specifically include sections on writing instruction. Writing-specific support also included 14 chapters and articles focused on writing instruction. Distal resources are more abstract and include an intern’s “predisposition toward particular acts and activities” (Kamberelis & de la Luna, 2004; p. 231). For example, this might include an intern’s predisposition toward university learning and coursework, and intern’s relationship with the teacher educator (me), and an intern’s perceived value of the work they are completing during the course. Politics. Political influences in the methods course existed in the form of teacher/student responsibilities or “subject positions” (Gee, 1996). Politics concerns the “positioning of oneself in relation to other people and groups in strategic ways” (Kamberelis and de la Luna, 2004; p. 234). While in class, interns participated in Discourses that positioned them as “students.” In this Discourse situation, interns 90 were mandated to meet requirements, complete assignments, and perform to an acceptable standard those tasks set forth by the University. For example, in addition to completing all requirements for methods courses, interns were required to uphold standards including timeliness, professional dress, as well as appropriate and teacherly behavior as dictated in the teacher preparation program’s eight professional standards. While it is true that interns were participating in the multiple and often competing Discourses of “student” (in the methods course) and “teacher” (in the field classroom), balancing and mingling these responsibilities was necessary. Field classroom. Field classrooms during the internship year were all in public elementary and middle schools. Classrooms within this study all lie within a 5-mile radius of the university. They spanned grades three through five. Each classroom housed a cooperating teacher (CT) who served, to various degrees, as support for each intern’s experience and learning over the course of the school year. Within the classroom, the intern was most commonly viewed as a “second teacher”one who gradually assumes responsibility for instruction as the school year progresses. Work in the classroom culminated with a four to six week ‘lead teaching’ during the spring semester where interns were eventually responsible for all instructional duties. Interns did not choose their field classroom placements, but they did indicate their grade level preferences for the program to consider. Additionally, as indicated above, all interns were assigned a Field Instructor who acted as the liaison between the classroom and university settings, supervises field 91 observation, and offered support in matters such as classroom organization, classroom management, and teacher rights and responsibilities. Text. Texts produced in the field classroom include those functional documents that “point to contexts in which they have concrete meaning and function” (Kamberelis and de la Luna, 2004; p. 229). Texts, for example, included lesson plans, all activities (practice pages, literature circle roles, writing prompts, instructions, and assignments) and products of teacher planning and instruction (e.g., anchor chart, rubric). Classroom texts might also include curriculum maps created by an intern or schedules of daily tasks and subject matter. Context. Field classroom context includes the immediate classroom where an intern teaches and is made up of students and a CT all with unique sociocultural histories. A school and school district were also contexts within which the field classroom is influenced and operates. Examples of proximal or “immediately available” contextual resources include curriculum (e.g teacher’s manual or basal reading program), pacing guides and standards documents, any other classroom or school based documents including scheduling or timetables or assessment material. The resources and constraints in classroom contexts varied greatly due to the uniqueness of each CT and his/her expectations for the internship. As a distal contextual resource, the CT influenced an intern’s instructional responsibilities in the classroom. Such a resource was described by Kamberelis and de la Luna (2004) as a, “socialized predisposition toward particular acts or activities within a particular discourse or context” (p. 231). This includes predispositions 92 about classroom rights and responsibilities. This might include, for example, the CT’s ideas about how an intern should lesson plan or prepare for instruction. It also includes the way a CT interacted with an intern, treating her as a co-teacher, for example, rather than an instructional aide. The relationship between the CT and intern was variable and ranged from friendly and collegial to distant and coexisting. The level of freedom or confidence perceived by an intern within the classroom context can also influence developing pedagogies. Politics. Political influences in the classroom often came in the form of school or district-wide regulations on curriculum and/or instruction. Examples include curricular mandates containing scripted lessons and/or school/district wide initiatives such as instituting the 6 + 1Traits® in Writing (Education Northwest, 2010) or reader response journals. Classroom teachers must decide what, if any, flexibility they possess in their responsibilities as “employee” of a particular school and district. Interns, too, were impacted by those political factors that impacted the instruction in a particular classroom. Beyond the district and classroom, the CT could also exert a political force encouraging an intern to accept one role (coteacher) over another (classroom observer). The University exerts political influence in the classroom as well, including an expectation that co-teaching will occur between CT and university-sponsored intern during the fall semester as well as the expectation that all university-sponsored interns will have the opportunity, during lead teaching, to try out the pedagogies they are learning about in their methods courses. Below is a table that organizes, and gives examples of, the text, 93 context and politics of each activity setting (e.g., University Course and Field Classroom). Table 1. Text, Context and Politics of each Activity Setting University Course Field Classroom Texts Produced Text Produced • Course Assignments (Inquiries 1• Lesson plans (both those 3) and revisions assigned and unassigned) • Blogged reflections • Reflections on instruction Contextual Resources Contextual Resources • Course textbooks • Curriculum • Course assigned articles • Scripts • Course mediated peer-led • Curricular resources (e.g. conversations graphic orgaizers) • CT relationships • Peer relationships Political Influences Political influences • Intern status as “student” • Status as intern • Requirements for course and • Policies mandating curriculum degree completion • Policies using scripted curriculum • Pacing guides Participants Enrolled in a large Midwestern university, study participants included four interns who, prior to the study, had been enrolled in a single section of Advanced Methods: Literacy Teaching and Learning. As part of the internship experience, interns were required to plan and teach one literacy unit during the fall semester. Each of the four participating interns chose to focus their teaching experience on writing instruction rather than an alternative area in language arts (e.g. comprehension, fluency, etc.). 94 All four participants were in their fifth year of a five-year teacher education program. Each intern consented to participate in the study after the course was finished and my duties as instructor were complete. Participation in the study included a single interview as well as my review and study of each intern’s coursework and unit plan. For purposes of anonymity, all participants, schools and cities were given pseudonyms. The following four participant descriptions aim to create a portrait of each intern’s experience as he/she planned and taught a ten-day writing unit within four unique textual, contextual and political settings. I organized the following intern portraits utilizing the social-cognitivecultural-historical framework of Kamberelis and de la Luna (2004) because it allowed me to feature the text, context and politics within each intern’s experience. I have included both classroom and university settings in the description of each intern. Because I scaffolded my instruction with careful attention to each intern’s development of writing pedagogy as it related to situated knowledge, utilizing this framework (e.g., one that honored text, context, and politics for writing instruction) was important. Blake: Units of study at University View Middle School. Blake is a 22-year-old Caucasian male who described himself as “a math and science person.” Raised in a family of teachers (his mom, aunt, grandparents), Blake described his family as middle class suburban. When asked about his experiences writing as a child, he described grammar workbooks and five paragraph essays. Of his writing experience, Blake claimed he was not the kind of kid who “wrote for fun,” but, 95 rather, saw writing as a school subject. Because he did not feel like his own writing instruction related to his life experiences, Blake was concerned with “connecting with his students” by motivating them with engaging topics and ideas. As a teacher of writing, Blake said he was “focused on allowing his students to write about topics and experiences that interest them.” He often spoke about his desire to teach a variety of genres such as fantasy, mystery, and poetry regardless of the curriculum in place. Text: The writing unit . Defined as a written piece that is composed for a specific purpose (Kamberelis & de la Luna, 2004), texts such as unit plans are tools familiar to teachers for lesson planning and instruction. Texts in Blake’s experience included all drafts of his writing unit as well as his reflection on his teaching of that unit. For his two-week literacy unit, Blake planned a unit on narrative writing based on Lucy Calkins’ Units of Study (2006) for grades 3-5. Blake said he didn’t have a strong desire to teach either reading or writing but that his CT encouraged him to teach writing because of the extensive curriculum available. His unit focused on book two, “Raising the Quality of Personal Narratives” and consisted of 10 lesson plans focused on perspective and strong beginnings and endings. Drawing on the Units of Study (Calkins, 2006), Blake described the purpose of his unit as the development of a student-authored personal narrative from beginning to end with a focus on the development of fresh and interesting ideas as well as strategies to revise and improve stories. Unit assessments were both formative and informal individual writing conferences as well as summative assessment based on a rough 96 draft of each student’s personal narrative. Blake’s teacher narrative, written as part of my methods course’s final assignment, titled, Adjusting Curriculum to Effectively Teach Students, described the challenges he faced when planning and teaching a writing unit focused on narrative writing. Context: School and classroom . Blake taught his writing unit to fifth graders at University View Middle School in suburban Collegetown (All schools and cities named here are pseudonyms). A school of 218 students, 56% White, 15% African American, 15% Asian, 6% Hispanic, 6% multi-racial, and 2% Other, University View made Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and has 77% of students testing proficient on English language arts state-wide exams. Twenty-seven percent of students qualified for free or reduced lunch. University View Middle School is historically a high performing school housing many professors’ children and is known to have many connections to the University. In a suburban community, University View is set on a suburban street in a town that is known for its close connection to University life. Families are traditionally intertwined with the university and its events including sporting, art, music, theater. Blake’s classroom was one of four fifth grades in a middle school of fifth and sixth graders. He taught a classroom of 27 students alongside Cooperating Teacher (CT), Matt, a veteran teacher of 15 years. Eighty-five percent of Blake’s fifth graders were on track toward reaching the state’s content standards, according to school wide literacy testing. 97 Blake listed both proximal and distal resources when discussing his context. Proximal resources immediately available to Blake include his classroom curriculum, Lucy Calkins’ Units of Study, as well as curricular or supplemental texts. He reportedly utilized supplemental texts such as his University textbook, course notes, chapter books as well as videos and photographs to help his students both learn about and practice narrative writing. As distal a resource, Blake described his CT, Matt, as a strong and positive force in his experience. Blake said that his CT had great influence in shaping his writing instruction. Blake and Matt discussed the writing curriculum both before and during Blake’s unit of instruction. And, Blake claimed the two often talked through daily writing lessons. Politics: School and district policies. Collegetown is a suburban school district of 3,435 students in grades pre-kindergarten to 12. Located less than two miles from the university campus, the district houses 4 elementary schools (Grades PK-4), 2 middle schools (Grades 5-6), 1 junior high school (Grades7-8), and 1 high school (Grades 9-12). While the district had no core reading program for elementary students during this study, it did mandate that language arts curriculum be aligned with state content standards. Two core programs were mandated for spelling (Sitton Spelling) and writing (Lucy Calkins Units of Study). Teachers in Collegetown were required to move through both mandated programs at a pace reasonable to complete each curriculum at the close of a school year. At University View Middle School, teachers were required to “check in” with language arts specialists regarding their progress in the writing program. Blake described 98 the check in as a chance for specialists to be sure that teachers were on pace and were available to answer questions regarding curriculum. Blake did not recall the specialists ever co-planning or co-teaching writing lessons. During the year of study, teachers received no professional development in either of the mandated programs. Renee: Mystery writing at Arrowhead Middle School . Renee is a 22year-old Caucasian female who described herself as a creative and detail-oriented person. She described her relationship to her own education as “focused on school and learning.” When asked about her experiences writing as a child, she remembered grammar lessons and worksheets, but also described writing stories and poems. Renee is a language arts major and enjoys reading and writing and describes herself as while “excited to teach language arts”, still “very much a beginner.” As a teacher of writing, Renee said she was “focused on walking her students through a process” rather than simply “proofing perfect stories.” Text: The writing unit . Renee planned a ten-day writing unit that she described as a genre study focused on mystery. Originally, Renee had planned to teach a unit focused on grammar. Because she wanted to do something “interesting for her students,” Renee wanted to teach a genre unit and said she “convinced” her CT to teach the mystery unit I describe here. Her teaching goals included students’ growing knowledge of the mystery genre including its elements as well as increased knowledge and practice of the writing process. The final product in Renee’s unit was an individually authored mystery story. When Renee talked about her unit, 99 she continually stressed the importance of teaching her students about the writing process. Specifically, Renee’s fifth graders spent time practicing prewriting, drafting and editing. Their work included the fostering of growing independence as writers by practicing peer conferencing as well as student-led teacher conferencing. Renee’s narrative, Scaffolding to Promote Student Independence, focused on her efforts to create and structure a unit that allowed her students increasing independence as they read and wrote within the mystery genre. Context: School and classroom . Renee taught her writing unit to fifth graders at Arrowhead Middle School in suburban Eastville. A school of 604 fifth and sixth graders, 63% white, 8% African American, 21% Asian, 5% Hispanic, 2% multiracial, and 1% Other, Arrowhead made Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and had 82% of students testing proficient on English language arts state-wide exams. Fourteen and a half percent of students qualified for free or reduced lunch. A suburban community, Arrowhead is set on the eastern edge of a suburban community in a town that is known for its proximity to the university and state capitol along with high quality schools and higher percentages of dual income households. Families enjoy the large number of suburban benefits including treelined streets, neighborhood parks, family restaurants and shopping malls, and family entertainment including movie theaters, bowling alleys and university events. Renee’s classroom was one of 10 fifth grades at Arrowhead. She taught a classroom of 28 students alongside Cooperating Teacher (CT), Debbie. Early in the 100 semester, she described her students as somewhat dependent on high levels of teacher instruction and involvement in their writing. She also noted that while her students might not be “risk takers, they do seem to enjoy sharing their writing with one another.” She described her students as bright and ready to learn. Renee noted that over eighty percent of students in her fifth grade classroom were reading and writing at grade level according to last year’s standardized tests. Renee spent quite a bit of time describing her CT’s role as a distal resource. Renee described her CT, Debbie, as “an amazing literacy teacher.” She described Debbie’s willingness to provide many resources and feedback for Renee during the planning of her writing unit. While Renee said that Debbie was a good resource, “she did not micro-manage” and gave Renee great freedom to plan and teach. Renee said that she and Debbie talked frequently about how their students were progressing, and that they had a wonderful working relationship. Renee said she knew Debbie expected high quality instruction and that she was willing to assist Renee in combining resources to create a unit that met both Debbie and Renee’s expectations for high quality instruction. Debbie, said Renee, pushed her to articulate those teaching and learning expectations in unit and daily plans. When planning her unit, Renee relied heavily upon her own research, “usually on-line,” she said, as well as several supplemental resources on the mystery genre provided by her cooperating teacher. Renee said her material resources were much less influential than the encouragement of her CT in the 101 planning and teaching of her unit. She noted that her unit was based off of ideas and her students, not a basal curriculum. Politics: School and district policies. Eastville is a suburban school district of 3,909 students in grades pre-kindergarten to 12. Located less than 5 miles from the university campus, the district houses 4 elementary schools (Grades PK-4), 1 middle school (Grades 5-6), 1 junior high school (Grades7-8), and 1 high school (Grades 9-12). Eastville had, prior to the year of this study, reorganized their school system so that students were divided into four levels creating a new middle school level (grades five and six) rather than three (elementary, junior high, and high school). Due to the reorganization at the middle school level, all fifth grades recently moved from four separate elementary buildings into a single middle school building. Because the district allowed for local independence when choosing literacy curriculum, language arts instructors maintained the freedom to utilize various instructional methods including curriculum. These recent changes meant that while language arts instructors maintained instruction aligned with state standards, all ten fifth grade classrooms were independent of one another in both writing instructional methods and curriculum material. No mandated literacy programs existed, however a basal reading program was available to teachers. Olivia: Tall tales at Arrowhead Middle School . A 22-year old Caucasian female, Olivia described herself as a social studies major who is very interested in fostering a positive classroom community. As a student, Olivia said she is a careful listener and very conscientious regarding assignments and 102 requirements. Of her own academic habits she said, “I work hard--- which means I almost always work ahead!” When asked to describe her experiences writing she easily expressed her affinity for creative writing, something that she believes was fostered in her high school years. She said the most important thing that has made her a successful writer was the guidance of a good teacher, one who was willing to provide feedback on her ideas and work. Her talk about teaching writing, however, focused on structure. She mentioned topics such as sentence fluency, genre, and grammar, things that she said are “less motivating.” In discussing writing instruction, Olivia focused on the idea that “students should be provided with clear instructions and models” when writing. She often referred to her role as a guide in the education of her fifth grade students. Text: The writing unit. Examples of text in Olivia’s experience were those pieces that contributed to the planning, execution, assessment and reflection on her tall tale unit. Olivia said she chose to teach writing because she felt like her students “had not seen it” and that she wanted to try writing instruction. Olivia went on to say that her CT “did not care” what she taught. Texts created by Olivia included a ten-day unit plan and three individual lesson plans both revised “at least twice” before teaching. Additionally, Olivia was required to reflect on her teaching and wrote an in depth “teacher narrative” (an assignment in our methods course) of what she called her “dilemma.” Titled, Collaborative Learning: Discourse in Group Work as a Medium for Student Success, Olivia’s teacher narrative reflected on her 103 desire to create a community of readers and writers who were able to build relationships that foster learning and communication. Olivia’s ten-day unit and lesson plans on tall tales included the investigation and analysis of the tall tale genre. She believed this investigation and analysis of tall tale structure and elements should lead her fifth grade students to be able to identify the genre. Lastly, Olivia hoped the students would be able to “write a cohesive, logical tall tale that exhibits personal style and voice.” Context: School and classroom. Olivia, like her colleague Renee, taught her writing unit in a fifth grade classroom at Arrowhead Middle School in suburban Eastville. While Olivia’s classroom context did differ from her colleague, her school context was identical to Renee’s. As one of ten fifth grade classrooms at Arrowhead, Olivia described her 27 students as a “fairly homogenous” group of thoughtful ten year olds who enjoy interacting with text, but need “everything structured out for them.” She reported that over half of her class was “on track” to reach the state initiated grade level expectations or English Language Arts and that they seem to be stronger readers than writers. Areas of student weakness included spelling, sentence structure and attitude toward writing. Olivia taught her unit alongside Cooperating Teacher, Rick, who she said implemented “highly teacher-mediated” learning structures. She described the literacy routine in her classroom as one where students were “always firmly in their seats, round-robin reading.” Engagement in literacy learning was more of an 104 Initiate-Respond-Evaluate (IRE) (Cazden, 1988, 1998) interaction and less of a discussion format. As an example of a writing teacher, Olivia says her CT offered more of what she “didn’t want to be than who[m] she does.” Olivia reported that the two rarely talked about literacy planning and instruction. Examples of what she considered good writing instruction did come from her peers and from her colleague Renee’s CT who was down the hall. While Olivia did not agree or relate to many of the structures and methods in her classroom, she acknowledged that Rick was a “good teacher” who gave her plenty of freedom to create the unit she wanted to teach. Olivia described the material resources in her fifth grade classroom as plentiful (e.g. access to computers, books, SmartBoard®), but disorganized. Because each teacher was responsible for using and creating his/her own curriculum, no central resources were made available to her. Furthermore, little diversity existed in the classroom’s learning models (e.g. no readers or writers workshop, literature circle, or other project oriented or collaborative work). Olivia found this frustrating saying she felt like she had few good examples alongside little direction. She did list a class set of Maniac Magee (Spinelli, 1990), a classroom library, and a schoolwide spelling list as resources. Olivia also noted that she did seek and find resources on her own through on-line websites such as readwritethink.org, talking to other teachers in the building, and brainstorming with her peers. Politics: School and district policies. Olivia’s experience with school and district policies in Eastville was identical to that of her colleague Renee (see 105 above). Her classroom experience, however, was divergent. While Renee described her experience as positive and supportive, Olivia often felt disconnected and unsure of her responsibilities. Because the newly reorganized school allowed for local independence when choosing literacy curriculum, language arts instructors maintained the freedom to utilize various instructional methods and curricula. These recent changes meant that while language arts instructors maintained instruction aligned with state standards, all ten fifth grade classrooms were independent of one another in both writing instructional methods and curriculum material. Unlike Renee’s CT, a fifth grade teacher in the same school, Olivia’s CT did not engage in the use of any particular literacy curriculum, nor did he engage Olivia in conversations focused his instructional model or decision-making. Dana: Units of Study at Topfield Elementary. Dana is a 23-year-old Caucasian female who described herself as thoughtful, cautious and reflective. When asked about her experience learning to write, Dana described the “hamburger style” of the five-paragraph essay complete with color-coded sentences. She skeptically noted that every “genre” used this same structure- persuasive writing (she remembered writing about why students should be able to wear pajamas to school!), personal narrative, and book report. As a writing teacher, Dana was slowly becoming more confident. She said, “writing still perplexes me- it is something that I think a lot about…” She described her hesitation as being related to difficulty finding resources outside her writing curriculum (Lucy Calkins’ Units of Study) to support her work as a beginning writing teacher. She also noted her 106 apprehension at teaching the Units of Study curriculum, saying, “I felt like I was always second guessing myself, wondering if my lesson was truly Lucy’s intent.” Dana described her evolution in teaching within her teacher narrative (course assignment) entitled, Year One of Writing Workshop: Growth and Faith, as one that moved from being concerned with following the curriculum to being focused on the abilities of her students. Text: The writing unit . Texts in Dana’s experience included all drafts of her unit plan, a reflective narrative entitled: Year One of Writing Workshop: Growth and Faith, as well as course assignments and blog reflections. Originally, Dana had planned to teach a unit on reading comprehension. But, after conversation and “persuasion” by her CT, Dana instead planned a writing unit. Dana’s two-week unit utilized Lucy Calkins’ Units of Study for grades 3-5 and was based on book two entitled, Raise The Quality of Narrative Writing. She described the focus of her unit as asking the students to “take charge of their own personal voice in their writing.” Dana’s unit plan consisted of 10 days worth of lesson plans in which students used mentor texts as models as they incorporated ‘voice’ into their own personal narratives. Her unit assessments were informal and formative in that she conferenced with students in order to assess their growth and change as their drafts developed. Context: School and classroom. Dana taught her two-week writing unit at Topfield Elementary School in a suburban town of Ridge about 5 miles from the University. A school of 328 students in grades K-4, 72% white, 4% African 107 American, 4% Asian, 11% Hispanic and 8% multi racial, Topfield had made Adequate Yearly Progress every year since its inception. Thirty-two percent of students qualified for free and reduced price lunch. Historically known as a bedroom community for both the industrial and university employers to the north, Ridge is often described as a more rural community and is surrounded by farms and open fields. Families historically have ties to the university due to its proximity. While Ridge has less economically developed real estate, families do spend time at local theaters and parks. Larger shopping malls entertainment venues are located about 15 minutes north. Dana taught a classroom of 25 third graders alongside her CT, Katie, a veteran teacher of 25 years. Seventy-four percent of Dana’s third graders tested “proficient” on state-wide assessments in English language Arts. Dana described her classroom as a warm and friendly place where students do a lot of thinking and talking about the world. Dana’s CT was a strong influence on her writing instruction over the course of her literacy unit. Even though Dana claimed to disagree with some of Katie’s philosophies on writing instruction, saying “I will do things a bit differently,” Dana spoke positively about their conversations and co-planning sessions, she also credited Katie for her growing confidence in writing and for pushing her to teach writing in the first place (Dana had wanted to teach a unit on reading comprehension). 108 Dana described her material classroom resources as plentiful. When listing her curricular resources she names, The Daily Five (Boushey & Moser, 2006), Units of Study (Calkins, 2006) and Sitton Spelling (2008). She also described a “wonderful classroom library” and literacy routines that are student focused. Politics: School and district policies. Ridge is a suburban school district of 5,849 students in grades pre-kindergarten to 12. Located less than 5 miles from the university campus, the district houses 6 elementary schools (Grades PK-4), 2 middle schools (Grades 5-6), 1 junior high school (Grades7-8), and 1 high school (Grades 9-12). The district had adopted universal curriculum for elementary students in literacy. Lucy Calkins’ Units of Study was the writing curriculum utilized in elementary schools. The district noted that its entire curriculum in grades K-12 is aligned with learning standards put forth by the state’s Department of Education. Additionally, teachers received weekly release time (shortened school day) once a week in order to receive professional development, plan with grade level partners, or research classroom projects or curriculum. Next, I move from descriptions of the course participants to a description of the data that I collected from each intern. Data Sources and Collection The systematic inquiry that occurred during the course of this study was collective, collaborative, and self reflective in that data sources were a result of intern interaction with coursework, assignments and activities. Data collection occurred during, immediately after, and one month following the course. The 109 subsequent collection of this data occurred over the course of the semester and culminated with a semi-structured interview (Glesne, 2006; Patton, 2001), lasting between 60 and 90 minutes, after the course was complete (See Appendix B for the interview protocol). The following sources were collected from each intern participant: Primary Data Sources : The following data sources are listed as primary in that they were responsible for the majority of my data collection and analysis. • Course assignments and teaching artifacts: Preservice teacher course documents, including all iterations of three course assignments as well as classroom teaching artifacts such as lesson plans, and intern-designed activities and assessments were reviewed in order to investigate intern work in writing instruction. These three assignments were intended to be a tightly connected sequence with the intent being that one built across the other to scaffold unit planning and reflection on teaching (See Appendix C for full text of the inquiry assignments). Below I briefly describe the goals of each of the three assignments or inquiries (as they are referred to in the course). o Inquiry 1, Literacy Field Guide: Meant to represent what interns were “coming to understand about their internship context,” Part A was focused on the 110 community, neighborhood, families, school district and school and Part B focused on the literacy programs in each intern’s classroom and obtained information about students through the collection of assessment data. o Inquiry 2, Unit Plan: The purpose of this assignment was to guide and support interns as they designed, enacted, assessed, and reflected on their instruction. Interns were to identify a target area for teaching that would provide opportunities to make a contribution to their students’ literacy learning, enact their individual core beliefs about literacy teaching and learning, and advance their own professional learning. o Inquiry 3, Preservice Teacher Narrative: Based on the concept of dialogic narrative (Clandinin & Connelly, 2004), interns wrote a 3-5 page autobiographical reflection detailing a single teaching dilemma. Narratives were to include both a description of the teaching dilemma as well as evidence meant to describe the situation. All intern narratives in this study were focused on teaching writing. • Interview: A semi-structured and informal interview was conducted with each intern participant approximately one 111 month following course closure. Because intern participants gave consent following the official close of the course, in order to minimize potential risk to participants and allow full informed consent without feeling coerced, interviews were held following the semester break. Each hour long, audio-recorded, semistructured interview explored how interns navigated their teaching context and unit instruction. Questions included: What are some of the things that you think affected your experiences learning to teach writing? Did your investigation of context and curriculum help your planning for writing? Have your ideas about writing instruction changed over the course of the semester? How? What experiences have helped your learn to teach writing? (See Appendix B for the full interview protocol). Secondary Data Sources: The following data sources are secondary in that their analysis was less influential in my findings • Routine reflections: Weekly internet- based reflections by interns averaging 400 words intended to explore and elaborate upon interns’ reactions and ideas pertaining to course content in relation to classroom work. These reflections were posted on blogs and meant to connect the content of course readings with interns’ classroom experiences. Four internet-based reflections were focused specifically on writing instruction. Prompts 112 included: Elaborate on something new you have learned about writing instruction. Tell me how prepared (or not) you feel to teach writing? Why do you think you feel that way? • Action Plan: As part of the action research cycle, I planned my course with knowledge of interns’ likely struggles in writing. My Action Plan included my own weekly course plans and notes along with lesson plans and Power Point™ slides. Incorporated into these action plans were often questions I gathered from interns’ routine reflections as well as my own “predictable dilemmas” from my experience with course content. • Conceptual memos: My own weekly conceptual memos (Heath & Street, 2008) were in the form of reflective notes. After planning and teaching each week, I journaled my interaction with students and subsequent course and teaching decisions. Data Analysis My data analysis began with a systematic analysis plan. Initially I organized each intern’s data into binders labeling each data source (e.g.: unit plan, narrative, lesson reflections, etc.). Interviews, transcribed by an outside source, were also included. I organized my own data sources in a similar manner, careful to maintain the chronological order of action plans and conceptual memos. My first pass through the data was a reintroduction to my four interns. I read their reflections 113 and narrative, using their texts to familiarize myself with their perceptions of contextual and political experiences. Qualitative Analysis In order to organize and analyze my qualitative data, I utilized constant comparative analysis with both inductive coding (responding to the data created by preservice teachers’ organic experiences with pedagogical material and experiences) and deductive coding (arising from specific questions within interviews, reflective prompts, and course assignments) (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss, 1987; Strauss & Corbin, 1997). Below, I describe my method for data coding. I give examples outlining how my open coding led to axial and selective coding, thereby identifying three core categories upon which I base my findings: text, context and politics. Coding. I began by reading and indexing course assignments and interviews for examples of preservice teacher language pertaining to support for pedagogical development in and around writing (e.g. noting positive or negative language, field experiences in classrooms, course reflections etc.). I used content analysis to review interns’ field guides and unit plans (assignments 1 and 2) in order to familiarize myself with each intern’s teaching context as well as common themes among them. I spent time reviewing the instructional materials and routines each intern utilized during his/her teaching. I also used content analysis as I reviewed each unit plan and paid particular attention to interns’ instructional goals as well as their own reflections on those goals. After familiarizing myself with each intern’s teaching context and instruction, I reviewed Assignment 3, each 114 intern’s narrative report of a teaching dilemma. I paid particular attention to interns’ instructional decision-making regarding writing instruction. During my first pass through all of the course data (i.e., assignments and reflections), I coded openly with my research questions in mind, looking for ways that interns navigated internship experiences as they developed pedagogy for writing. For example, when Renee wrote, “We have a plethora of instructional resources to use in our literacy program including a basal reader, spelling program, as well as DOL (daily oral language) and a classroom library organized by genre,” (Renee, Inquiry 1, September, 2010) I coded that as “curriculum influence,” and “classroom context.” This open coding produced an extensive list of codes. Examples of these codes are listed with their description and sample quotes in my code book (Appendix D). I also catalogued the resources interns referenced when they discussed developing writing pedagogy. For example, I reviewed Units of Study (Calkins, 2006), Book Two, the curricular resource that both Dana and Blake used during their writing unit. I wanted to understand their experiences, and then address how my course was (or wasn’t) able to scaffold pedagogical development among diverse internship experiences. Next, using axial coding, I combined and collapsed codes and focused upon my research question (RQ1: How do interns navigate internship experiences in the content of their course work and internship contexts with regard to text, context, and politics as they develop pedagogy for writing?). I noticed that interns referenced course influences, classroom influences, and personal influences in their 115 teaching. I also noticed both positive and negative responses (depending on the intern) affiliated with the course, classroom and personal experiences with writing instruction. I began to organize my codes around those “places” (course, classroom) where development of writing pedagogy seemed to occur. This did not, however, seem to capture the source of the support within each context. So, I began to code with the idea of textual support, contextual support, or political support for pedagogical development (Kamberelis & de la Luna, 2004). I began to notice that this “support” was expressed as either a negative or positive influence depending on the intern and particular factors such as a designated curriculum or supportive CT present within the internship situation. Therefore, I developed a more descriptive list of codes describing intern teachers’ interaction with writing instruction that focused on textual, contextual and political influences. For example, I organized sources of pedagogical support for interns into three categories/codes: relating to text, relating to context, and relating to politics. See Appendix D for my code book including code notes and examples from my data. Once these more descriptive codes were identified, I reread the data and used selective coding to focus on the newly emerged descriptive codes. For example, the idea that interns wrote text in order to adapt instructional methods and materials in order to support their own pedagogical development emerged when interns referenced their own writing/rewriting of texts such lesson plans or their reflections on their teaching. I constantly compared each newly coded incident with previous incidents that received the same code to see if, 1) they match and 2) if new, more specific, codes 116 emerged. By using this constant comparative method, I was able to generate some themes regarding the way interns navigated the internship experience and used resources to develop a pedagogy for writing. Selective coding resulted in themes that provided insight into my research questions while focusing on text, context, and politics. By focusing my data on the concepts of text, context and politics, I was able to understand nuances about each interns’ pedagogical development. Because I focused on learning as influenced by action within a dual setting activity system (both the university course and the classroom), I was able to fully incorporate the textual, contextual and political factors that positively or negatively affected intern development for writing pedagogy. What resulted were the following themes, upon which I based my findings. 1) Text: Interns wrote and rewrote in order to adapt instructional methods and materials; interns wrote in order to facilitate emergence of writing teacher roles and responsibilities. 2) Context: Proximal resources supported instruction; distal resources supported instruction. 3) Politics: Interns had difficulty translating/embodying scripted language; interns struggled to retro-fit scripted lessons. Below I detail my method for axial coding and selective coding of text, context, and politics. Coding for text. In order to investigate how interns navigated internship experiences with respect to the influence of text (RQ 1), I coded data preliminarily for references to the production of text as it was related to instructional planning or instruction, itself (see table 2 below). Interns most often spoke of text when they 117 referenced coursework (e.g. review of curriculum, blogged reflection on teaching) or instruction (e.g. unit or lesson plans). What emerged from my coding and content analysis was a focus on the production of text and, specifically, interns acting as writers, themselves. As interns grew to understand their students and their role as writing teacher, they began to create text differently (as writing teacher) and with different purposes in mind (to address needs of students). Interns often spoke of the physical act of writing for their students- writing lesson plans, re-writing lesson plans or reflecting in order to teach better. Writing did more than produce material for interns to submit as coursework or follow as teachers or file away for next year. Interns also began to write for themselves, to reflect upon and better understand the writing process. This resulted in two specific text-based findings or themes: interns made decisions to write and rewrite in order to adapt instruction to meet the needs of students in individual classrooms. Often lessons required adaptations. Secondly, thinking through and authoring writing lessons led interns to view themselves as “writing teacher.” Table 2. Coding for Text: Becoming Writers Coding Codes Axial Coding Interns acting as writers • Writing text for their students • Writing for themselves (e.g. planning) Selective Coding Writing and rewriting text Themes • Writing in order to adapt instruction for student needs • Writing has helped me become a writing teacher 118 Coding for context. In order to investigate how interns navigated beginning writing instruction with respect to the influence of context (RQ1), I coded data preliminarily for intern talk of contextual resources as they influenced planning for or teaching of writing (see table 3 below). Intern talk regarding context most often took one of two directions, reference to proximal resources such as actual, physical instructional tools (e.g. instructional routine, writing curriculum, instructional aides such as graphic organizers) or distal resources such as relationships (e.g. availability of mentors or peers). What emerged with reference to context was a focus on the availability of proximal and distal resources to support instruction. As interns systematically explored their teaching environment, they began to identify the tools available to assist their planning and instruction in writing. Interns often spoke of physical, proximal resources such as writing curriculum, writing assessments, lesson plans, and instructional routines as helpful in their planning and instruction. Interns often referenced the influence of relationships on their pedagogical development, specifically cooperating teachers, peers and other teachers in the school building. This resulted in two specific context-based findings or themes. First, identification and utilization of proximal resources can support writing instruction. Secondly, the availability of significant others with whom to build relationships to support writing pedagogy is valuable as interns navigate instructional decision-making. 119 Table 3. Coding for Context: Utilization of Resources Coding Codes Axial Coding Interaction with classroom context regarding writing instruction • Reference to proximal resources • Reference to distal resources Selective Coding Identifying and utilizing contextual resources Themes • Proximal resources as instructional tools • Distal resources as meaningful relationships Coding for politics . In order to investigate how interns navigated internship experiences with respect to the influence of politics (RQ1), I coded data (see table 4 below) preliminarily for intern talk regarding or referencing mandated, scripted writing curricula or any time an intern expressed pressure to teach in a specific way, as perceived by cooperating teacher, school, district or state administration. What emerged was a focus on language and, specifically, intern concern with use of mandated language in situations where they felt that language was not the best fit for their instructional decision-making. Scripted curriculum, specifically Lucy Calkins’ Units of Study, was referenced most often in connection with interns’ difficulty translating scripted language or “making language fit” their pedagogical needs. Talk also lead to concern over the efficacy of Units of Study: Did it work? This resulted in two specific language-based findings: intern difficulty translating/embodying scripted language and struggles when scripted language did not meet student needs. 120 Table 4. Coding for Politics: Influence of Language Coding Codes Axial Coding Intern talk of: • Mandated, Scripted Curriculum • Any perceived curricular pressure Selective Coding Struggles with Mandated Scripts • Difficulty translating/embodying scripted lessons • Struggles to “retro-fit” scripted lessons to meet student needs Reliability and Validity I utilized the following strategies based upon Anfara, Brown and Mangione’s (2002) suggestions regarding reliability and validity in qualitative research. To insure research credibility (internal validity), I debriefed with one other instructor regarding intern interaction with course activities and assignments as they relate to writing pedagogy. We discussed my own thoughts and actions in response to preservice teacher learning and triangulation of data sources as interns’ ideas about writing instruction arose during data organization and analysis. Additionally, to demonstrate rigor of codes, I asked a colleague to code three excerpts of data (one teacher narrative, one interview, and one teacher reflection) using my codes. We initially disagreed on what constituted talk of “context.” I included curriculum and materials as examples of “context” while my colleague coded them as “text.” After discussing my definition of “context” and “text”, we reached 100% agreement. To insure transferability (external validity) I provide thick description of the course situations aided by my own interaction with participants in a naturalistic setting. The indexing of audio taped conversations and collection of text-based discussions 121 and course documents (lesson plans, assignments) insured research dependability (reliability). Lastly, confirmability (objectivity) was upheld in the utilization of deductive and inductive coding and re-coding of themes as well as the triangulation of data sources.   Findings In the following chapters, (Chapters 4, 5, and 6), I outline my findings thematically as interns utilized textual (Chapter 4), contextual (Chapter 5) and political (Chapter 6) resources while navigating pedagogical development in writing. Each chapter begins with a narrative describing the influence of text, context, or politics in the internship as it related to interns’ learning to teach writing. Next, I review the significance of each resource (text, context, politics) by connecting each with recent literature on pedagogical development and evidence from this study. I then focus specifically on Research Question One, summarizing data on interns’ navigation of internship experiences as they developed pedagogy through the use of specific textual, contextual and political resources. Evidence is presented in the form of qualitative themes. To close each chapter, I address Research Question Two, specifically I how I scaffolded the development of writing pedagogy in and through various course-related experiences with respect to text, context, or politics. To do so, I utilize activity theory and interns’ use of tools. In my final chapter (Chapter 7) I discuss what my study revealed to me, as a writing teacher educator. I also list potential implications and future research as a result of this work. 122 Chapter 4 Navigating Text: Writing Facilitates Adaptation and Emergence of a Writing Teacher “E.L. Doctorow said once said that, 'Writing is like driving a car at night. You can see only as far as your headlights, but you can make the whole trip that way.' You don't have to see where you're going, you don't have to see your destination or everything you will pass along the way. You just have to see two or three feet ahead of you.’ This is right up there with the best advice on writing, or life, I have ever heard.” Writer, Anne Lamott In the last chapter I presented a detailed account of this study’s formative design and research questions as well as those methodological details that situate my work with interns and their development of writing pedagogy. In this chapter, and in the subsequent two chapters, I present my findings. In the first part of this chapter I consider my first research question: How do interns navigate internship experiences in the content of their coursework and internship contexts with regard to text, context, and politics as they develop pedagogy for writing. Here, I focus on the textual experiences and resources interns utilized as they navigated their pedagogical development. And, at the close of the chapter I consider my second research question: How do I, as a literacy teacher educator/researcher scaffold pedagogical development in writing instruction which acknowledges the various and varied textual experiences of interns in my course? I argue the significance of text, particularly course assignments such as lesson plans and instructional reflections are instrumental as interns develop pedagogy for writing. 123 As I began to see the importance of text as interns navigated a newly developing writing pedagogy, I was reminded of the concept that writer, Anne Lamott, shares above. Writing, and teaching writing, can often feel like navigating a dark, foggy road peppered with ambiguous road signs that seemingly change their appearance or direction. The texts for teaching, or more specifically pedagogical texts such as lesson plans and unit goals, often transform as the intern’s journey reveals new ideas, unforeseen roadblocks, or valuable detours. Almost always, interns were not altogether sure where they were heading. And, similar to the sentiment Doctorow shares above, their pedagogical road was, at times, dark and littered with all of the distractions found in an elementary classroom: required or scripted curricula, pacing guides, competing theories on how writing should be taught, an unclear vision of writing instruction, or students with individual needs. While all of this was true, interns did, for the most part, navigate their journey successfully. Some stopped and asked for directions, others re-routed their carefully mapped itineraries, still others found value in stopping to take in an unexpected vista. Importantly, when seemingly stalled, written text allowed interns to, as Doctorow says, see two or three feet ahead—just far enough to navigate onward. Through the review and systematic analysis of data, it became clear that texts played a major role in the internship and in interns’ development of writing pedagogy. Specifically, curricular texts served as resources for interns as they made instructional decisions regarding writing instruction. Two major themes arose when interns focused on texts and their use in developing pedagogy for writing. 124 First, texts facilitated curricular modification, defined as changes to the “prescribed curriculum” to meet the instructional needs of students. Modifications mainly included changes to writing curriculum and lesson delivery. Secondly, texts, in the form of individually authored lesson plans and reflections, facilitated the emergence of interns identifying as ‘writing teachers.’ As interns moved through the semester, their experience with text contributed to the development of writing pedagogy. Texts can be physical, formal and functional documents created by an author and provide “traces of activity” that, in this study, mark intern ideas, plans, and reflections on writing instruction (Kamberelis & de la Luna, 2006; p. 229). Texts might also be defined as types of genres. Recall that in Chapter 2, I defined genre as the flexible, textual representation of content, form, function, and context (Chapman, 1999). Genres are ways of “participating in the actions of a community,” such as a community of writing teachers (Chapman, 1999, p. 469). The genres within the work of writing teaching (as per this course) included demonstrative texts (e.g., unit and lesson plans), reflective texts (e.g., instructional reflection, blogged reflection), and a personal narrative (e.g. teacher narrative). In order to create these texts, data analysis revealed intern use of both practical and conceptual tools (Engstrom, 1999) present within each activity setting. Practical tools such as curriculum and course material as well as those theories or frameworks represented by conceptual tools significantly guided ideas about and reflections on writing instruction. 125 I begin this chapter by addressing my first research question. I will articulate the ways intern-authored text were significant as interns navigated internship experiences and developed writing pedagogy in two major ways. First, I present evidence that suggests that writing facilitated instructional adaptation. Interns used the writing and re-writing of text such as lesson plans and lesson reflections to adapt their instruction to best fit their unique classroom and student needs. Secondly, I present how writing seemed to facilitate the emergence of writing teachers. Interns used the act of writing to “become” writing teachers. Their work with written text allowed interns to make instructional decisions, revise lessons, and add their own ideas making them feel like “ real writing teachers.” I also present how I, as teacher educator, scaffolded pedagogical development through intern-created text. Because I analyzed the pedagogical development of my interns through the lens of activity theory, my analysis of intern learning focuses on the practical and conceptual development of teaching tools. Intern writing allowed me to scaffold practical tools such as writing curriculum and lesson plans as tools to drive instructional decision-making. Intern writing also allowed me to scaffold conceptual tools, fostering relationships that led to authentic teacher talk, sharing of pedagogical experiences, and problem solving. 126 The Significance of Text In this section, I briefly illustrate the significance of text as all four interns in this study developed writing pedagogy. I use Kamberelis and de la Luna’s (2004) conceptualization of writing processes, with a focus on textual production, as well as Engstrom’s (1999) ideas about an activity system that interweaves practical and conceptual influences from multiple activity settings such as the methods course and the classroom context in my analysis. While it is important to note that all four study participants experienced growth and revelation due to the production of text (as evidenced in their words and ideas above), I chose to focus on Dana and Blake in this chapter not because their experiences were unique or “outliers,” so to speak, but because both were able share experiences that spoke poignantly about their creation of text as well as explicit details about the ways text attributed to the specifics of intern development as writing teachers. Both spoke candidly about their role as teacher-writers. Both also reported that the production of texts, in the form of written work assigned in the literacy methods course, and personal texts, written to support their instruction (e.g. narratives or reflection), enabled development of writing pedagogy. By transforming experiences from both activity settings (e.g. methods course and the classroom) into more formal ideas made manifest in each individual teaching context, written text proved critical for intern development as writing teachers. Interns were responsible for three formal written assignments: the literacy field guide, the unit plan, and the teacher narrative as well as one less formal 127 written assignment, reflective blogs. The purpose of written texts was often to gather information in order to assist pedagogical decision-making. Below, Renee explained how writing the first course assignment, the literacy field guide, was helpful as she began to plan and teach writing. The writing she did and the text she created allowed her to make strategic decisions regarding her writing unit, decisions that, she said in our interview together, were, “tailored to my students, and that was really important” (Renee, interview, January, 2011). In our interview, she discussed this further. Erin: How did our first course assignment, the written investigation of context and curriculum, help you as a writing teacher? Renee: Wow, this is a good one (question). It’s probably different for different schools and contexts. I investigated and recorded what was available to me. I learned that where I was, I really had to get creative. I learned quickly that I could not rely on one set of materials to tell me how to teach this unit. I realized I would have to pull from a number of resources and figure out what fit best in planning my unit in order for my students to reach the learning goals I had set for the unit (Renee, Interview, January, 2010). Furthermore, Renee said that assignments, such as the field guide she mentioned above, better prepared her to ask questions of her CT, her intern colleagues, and myself as her literacy methods instructor. Renee’s words here were provide evidence that exploring community, school and classroom resources oriented interns “to the opportunities, resources, challenges and constraints” within each internship. 128 Exploration, and the subsequent writing and compilation of the literacy field guide, was a valuable and important exercise for her as a beginning writing teacher. Other written texts, such as the unit plan, were less exploratory and purposely more directive in nature. Each unit plan consisted of a two-week overview and three detailed lesson plans (see Appendix C, Inquiry 2). Both Dana and Blake spoke about the value of writing detailed lesson plans. Of lesson planning, Dana says, “I’m a new teacher; I had a lot of fear about this unit and planning helped me feel better.” She shared that she felt like she was working from “someone else’s lessons” until [she] wrote and planned for her students her own words (Dana, interview, January, 2011). Dana’s experience highlighted why planning and organizing lessons allowed interns to pay careful attention to the methods, such as the writer’s workshop, we read about in class, and to the context within which beginning teachers teach. Through her rewriting, Dana shared that she was able to bring new ideas into her teaching, ideas that she would not have had if she had “stuck only to the curriculum.” Blake spoke often about the support that our course-assigned texts gave him as he worked on developing pedagogy for a subject matter that was neither “familiar” nor “natural” to him. Blake referenced ideas from Book Club Plus! such as “writing and sharing with other students” that could make writing more exciting for his students. “As a teacher,” he said, “I had to be involved, to learn from my students, and to make adjustments (based on what I was seeing in the classroom). I relied a lot on course projects and ideas” (Blake, interview, January, 2011). Through Blake’s participation in required written 129 coursework, he made progress in developing ideas about what a writing unit under his leadership could look like. For example, in the final course assignment, the teacher narrative, Blake wrote about adjusting the writing curriculum in order to “effectively teach students.” In his narrative, he concluded, I enjoy teaching writing but I really want the students to have the best and most well rounded instruction possible. I am going to work with my CT to continue to learn how to add in aspects to lessons that I know my students need. To me, that is the most important thing about teaching; doing your best to give your students what they need to succeed, even if you have to deviate a little from the required curriculum (Blake, narrative, December 2010). Evidence also suggested that the production of text led to feelings of ownership for interns and provided a means to express pedagogical concerns and growth to their peers and to me. Below, Olivia wrote about a pedagogical idea she was struggling to develop during her writing unit, and her colleague reiterates both the importance and struggle. The biggest thing I learned was that students have the potential to be excellent writers and sentence composers; they just don’t utilize all of their abilities unless scaffolded to do so! This is something I need to keep in mind as I’m teaching for the rest of the year. I need to push and challenge them so that they always write in that way, not just when I ask them to (Olivia, blog reflection, November, 2010)?! Renee’s Comment: I struggle with remembering to provide appropriate scaffolding, too! I think that it is something that we might grow and learn as we plan new lessons and future units (Response to Olivia’s blog post, November 2010) In recounting her teaching experience, Olivia shared one way in which she had specifically grown from her teaching experience: providing scaffolding for her students in order to see improvement and growth in writing. Olivia’s written 130 reflections allowed her to both comment on her own learning and, using text, made her experience public to her peers. The blog proved to be a written forum where interns were able to support and question one another regarding teaching questions and ideas. In summary, in providing the space such as a blog or unit planning assignment to support and question practice, the production of text became far more than the obligatory completion of an assignment required by a course. The value of text resonated with interns who used contextual descriptions to drive their search for appropriate resources, drafted and re-drafted plans for specific lessons, and wrote and commented upon reflections by colleagues who often questioned their own growth and development as writing teachers. In the following two sections I present evidence that addresses my first research question: how interns understand and use resources (in this case, written text) to develop pedagogy for writing. Specifically, I make claims about how the intellectual act of writing text influenced interns’ development of writing pedagogy. I first tell Dana’s story to show how her creation of text allowed her to adapt her instruction. Dana’s teaching experience was very much about adapting a required curriculum, making changes in the content, process and/or product (Tomlinson, 2000) in order to give her students access to curriculum. She became a writer, herself, in order to accommodate the perceived needs of her students. To Dana, the creation of new text, based on the text present in her curriculum, helped her tailor her instruction to the students present in her unique classroom situation. Following Dana’s story, I share Blake’s story about how revision of text allowed him 131 to rework and better understand his own ideas about writing curriculum. To Blake, the creation of text allowed for a theoretical shift in how he could (and would) plan and teach a writing unit. Writing helped him add pieces of himself into a scripted curriculum that did not previously fit his ideas about who he was as a writing teacher. Writing Facilitates Adaptation “Writing myself really helped me-I kept going back to that (Dana, interview, January, 2011).” As a beginning writing teacher, Dana proclaimed the value of writing and rewriting texts in order to “make sense” of her work as a teacher of writing. As previewed in Chapter 3, she taught her writing unit on “strengthening personal narrative writing” in a third grade classroom in a suburban community that utilized Lucy Calkins’ Units of Study as its primary resource for writing instruction. Dana’s specific focus was on “analyzing mentor texts and writing from author’s point of view” as well as “scaffolded engagement in the writing process with participation in peer conferences.” Because Units of Study is written in grade level chunks (e.g. K-2, 3-5, etc.), Dana felt that many of the lessons she encountered did not fit the needs of the students in her third grade classroom, which was filled with students whom she described as “beginning writers.” In order to combat her confusion and the curriculum’s mismatch to her students’ needs, Dana began to use the scripted curriculum as a guide and rewrote each daily lesson plan. Her goal, in the beginning, was to better understand herself “what the curriculum was all about.” In the end, she says, her writing moved from a simple re-write of words into 132 adapting the lesson plans based on what her students were showing her they needed. For example, Dana eliminated activities, changed activities, and altered books the curriculum suggested she use (See Appendix E for Dana’s changes to her original lesson plan). Lastly, Dana spoke about the importance of writing herself, and of working to write in same genre as her students wrote- both, she says, helped her understand what the curriculum intended, as well as understand the process behind the writing tasks she gave her own third grade writers. She says she found writing alongside her students helped her better, “see and understand the hard parts.” During our conversations, Dana shared her experiences as a new teacher struggling to make sense of curriculum that was new to her. Dana’s solution to her confusion was to write. As Dana’s instructor, I found attending to the texts she wrote helped me uncover her ideas about writing instruction and details about her teaching context such as the following. Her internship took place in a third grade classroom that relied upon a set curriculum for writing instruction, Lucy Calkins, Units of Study. Dana’s experience in context, specifically interacting with both the proximal (curriculum) and distal resources (her CT’s influence and relationships with her students), led to an experience that she says changed her ideas about writing instruction and forced her to “adapt” her instructional methods based on both the students she was teaching and the curriculum she was asked to teach. In the beginning of our interview together, following her first semester planning and teaching writing, Dana was quick to describe her struggles with teaching writing. 133 Erin: What can you tell me about your experience teaching writing this semester? Dana: Writing was, to be completely honest, difficult for me to wrap my head around at first. Working with Lucy Calkins writing workshop is so different than anything I have ever worked with before. When planning my unit I struggled with how I (would) know that the students are understanding. Things were taking a lot more time than I thought they would and I wasn’t feeling like I’d always ended things completely right for the students. Erin: Can you list some of the things that you think affected the experience you just described? Dana: Reading through each mini lesson and picking what my third graders would need to learn versus what they were going to cover in fourth or fifth grade was really difficult because you are reading Lucy Calkins and she’s using huge words and those kids are having these amazing discussions and you feel like, “No, this is not where (my students) are” (Dana, interview, January, 2011). During our conversations about her writing unit planning, Dana consistently spoke about her need to take “Lucy’s words” and rewrite them as her own as well as her need to “adapt” mini-lessons based on what her students were writing, and how they had (or had not) progressed. Dana’s ideas about adaptation were strongly connected to the information she had gathered and written about her students and her own ideas about writing instruction. “I see the point of the curriculum… but I will (and did) do it differently” (Dana, interview, January, 2011). Through her own lesson writing, Dana was able to both express and create a unit that “fit” the third graders in her classroom. The table below provides one example of how Dana took the scripted lessons within Units of Study revised them based on her work with the third graders in her classroom. 134 This table illustrates Dana’s changes to her writing unit’s lesson plans. The first column lists curriculum requirements from Units of Study. The middle column shows that Data originally planned to follow the curriculum as it was written. The final column lists Dana’s reflections and changes made as she taught her writing unit. Dana shows how reflections based on teaching experiences and student needs led her to adapt the original lessons present in the Units of Study (Calkins, 2006) writing curriculum (For the full lesson plan, see Appendix E). Table 5. Dana’s Lesson Changes Lesson from Units of Study Materials Raising the Quality of Narrative Writing, Lucy Calkins, 2006, Teacher writing journal, Byrd Baylor’s, I’m in Charge of Celebrations Introduction Teachers find comfort in writing decisions with a partner- personal story about a time I needed comfort, then a time I was able to help someone else Dana’s Original Lesson Raising the Quality of Narrative Writing, Lucy Calkins, 2006, Teacher writing journal, Byrd Baylor’s, I’m in Charge of Celebrations Dana’s Changes Once I began teaching the mini lessons I realized how long each lesson was taking me and the constraints on actual writing time for the students, I knew I had to make changes to fit my students. While the book is an interesting way to talk about different aspects of writing, it took away from the time the students had to truly listen and share with each other, so I chose not to read it Teachers find This was not essential for comfort in writing understanding. I did, decisions with a however, share a story partner- personal about sharing my own story about a writing decisions with time I needed various partner groups as comfort, then a I listened in. time I was able to help someone else 135 Table 5 (cont’d) Procedure What is one way you can show me you just heard my story? Another? (point out a part you like, retell the story back to me) What is one way you can show me you just heard my story? Another? (point out a part you like, retell the story back to me) After reviewing this lesson I believed this concept of the students showing they heard each others stories to be too abstract for them due to my previous writing conferences and that it would not lead to a productive lesson. One thing brought up often while conferring is the importance of adding details to stories instead of listing events, so I turned this time into peers extracting more details out of each other. They were to either read a story they were working on or share a story idea with each other. The listener had to ask four “why” sentences to the reader. We practiced by having me tell a story and six different students putting up their hand, and repeating my sentence they had a question with in why form. After adding ore detail to my sentence, I continued with my story. In her revised lesson, Dana noted places where she removed items, such as stories and activities, that had once been a part of the scripted curriculum and, instead, added her own ideas. 136 Dana adapted her own original unit and lesson plans, which she based on Units of Study. Adaptations included changes in materials, teacher examples, and student activities. In one lesson, for example, shared some of her own writing with students, a piece that she says was modeled off of Beverley Cleary’s, Dear Mr. Henshaw. The book, about a sixth grade boy who writes to his favorite author, explores the trouble of a boy at school and at home. Dana chose to read this specific book aloud to her students at the time of this lesson because she says, “students could relate to it.” Dana also altered lesson activities, making the time her third graders had to talk about their writing more structured. Her third graders, for example, were asked to listen to one another and ask four “why questions” in order to get their peers to add important detail to their stories. Dana’s teaching objective for this lesson did not change during her alteration of this lesson. When I asked her during our interview together to explain her re-writing of the lesson, she says she was not trying to “completely rewrite” the lesson, rather she was “trying to make the lesson something that would meet her students where they were in their writing (learning) (Dana, interview, January, 2011).” When I asked her about the ways she adapted her instruction, in order to tailor her teaching to her students, Dana said she believed third graders needed more concrete examples of modeling mentored text, which is why she used a text her students had read before (rather than the one suggested by the curriculum) and that she believed her third graders needed to talk before writing, something we talked about extensively in our methods course. 137 Dana described both her confidence as a writing teacher and her use of the Units of Study curriculum as “tentative.” She says that, before writing herself, she didn’t feel able to take what the curriculum gave her and translate it directly into lessons that would both help her students become better writers and follow the curriculum sufficiently preparing her students for their future writing in third grade and beyond. In order to combat her uncertainty Dana adapted to meet the needs of her students. When I asked her about this practice of “adapting” her mini lessons, Dana says it was “like differentiating for third graders in her classroom,” rather than just “blindly using” what was in the book. “I’m not confident,” she said, “so I take what Lucy wants you to say and I write it out as my own. I’m writing a new lesson, incorporating what she’s using. There is a lot of looking at the curriculum and trying to say, “What is she saying here? What is really, really important, and how can I say this to my students?” (Dana, interview, January, 2011). And, in reflecting on and talking about her experience teaching writing, Dana consistently refers to the texts she created, and the process of creating text as helpful for her own navigation of the writing curriculum and writing instruction in general. Instead of just following a script, she says, “I needed to view writing as the process it is… and I quickly discovered how far from Lucy’s narrations I had to stray in order to fit my students” (Dana, interview, January, 2011). Dana’s lesson plans, based on the script in “Units of Study,” but written in her own words, helped Dana address appropriate writing goals, while attempting to maintain the engagement of her third graders. 138 In summary, then, text seemed to help Dana, navigate her experience as a beginning writing teacher in two ways. The first was her willingness to write, creating text to clarify her instruction. The second was her willingness to use the texts she had written as a point of reflection. Below, I share examples of Dana’s work as a writer to show how written text helped her adapt her instruction to better meet the needs of her students, and her own needs a beginning writing teacher. Writing text led to adaptation. It took Dana’s observation of her own students to realize that even with her careful use of the curriculum, she was not reaching them as individual writers. “In the beginning, even though I was being interactive,” she says, “some of my kids were giving me glazed over eyes, others were moving around in the classroom, opening up their books. They weren’t there” (Dana, interview, January, 2011). Instead of continuing on, Dana chose to do the following: After teaching the first couple lessons of my unit, I had to shift my expectations. It was challenging to understand the Writing Workshop. I changed how I viewed my students. In the beginning I envisioned happy third graders eagerly lapping up new ways to expand their personal narratives with techniques like looking at their own books and brainstorming times that were bound with strong emotion. In reality, my students were being exposed to these brand new ideas and were unsure that I was telling them something that would truly help. They grew as writers, but I am thankful they will receive (instruction in) Writing Workshop again (Dana, reflection, November, 2010). In her reflection above Dana readily admits that students’ reactions to her lessons did not meet her expectations for the kind of learning she hoped to elicit. Rather than blindly moving forward, Dana addressed her concerns by creating texts that addressed her concerns (mini-lessons that more directly engaged her students) and 139 changing her practice (writing alongside students) and rewriting. Dana did her thinking, she says, through writing to create an instructional plan that she believed honored the curriculum she was required to teach while at the same time focused on the needs of the students in her classroom. While Dana was far from confident in her instruction, referring to her own “tentative” behavior and “lack of confidence” as reasons why she felt like she needed to be sure she knew and understood the subject matter she was teaching, “In the beginning I had a lot of fear about this unit, I didn’t go in with a lot of confidence, I was working from someone else’s lessons, I was comparing my students with students I don’t even know. [Now,] I write my own stories, I share them with my students” (Dana, interview, January 2011). Dana’s writing of both pedagogical texts such as unit and lesson plans and personal narratives matching the kind assigned to her students not only supported her understanding of the writing process and what it “feels like to be an author,” something she says she had not felt since she was an elementary student herself. Writing the narratives, specifically, increased her confidence and gave her an “insight” into what needed to be present in her lesson plans. Dana’s confidence grew, she says, with increased time spent creating her own text (narrative and pedagogical in nature). Of her experience writing and teaching writing, she said: My biggest enemy throughout my unit was my own [lack of] confidence in the classroom. I know most of us feel very natural standing in front of our students, but the Writing Workshop is a brand new to me idea that I still feel I am decoding. My success came after I accepted the most important part of teaching is confidence. I now have authentic 140 confidence, but I would not have been successful without that realization and acceptance (Dana, interview, January, 2011). Dana’s own writing led to growth in her understanding of how the writing process works when creating narrative text- she not only taught the steps of the writing process, but also walked through them herself as she created texts to share with her students. Furthermore, her pedagogical content knowledge, such as giving students strategies on how to work with one another to revise narratives (e.g. asking 4 why questions), reportedly deepened as a result of her growing understanding. Dana’s confidence became “authentic,” she says when she was able to understand, through experience, the subject matter and method she was teaching. Reflecting on text led to adaptation. Dana’s thoughts about her experience teaching a scripted curriculum are not unfamiliar to teacher educators who work with beginning teachers. As a proponent of making curriculum fit one’s classroom needs, I encouraged Dana to continue to write through course conversations and responses to her own teaching reflections. Our course assignments were structured to allow Dana and her peers to write, revise and reflect on their teaching. As Dana walked through the experience of being a firsttime writing teacher, she notably utilized both practical tools such as the curriculum and course assignments and conceptual tools such as theories about the socio-cultural features of writing and the iterative nature of the writing process to more richly draw from resources such as her relationship with her cooperating teacher, peers, and myself to help her navigate unfamiliar terrain. 141 In her final narrative (December, 2010), Dana asked: “How do we scaffold the writing process in a way that is authentic to our students’ life path and real world expectations?” She answered this question by reiterating her desire to reach the third graders in her classroom. “I rewrote and reflected because I didn’t see a lot of ways to put myself into my writing instruction… I had less confidence, I guess, because I felt like I was teaching Lucy’s lessons.” By writing, Dana used text as a tool for adapting the curriculum assigned in her classroom, and began to uncover the writing instruction that best fit the needs of her unique students. Dana’s experience differentiating her teaching practices (e.g., choosing to read alternative texts and refining activities such as editing) to meet the needs of her classroom situation and third grade students was closely tied to the discoveries she made through the creation of and reflection on text meant to guide her pedagogical development. Adaptation Led to Pedagogical Development In order to address my first research question: How do interns navigate internship experiences in the content of their course work and internship contexts with regard to text, context, and politics as they develop pedagogy for writing? I investigated how interacting with text as a writer assisted interns as they navigated internship experiences as beginning writing teachers. All four interns in this study used writing to some extent to help them teach and adapt their teaching. In Dana’s experience, becoming a writer helped her better clarify both the curriculum’s (Units of Study) instructional expectations as well as her own 142 developing ideas about writing pedagogy. Adapting curriculum, pace, and methods was not something Dana, alone, experienced as she began to teach writing. All four interns in this study both spoke and wrote about a need to adapt some aspect of their writing instruction in order to meet the needs of their students. And, commonly helpful among all four interns was the drive to write/create (and at times re-write or re-create) texts that made their writing lessons, units, and curriculum their “own.” In talking about her unit teaching, Dana shared, “The top thing that taught me to teach writing is when I’ve taken the curriculum and re-written it myself” (Dana, interview, January 2011). All four interns spoke to the value of creating texts that were meaningful to each of them as teachers- not simply as students in my university-based methods course. In particular, interns noted the ability of text to allow them to make writing instruction their ‘own’ regardless of the mandatory curriculum found in some classrooms (Dana and Blake’s work with Units of Study) or the utmost freedom present in others (Renee and Olivia’s work to create their own writing curriculum). This idea of ‘adaptation’ is not foreign to teacher growth and development. Susan Florio-Ruane and Timothy Lensmire (1990) pointed to the experiences and beliefs preservice teachers “bring to their formal professional education about writing, teaching, and children” as evidence of the importance and value of adaptation as it relates to beginning teachers’ translation of content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge into the actual teaching of writing lessons or units. Beginning teachers, like Dana, often seem to take what they know and believe 143 about writing instruction and make adjustments (adapting ideas and practices) based on the classroom in which they teach. In her continuum of development, Sharon Feiman-Nemser (2001) highlights the value of attending to the “opportunities” beginning teachers have to “continue learning in and from their practice” as it relates to beginning teachers’ ability to develop and shift their practices depending on actual students in real world classrooms. From Dana and her peers’ experiences creating and re-creating text, I saw evidence of the kinds of opportunities Feiman-Nemser articulates when she emphasized the importance of learning in and from practice. In this section, I explored the theme of adaptation as it related to the production of text. I discussed how Dana adapted Units of Study to better serve her students through writing. She wrote lesson plans based first on Units of Study, and then rewrote her lesson plans based on her experiences with students. She was able to clarify her ideas about writing instruction through written reflection on her teaching. In the next section, I explore the theme that writing facilitated the emergence of writing teachers. While I saw evidence that seemed to describe how writing helped all four interns more comfortably grow and act as writing teachers, I chose to share Blake’s story below because I found it a theoretically rich exemplar. Writing Facilitates Emergence of ‘A Writing Teacher’ I still have a lot to learn about planning and teaching writing, like making the curriculum “my own.” I need to know how to alter it or spice it up while still sticking to the script. I need to be a better writer myself if I am going to teach students how to improve their writing (Blake, inquiry three, reflection, December, 2010). 144 Blake’s hesitation with writing instruction is illustrated in his reflection above. According to him, he was very much at the beginning of his journey in thinking and learning about writing instruction, something that he said did not come easily or naturally to him. Blake claimed he was not a writer, himself. And, much of his initial experience teaching writing, during the semester we spent together, focused on his re-articulation, through the creation of texts like lesson plans, reflections, blogs, and curricular descriptions, of what he came to know and believe about writing instruction. In this section, I suggest that Blake created text in order to solidify, for himself, what writing instruction could look like in his fifth grade classroom. Creating text seemed to help Blake develop pedagogy for writing, and to emerge from the internship experience as “a writing teacher,” something he said he never identified himself as. I begin by describing how Blake “took control” of the text within his mandated curriculum by making changes that he believed best addressed his (and his students’) needs. I then show how Blake’s attention to the interests and abilities of his fifth graders led him to share his own writing and reportedly become the writer and the writing teacher that he never thought himself to be. Blake began his writing unit teaching in a suburban middle school that had adopted Lucy Calkins, Units of Study, three years prior. He worked with cooperating teacher, Mike, who while fully supporting Blake’s desire to learn about writing instruction, and also claimed to be a beginner himself in articulating and implementing the writing curriculum, as he only “got through” four of the 145 mandatory six curriculum units the previous year. Blake’s two-week unit focused on the curriculum’s Book Two, “Raising the Quality of Personal Narratives.” His specific focus included “helping teach students how to write a personal narrative from the beginning stages to the ending stages… aiming to give students strategies to help them develop their stories more fully (Blake, inquiry two, unit plan, November, 2010). At the semester’s close, Blake’s new ideas about writing instruction became as important to him as was his progress through the unit he set out to teach. Blake’s story is important because his thoughts and actions illustrate how writing not only literally altered his instructional practices, but also allowed him to emerge as an elementary school teacher of writing. A self-proclaimed “math and science person,” Blake frequently expressed his own difficulty teaching literacy in general, and writing specifically. “Teaching writing was very challenging for me. I came into the semester, and I feel bad saying this considering I’ve had so many years of education, not knowing how to teach how to write. It’s abstract for me. It’s hard for me to get it in kid terms. I really realized it when I did my first writing lesson. What I’m thinking in my head doesn’t translate well. It’s been a challenge all along” (Blake, interview, January, 2011). From the beginning, Blake was candid about his need for revision regarding his work as a writing teacher. During our conversations together, Blake said, “Before your class, I don’t think I thought about myself as a writing teacher. I’d never heard of Lucy Calkins before this year. I can’t even remember reading anything about writing instruction” (Blake, interview, 146 January 2011). While Blake reiterated his reliance on university learning, ideas, and texts to help him better understand his role as writing teacher, he also learned that university ideas do not always directly translate to classroom practice. Of his experience in teacher education Blake said, “I have a foundation here (at the University), a wealth of knowledge for sure, but the (classroom) context cannot be replicated, and I had to learn to see myself in the role in my classroom (Blake, interview, January, 2011). Two things, in particular, seemed to help Blake create texts that led to pedagogical development evidenced by his revision texts and a re-vision of his work as a writing teacher. The first was Blake’s determination to revise his plans for writing instruction in a way that most honestly met the requirements of the curriculum at hand while addressing the needs of those students that sat before him. He had to “take control of the text.” Doing so allowed him to view himself as writer of lessons (text) rather than performer of lessons (text). The second, Blake’s observation of and relationship with his students, allowed him to begin to change his ideas about what engaging writing instruction could look like. Blake’s realization that the curriculum was not meeting the needs of needs or interests of his students, encouraged him to not only create text that authentically directed his pedagogical moves (e.g. modeling during instruction) but also compelled him to become a stronger writer himself (e.g. authoring and sharing his own personal narrative). Below, I describe evidence that suggests how text influenced Blake’s emergence as a writing teacher 147 Taking control of text. Planning his unit step-by-step with resources made available through both coursework (e.g. unit and lesson planning assignments) and classroom support (e.g. conversations with cooperating teacher, Units of Study curriculum) helped him, Blake says, “articulate and see” his goals for teaching writing. It was through careful planning that Blake began to recognize where his voice could be incorporated into the curriculum he was assigned to teach. “You know how we had to specifically plan three lessons in great detail, those lessons tended to go much better- those days were definitely best, when I had direct help” (Blake, interview, January, 2011). Blake effectively utilized supports provided by both university coursework and cooperating teacher to sculpt a writing teacher identity that he felt both successful and comfortable enacting. As he walked through his writing unit, Blake’s notion of who a writing teacher is moved from someone who “followed the script” to someone who had stories to write, to tell, and to share with his students. His blogged teaching reflections and teacher narrative reflect his ideas about both changing his unit and changing his ideas about writing instruction. In the beginning, said Blake, “I felt like I was getting judged on getting my students to do what Lucy Calkins wanted them to do. I felt like it was almost too scripted for me, I wished there was more leeway” (Blake, interview, January, 2011). Blake expressed his frustration with a curriculum that he felt highlighted and reiterated one idea about writing, the personal narrative, and neglected other ideas about writing like more exciting genres such as mystery, action, or the enjoyment of writing. He often spoke of his 148 feelings of “mismatch” when referring to how his ideas about writing did not always coincide with the curriculum saying, “I have come to enjoy teaching writing, but I really want my students to have the best and most well rounded instruction possible. I am going to work with my CT to continue to learn how to add in aspect to lessons that I know my students need. To me, that is the most important thing about teaching; doing your best to give your students what they need to succeed, even if you have to deviate a little from the required curriculum” (Blake, narrative, December, 2010). Blake longed for the opportunity to engage his students, whose voices he heard loudly when planning for his instruction, using authors, stories and hooks that he “knew would interest them” (Blake, interview, January, 2011). Of being a successful writing teacher, Blake says he soon realized, “It starts with me” (Blake, interview, January, 2011). Blake’s realization that his own ideas and words reached students more effectively than the alternative (i.e., the script) shaped his pedagogical decision-making for the remainder of his unit. In his own reflection on writing instruction, Blake admitted that he learned the importance of re-planning, student input, and writing himself as he learned to teach writing. In revising one of his mini lessons during his two-week unit, Blake recognized the need for an immediate change in his lesson, and made that change. In the figure below, I share an excerpt from Blake’s lesson plan. His changes are in bold italic. Note that he made changes in most steps of the lesson to better fit the needs of his students. Of particular importance is his final change in this example. He noticed that his students needed more than the curriculum provided, so he 149 provided an example, himself. Here he became a writer, sharing his own narrative with students and modeling his own “writerly” moves as he thought aloud for his students. OUTLINE of key events during the lesson (40 minutes) I will read them a chapter from “A long way from Chicago” I will point out when there are shifts from the external to the internal I will read another portion of the book and have them focus on the external story ◦ I ended up handing out a copy of the book to every student so they could follow along and focus on the language. • They will then share with a partner what they saw. ◦ I had them share with the whole class. • I will reread that same portion having them focus on the internal story. They will share with their partner again ◦ They shared with the whole class • I will tell them that I want them to go back to their drafts. I want them to find the heart of the story. I will tell them to ask themselves, “What was I thinking/feeling”? • I will tell them to go back and give their audience clues as to their feelings and what they were thinking. ◦ My students needed an example. I ended up modeling these ideas with my own narrative about my white water rafting trip. I thought aloud some changes and asked my students to help me make changes. I had my students rewrite parts of my story, adding the internal story. • Students will then be given time to do so. Figure 2. Blake’s Revised Lesson Plan • • • *Blake’s revisions are bold and italicized He reflected on this experience, saying, “[Today,] I learned the importance of modeling. While I taught the mini lesson, I realized a lot of students had no idea how to start doing this in their own stories. That was when I decided to pull out my story and have them help me add internal parts, with the hope that they could then 150 do this with their own stories.” (Blake, inquiry two, revised lesson plan, November, 2010). As Blake’s lesson plan and reflection illustrate, he gained confidence in his ability to revise his original plans, even if it meant straying from the script, or his original ideas about the structure of a lesson. He learned to use his scripted curriculum and plans as a well-thought-out guide and allowed himself the leeway to make what he deemed “important changes.” Students give life to “the writing teacher.” Blake relied on his students for cues as to how his writing instruction and vision of a writing teacher could and should evolve. Through revising his plans, writing reflections on his work, and believing his experiences held a compelling story he was encouraged to make changes about how he viewed himself as a writing teacher. “I made changes, I added myself and my own personal stories. And it was cool. The thing I learned about writing instruction,” said Blake, “is to take a step back and to realize my own personal motivation (for teaching to the script). I now think, how will my students react to this?” (Blake interview, January, 2011). Blake’s students reportedly cued him to change, or revise, his methods, particularly when what he planned to teach did not apply to them. In this way, Blake’s students appeared to encourage the writing teacher in Blake. Throughout the course of his experience beginning to teach writing, Blake reiterated the idea that writing doesn’t have to be abstract and disconnected from the classroom where students were writing. In fact, reflected Blake, writing and writing instruction should be “personal and real.” Blake excitedly recounted those times during his instruction when he allowed his students 151 to help him make changes in how he could teach a concept, saying the revised lessons were the most engaging lessons for his students and for himself (e.g. Playing a clip from Star Wars or sharing his own personal narrative). In his reflective teacher narrative he reiterated his newfound aspiration to teach his students, rather than a lesson. I learned that “as a teacher you need to be involved, you need to learn from your students and make adjustments” (Blake, narrative, December, 2010). As Blake moved through the semester, he seemed to gain confidence in his ability to effectively teach a subject matter that was he was not initially comfortable teaching. By creating texts such as lesson plans and allowing himself to stray from the safety of his script, Blake made revisions. His revised text came in the form of lesson plans that more clearly matched his ideas about the kind of writing instruction that the fifth graders in his classroom required. Revised text also came in the form of reflections about how writing could and should be taught by a writing teacher like himself. In a sense, Blake made changes to his vision of “writing teacher” from someone who marched along within a curriculum that was deemed most knowledgeable and valuable with respect to his fifth graders’ development as writers to someone who voiced his own ideas about the kind of writing instruction he believed would engage his students. In his teacher narrative at the end of the semester, Blake presents his ideas about writing instruction. In this reflective piece, he clearly shares his own re-vision of writing instruction. If I taught exactly like the book said to, it would have been a repeat of what we did earlier in the year, so I made adjustments. I found ways to 152 integrate a clip from Star Wars to show how we can make effective endings to our stories. I knew it would get the students engaged because the entire class loves Star Wars. Sure enough, I had the most lively and engaged class that day. I stuck to the curriculum by covering the main topic, but made adjustments to make it my own and to cater to my individual students. (Blake, narrative, December, 2010).” Blake’s revision was more than the physical alterations he made to the lesson he reflected on above. It was about revising his ideas about what writing instruction could embody- lessons that allow teachers to share who they are as writers as well as engage the student writers waiting to share their own unique stories. Writing Teachers Emerge Blake was not the only writing teacher to “emerge” during our course together. Like the other three interns in this study, Blake’s experience writing established that taking control of text and attending to real students in a real classroom helped him become a writing teacher. In order to develop pedagogy for writing, Blake had to navigate the influence of text. The creation and revision of texts allowed him to work within his actual, rather than hypothetical, classroom. Kamberelis and de la Luna (2004) note the “indexical” nature of texts, noting their direct relationship with those contexts in which they are created and have concrete meaning and function (p. 229). “Before, I felt like I had to stick to the script, but in the end, I was able to change the path just a little bit by being myself and writing my own story, and then I saw that I was able to deviate a bit. I felt less restricted in the end than I did planning the whole thing” (Blake interview, p. 6). The purposeful creation of texts in the methods course, explicitly related to the teaching 153 experience, allowed interns to become writers and teachers acting on and reacting to their lived classroom experiences. All four interns used texts created for and during coursework in order to revise their literal plans for teaching. This kind of revision took the form of line-byline changes to the original text of lesson plans. Olivia recounts how her experience revising lessons helped her “find her way.” Without planning and re-planning, she says, “I know I would still be lost. I thought I had a lot more great ideas- more to work with, but, I didn’t” (Olivia, interview, January, 2011). Olivia used revision to clarify and add ideas to her growing conception of a writing unit. Renee often spoke about how her own experience planning helped her clarify what it is that writing teachers do when they teach writing. “Planning my unit this past semester really gave me my first good hands-on experience teaching writing (Renee, p. 1). In her blog, she reflected on how she had changed her ideas about writing saying, “Now I know I have a lot of good ideas- but I also have a lot to change” (Renee, blog reflection, November, 2010). Interns also utilized more reflective text in the form of required lesson reflections, informal blogging, and teacher narrative to begin to revise their vision of who they were as writing teachers. “Teaching writing, just like writing, is so personal” (Dana, interview, January 2011). It was through putting pen to paper or finger to keyboard and “thinking” that interns were able to combine their knowledge of subject matter, pedagogical content knowledge, and knowledge of context to form ideas about what writing instruction might look like in each unique 154 classroom. And, like Dana notes above, the ideas about writing instruction were as individual and personal as the teachers who wrote. No script, no single curriculum fit seamlessly into any intern’s classroom experience- literal revisions were necessary as was a revision of how writing instruction might differ in one third or fifth grade classroom, compared to the classrooms illustrated in curriculum texts. Reflection and revision can and does assist preservice teachers who are developing ideas about and for teaching (Hole & McEntee, 1999). It is through the use of practical tools such as assignments, and specifically unit planning and blogged reflecting, that interns were able to re-think their work and ‘talk’ about it with several more conceptually based tools such as peer conversations in the blog, my comments, and their own revision. In short, all four interns talked about how the creation of text led to their own emergence as writing teachers. Interns also articulated ideas about how students might best become writers (e.g., through writing and editing drafts, through conferencing). The articulation of such ideas falls into the category of conceptual tool-use. In creating text about their teaching, interns were sharing their ideas about what writing teachers should do. Teaching this writing unit taught me to… attend to the needs of my students (Dana), create a unit that is engaging (Renee) or make changes when things are not working (Blake). Much of this revision is what Hammerness (2002) writes about when she shares her ideas about beginning teachers’ visions of practice, and specifically, “plumbing the depths” of beginning teacher beliefs and goals about teaching a particular subject matter. By “examining, challenging and further articulating new teacher beliefs 155 and assumptions,” beginning teachers are able to close the gap between a vision and classroom reality (Hammerness, 2002). In this study, it is true that “blurry or superficial ideas” were refined through the creation of text meant to revise not only ideas, but also teacher actions surrounding writing instruction. Throughout the course of the semester, interns “tried on” various writing teacher personas, akin to envisioning the “possible selves” that Villegas and Lucas (2002) propose might guide new teacher ideas about instruction. Some, like Dana and Blake, tried on the scripted version of “writing teacher” in Units of Study. Others, like Renee, tried to emulate their CT. But, in the end, the creation and revision of text such as lesson plans and revised lesson plans pushed interns beyond simply envisioning possible selves and required detailed accounts of changes and an articulation of why such changes were deemed valuable or important. This detailed account of intern thought and action as it relates to writing instruction was a valuable tool for interns as they set out to “tell the story” of their semester-long teaching experience. It also proved valuable for me as I worked to better understand influences shaping intern experiences outside of my university classroom- in order to create experiences inside the university classroom that best addressed those needs and influences. Below, I discuss the value of attention to text for teacher educators who are charged with assisting intern teachers in connecting the conceptual ideas found in university classrooms to the practical tools so prevalent in elementary classrooms. 156 What Texts Reveal to Teacher Educators In order to address my second research question, my scaffolding of the pedagogical development of interns while honoring their individual classroom situations, I looked in the data for ways that my work assisted the pedagogical development of my interns. As a writing teacher educator, I have come to understand that texts communicate details that provide necessary information for scaffolding interns toward reflection and decision-making that benefits pedagogical development. In his research on teacher knowledge development, Raths (2004) notes that teachers need to bring to life their own knowledge of subject matter and of teaching and learning in each unique situation in which they find themselves. I have found this to be true for knowledge development in writing. In the interns’ cases, it meant learning to translate what they know and have learned about writing instruction from university and personal experiences into lessons and activities that adequately engage elementary students in a variety of classroom situations. I see it as my job to provide several avenues, through assigned coursework, classroom conversations, and one-on-one feedback, to scaffold that translation. Because I am an educator of interns in many and varied classroom situations that I neither experience nor control, I often find it difficult to sufficiently understand the context within which my students plan for and enact their initial experiences as writing teachers, thus making my scaffolding of their inaugural teaching experiences more difficult. Reviewing intern texts assists me. Focused on each intern’s unique context, texts reflected not only their own developing 157 knowledge of subject matter and pedagogical content knowledge, but also knowledge of the classrooms within which teaching and development occurred. As a teacher educator, assigning such texts allowed not only a way for interns to report and receive comments tailored to their work in classrooms, but also served as conversation starters for the university methods classroom. By reading and listening to texts focused on interns’ experiences with writing curriculum and elementary-aged writers, I was able to begin to scaffold the development of pedagogical tools and practice toward real classroom experiences. In Chapter Two, I defined my vision of scaffolding as closely mirroring Auckerman’s definition of scaffolding as assistance that is mindful of interns “shifting social and intellectual intentions” as they work toward an intended outcome that is both pedagogically sound and appropriate in an individual school and classroom context (Auckerman, 2007, p. 57). Scaffolding, in my practice, treats interns as “possible knowers” and is less a tool to get interns to say what I want them to say, to teach how I would teach, and more about allowing me to help them reveal the best pedagogical decisions for their particular situation (Auckerman, 2007). Internauthored texts have helped guide my flexible scaffolding without “imposing external control” (Dewey, 1938, p. 15). I used text as a teaching tool, to scaffold the use of both practical and conceptual tools. In the following paragraphs I give examples of how texts were a teaching tool that led to my scaffolding of Renee and Olivia’s practice, leading to what I consider more authentic pedagogical development. I focus on Renee and Olivia here to show that the creation and revision of text not 158 only affected interns who worked from a scripted curriculum, like Dana and Blake, but also affected all interns as they created and revised text for writing instruction. Furthermore, because intern-authored texts are pedagogical tools to meet the true needs of beginning teachers in real teaching situations, I show how I was able to utilize texts to scaffold further thought and development of practical tool use as well as conceptual tool use in Dana and Blake’s classrooms. Text as a teaching tool. Teacher educators, like myself, who are often disconnected from the classrooms where my interns teach, need to find ways to access information on classroom context. Intern-authored texts provide this. These texts can and do reveal where interns may need support or guidance. For example, assignments asking interns to report on classroom context such as my course’s Literacy Field Guide (see Appendix C, Inquiry 1)- including descriptions of classroom resources, student descriptions and assessments, and community context provided information allowing me to more directly interact with interns with a better understanding of context. Additionally, texts provided information on how to offer viable suggestions for interns in a variety of classrooms. For example, while Renee and Olivia taught fifth grade in the same school, their classroom context differed based on resources and supports such as CT and curriculum. Renee described the differences in fifth grade classrooms this way, “The fifth grade teachers in our building came from five different elementary schools, and they use the same district wide curriculum, but it is very dated so many of the teachers had developed their own literacy programs at each school. They are working on bringing 159 them all together, but until then the teachers are using what they have previously used at the elementary schools” (Renee, inquiry 1, September, 2010). Consequently, my suggestions for their work in each classroom differed. I use the chart below to reveal how different classrooms, even at the same grade level in the same school, can be vastly different in instructional routines and practices. The chart illustrates Renee and Olivia’s experiences at Arrowhead, both in fifth grade classrooms. First, I noticed differences in their classroom contexts, as revealed by their written descriptions. As you can see, the assignment asked for descriptions of the type of writing most and least emphasized in each intern’s classroom experience. Renee and Olivia had very different answers. Table 6. Comparing Renee and Olivia’s Fifth Grade Writing Curricula Assignment Asks: Renee Olivia List WRITING topic Genres- write for many Students have been areas that receive the purposes (narrative and introduced to one most emphasis in a informational pieces) writing genre: the typical week and indicate business letter. when during a typical Personal style- each Students have drafted week students have writer’s voice is strongly and shared their ideas opportunities to learn in encouraged to come out in for their own business these areas. their writing. letters Writing attitudestudents are encouraged Students complete one to free write and creative free write for constantly complemented 50 minutes about once on their writing. every other week. 160 Table 6 (cont’d) List WRITING topic areas that receive the least emphasis in a typical week and indicate when during a typical week students have opportunities to learn in these areas. Writing Process not yet seen, but will be seeing this soon, although every piece of writing is for a purpose. Pre writing strategies presented in mini lessons this week. Revisions are made, but not through a process, students are expected to turn in final drafts that have been edited CT does informal conferences. Students haven’t had a formal lesson about the writing process. They have gone through the motions of creating a rough draft (without doing a pre-write first) and doing a final draft. Most rough drafts were finished in class. The final drafts were done at home; They also have yet to proofread or edit their own work. They have revised their work based on the comments teachers give them. Students have yet to be introduced to a variety of writing genres. Consequently, Renee and Olivia required different responses to their work in these settings. From Renee’s texts, I learned that although she had a good model and routine, planning and teaching the full writing process would need to be carefully mapped and structured for students who had never before walked through the complete process. While Renee worked hard to plan for this new formant, asking her students to act like true mystery authors while prewriting, drafting, editing, revising and presenting their work, texts revealed her classroom did have a precedent set for assessment and a good model for writing conferences, and a variety of genre including Renee’s intended focus, the narrative. Olivia, on the 161 other hand, worked in a much less structured environment. From Olivia’s text, I found that writing received very little instructional time. Students had not worked with various genres, including Olivia’s plan to teach tall tale. Therefore, Olivia and I spent quite a bit of time during planning time in our methods class reviewing the kinds of activities she might have to do in order to introduce a fictional genre such as tall tale to her students as well as the individual steps to the writing process. The texts these two interns produced allowed me to better understand and support their work in individual classrooms. Through the creation of text, development of knowledge, both subject matter knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge seemed to be enhanced. For example, in the chart below I was able to model subject matter knowledge by pointing out the need for both Renee and Olivia to know and understand the steps of the writing process, modeling each for their students. Note that in my comments to Renee I simply remind her to focus on the separate pieces of the writing process, particularly because it seemed her lesson and unit focused so heavily on the prewrite and draft stage. In my comments to Olivia, who had much less support, I increased my scaffolding. At the same time, I was able to help develop their pedagogical content knowledge by encouraging both Renee and Olivia to think about structuring their units in a way that might allow their students to think about purposes for writing as well as the iterative nature of writing and what that might mean for lesson pacing and student learning. Assignments like the literacy field guide, excerpted in this chart, show how interns might perceive 162 interconnections across dual settings such as the university and classroom. Interns were excited to plan writing units focused on the writing process, something we focus heavily on in our methods course, and at the same time were forced to think about how introducing such an instructional format might “fit” into an existing classroom routine. The act of merging activity settings (the methods course and the classroom) and writing and revising unit and lesson plans, writing personal texts (such as personal narratives, to share with students), and purposeful reflection on teaching writing allowed interns to participate in their context while at the same time interacting with course content and ideas that encourage high quality writing instruction. Table 7. Scaffolding Renee and Olivia Assignment Renee Asks: Unit Students will identify and Objectives recognize the key characteristics of the mystery genre by creating and sharing a chart of collected elements with a small group after listening to/reading mysteries. Students will apply the information and terminology they have learned about mysteries using a graphic organizer to create their own mystery story. 163 Olivia Based on structures and elements, students will be able to identify when a story fits the tall tale genre. Students will be able to write a cohesive, logical, tall tale story that exhibits personal style and voice. Table 7 (cont’d) My Scaffolded Response It sounds like you will need to do quite a bit of modeling the individual pieces of the writing process (prewrite, draft, revise, edit, publish)- perhaps separating these out will help your students understand the process you envision them undertaking. Because your students have seen very few genres, think about how you can introduce the idea of genre and purpose for writing or, writing for an audience. Think hard about how much time you have and all you want to complete here. Is your goal to move through the writing process? Or to teach only prewriting through use of the graphic organizer? It sounds like you’ll have to do quite a bit of work teaching the writing process, particularly since students rarely write in your classroom. Think about all steps: prewrite, draft, revise, edit, publish. Do you want to tackle all of them? And, if so, to what level? I think it will be very important to share several examples of tall tales with your students. Might you want/need to pare down your objectives to help make teaching the writing process your big objective rather than tall tale? What do you think? Pedagogical texts, such as the unit and lesson plans referenced above, were not the only ones to guide my instructional scaffolding of intern’s pedagogical development in writing. Texts produced by interns during blogged reflections on course topics and/or teaching experiences also produced insights into intern thoughts and experiences from which I was able to scaffold important questions or conversations. Weekly, students blogged on required course content or, during their teaching time, on their own experiences. After interns wrote these reflections, we began class with roundtable (groups of 4-5 interns) discussions focused on a topic of 164 my choosing, always derived from the blogs of my interns. Below, I list an example of a blog and its resulting roundtable discussion. After teaching his first lesson using Lucy Calkins, Units of Study, Dana blogged: I feel a bit overwhelmed and trapped by the curriculum. My lesson did not go well, even though I followed the script and the suggestions listed in the curriculum. I guess I am beginning to question the reliability of a curriculum if it does not seem to work… In my school, I am required to teach certain lessons on a pretty strict timetable… After today, I am afraid I am not going to make it to that timetable’s goals. I wonder if it is beneficial to be pushing onward when I know my students did NOT get what I was trying to do today… Are other schools also this strict when it comes to curriculum? Why? (Dana, blogged reflection, November, 2010). Dana’s text above notes her frustration with keeping on-pace with a scripted curriculum that she felt obligated to teach. This was a topic on many interns’ minds as they began to understand the dilemma that scripted curriculum poses. Because Dana, and other interns’ texts alerted me to a growing feeling of discontent, I was able to address the issue during our class roundtable with the following discussion question: Some districts and schools have mandated scripted curricula or pacing guides for literacy instruction, including comprehension, fluency, and writing skills. What has been your experience with mandated or scripted literacy curricula? Why might such mandates be necessary or beneficial? Why might they be harmful? (Roundtable discussion, November 18, 2010) Texts that led to the discussions that I reflect on above served to distinguish intern experiences from one another and allowed me to specifically tailor class time for intern growth. 165 Scaffolding practical tools. My scaffolding of individual students’ experiences, such as Dana and Blake, relied heavily on the texts they created, illustrate how texts support developing teacher knowledge- both content area and pedagogical. Notably, I use interns’ own teaching experiences to guide the scaffolding I provide, rather than some predetermined outcome. Interns’ teaching dilemmas are unique to their experience. Below, I share how I was able to use Dana’s texts to help scaffold her adaptation of curriculum in order to implement writing instruction that she felt best met the needs of her students. I show my support for the ideas housed in Dana’s texts that helped her develop increasingly complex and confident thoughts about writing instruction. Next, I share my scaffolding of Blake’s journey as it relates to the conceptual tools he drew upon during his revision of his role as writing teacher. I show how reflective texts, in particular, helped me push him to articulate his own voice as a writing teacher, something he was not originally comfortable doing. Dana began her work as a writing teacher tentatively. Originally planning to teach a comprehension unit and being pushed to, instead, teach writing only fueled her uncertainty. Much of Dana’s apprehension came from what she described as “unfamiliarity” with the writing process and writing workshop models- both of which were instructional methods used in her third grade classroom. Dana’s own experience with the “hamburger model” of paragraphs and a teacher-directed revision (teachers made corrections in red pen and I made them on my final draft), were far from what both her curriculum and her own ideas about what writing 166 instruction could look like. Through the creation of texts first describing the curricular tools available to her, subsequent translation of those tools into ideas for teaching, and reflection on the outcomes, Dana’s ideas about writing instruction not only grew, but she also grew increasingly confident and became a proponent for a curriculum that she, at the beginning, knew very little about. In Engstrom’s vision of activity theory, tools mediate interactions between individuals and their goals in a particular setting, such as a classroom. One type of tool is the practical version. In Chapter Two, I clearly define the elements of practical tools and their common uses in teaching. It is important to note that the practical tools Dana relied on in her teaching experience were the writing curriculum mandated by her school (Lucy Calkins, Units of Study), and the unit and lesson plans she personally derived from that curriculum. Dana’s creation of text based on the practical tools she used (e.g., Units of Study or children’s literature) in her teaching experience allowed me to scaffold her thinking about writing instruction and to push her to think more carefully about the use of such tools. In the table below, I list four excerpts of text Dana wrote regarding her use of practical tools as she taught her narrative writing unit. In the second column, I name the practical tool that Dana interacted with as she taught and wrote about her teaching. In the third column, I list my commentary on her ideas. These comments were taken from my notes and comments on Dana’s written work. In the final column, I list the ideas that contributed to the pedagogical scaffolding I built for Dana as she worked through the teaching dilemmas presented by her text. In the 167 first two excerpts, Dana reflects on struggles she encountered during her writing unit. Through commenting on her text, my aim was to bring about learning beyond the singular experience that Dana reflected upon and toward the development of pedagogical ideas that could transcend her work as a writing teacher. The last column represents the research-based ideas I specifically scaffolded. These practices, such as making instructional adaptations or writing for real purposes and audiences, were ones that I hoped would make their way into Dana’s writing pedagogy. My response to Dana (and each intern) was based on their individual experiences, and I worked to scaffold their thinking I based on the research-based practice listed in the final column of the table below. Table 8. Scaffolding Practical Tool Use Dana wrote Practical Tool I found it was Scripted almost harder to curriculum work from the [curriculum] book, knowing I had to modify the lesson in a way appropriate for where my students were at, than coming up with my own writing objectives and lessons (Inquiry 3, reflection) I wrote I scaffolded Dana, it is important that you are thinking about the modifications that are necessary to meet the needs of your third graders. How can the curriculum serve as a guide for you, rather than a verbatim plan? - When and how to make instructional modifications (Graham et al., 2003; Olinghouse, 2008) 168 Table 8 (cont’d) As each lesson has different parts to it, I had to decide which parts should have the most focus and which ones would just be introduced. This required a very forward view, looking through the whole year's Writing Workshop, not just the unit, to try and understand Lucy's focus (Inquiry 3, reflection) Read excerpt of Eleven by Sandra Cisneros – move through text. Demonstrate shifting from reading and experiencing to reading and taking away pointers about good writing. (Inquiry 2, lesson plan) Lesson Plan Document An important part of teaching writing is seeing the big picture… Scripted if we just taught Curriculum to the unit, wouldn’t that be like teaching to the test? How might you help your students understand the same forward thinking you claim you need to have… Perhaps this is thinking for life as a writer instead of thinking for Writers Workshop. Children’s It sounds like you Literature are modeling an important skill here, noting the moves of good writers. However, think about the text you have chosen to read. Could you do this with a story that your students are familiar with? Make sure you have planned those “pointers about good writing” you want to highlight. 169 - Writing instruction for real world purposes (Calkins, 1986; Graves, 1994; Lensmire, 1993; Stahl, Pagnucco, & Suttles, 1996) - Modeling for instruction: thinking aloud (Pressley, Rankin, & Yokoi, 1996) Table 8 (cont’d) Have students think about some of the details Cisneros gives – take some examples in large group. (Inquiry 2, lesson plan) Children’s literature Lesson Activity How will your students understand what it is you want from them here? Will you show them what you want? Will you think aloud? Create a visual- a public model or anchor chart for students to use as an example for their own thought processes. -Modeling for instruction: thinking aloud.(Pressley et al., 1996) -Creation of public model for student understanding In the last column of the table above, I note the instructional scaffolds I intended to provide Dana as she worked through her unit teaching writing. It is important to note that the text she provided allowed me to scaffold her instructional decisionmaking. For example, when Dana reflected on her instruction by writing, “I had to decide which parts should have the most focus and which ones would just be introduced. This required a very forward view… to try and understand Lucy's focus,” I was able to respond to her concerns and aimed to push her thinking beyond the singular issue in this lesson toward bigger ideas about teaching writing. Through my comments, I hoped to reiterate the idea that writing instruction is often most successful when students act as authors, writing for real world purposes. My goal was to help Dana see the practical tools available to her (e.g. curriculum 170 and lesson plans) as useful in her own pedagogical practices, as well as helpful for her students’ learning. Every intern in my methods course taught in a different classroom supplied with different practical tools. Therefore, every intern required support based on his or her individual experience. Intern-created text based on practical tools, such as curriculum and lesson plans, allowed me to provide that scaffolded support while showing interns the value of the practical tools, themselves. In Dana’s experience, I found myself scaffolding three main ideas: instructional adaptation and modification based on the needs of students (Graham et al., 2003; Tomlinson, 2000), literacy instruction for real world purposes (Lensmire, 1993; Stahl et al., 1996), and thinking aloud as a way to model successful writing processes (Pressley et al., 1996). Dana’s experiences using text to better understand and instruct her third grade writers helped solidify the idea that the creation of context-specific texts (e.g. lesson plans, curriculum reviews, reflection, revision) can and do allow for pedagogical growth and development. They also alerted me, as the teacher educator, to authentic questions and problems presented by practical tool use. I was able to then use intern-created text, such as those listed in the above, to push intern pedagogical development in classroom-based authentic and meaningful ways. Scaffolding conceptual tools. In order to scaffold conceptual tools, defined by Engstrom’s (1999) model of activity theory as those practices and ideas that mediate interaction between individuals and goals, it was important that I as the teacher educator encourage interns to articulate the concepts and ideas that 171 they believed drove their instructional decision making. I did this in two ways. First, I required interns to extensively investigate their context as it related to writing instruction. I did this through an assigned inquiry (Inquiry 1) and conversation. The purpose for these extensive investigations was to allow interns to make some conclusions about the school-wide and classroom-wide materials and goals that might drive expectations for writing instruction. Second, I required interns to reflect on their instruction on a weekly basis. During these reflections, students were asked to simply reflect on their teaching or any other issues that seemed valuable or important at the time. Additionally, blogs were written and shared in small groups, whose members served to challenge and support interncolleague thinking and teaching. These blogs allowed me to better understand, through text, the ideas that interns were considering during and throughout their teaching experience. Below is an example of a blog response written by Blake and responded to by a fellow intern-colleague. In it we see the differences that can exist in writing instruction. Textual responses such as these permitted interns to think about writing instruction in a broader sense. Original Post: We have been using mentor texts to show writing strategies. The students get to see good writing modeled for them in these texts. My CT and I also share our own writing to help model strategies. We also conference with students while they are working in writer’s workshop so we can see where they are in their writing and help them with strategies if they are struggling. In these ways, we really work to allow our students to take charge of their own writing. Response: Blake, I’m so jealous. It sounds like your classroom has more room for creativity with writing, and in mine. The literacy instructor must follow a strict program, so she cannot conference with students. I think it’s really great that you and your CT can do that. I 172 also think it’s interesting that you share your own writing; the literacy teacher at my school uses other samples provided to her instead. I think it would be cool to show students our own work and make it more personal. I’d be interested in learning more about what types of writing you share and how you and your CT do it. Blogged conversations, like the one above, allowed me to scaffold conversation between interns about authentic instructional ideas and dilemmas. In the example above, I noticed that Blake seemed to be drawing on resources beyond the curriculum, while working together with his CT. I also noticed that in Blake’s classroom, it seemed that writing was an individual and personal endeavor and that Blake and his CT allowed some level of creativity and independence in their writers. Further, I noticed the student that responded to Blake picked up on the creativity and independence, explaining that using student work would make lessons “more personal.” These ideas: the personal nature of writing, creativity and independence are all conceptual ideas that the interns were sharing. Blogged text allowed interns to share meaningful text beyond their lesson plans; it allowed them to share their ideas, opinions, and views on writing instruction. Because I required my interns to reflect on their teaching, interns, like Blake, came to realize the value of developing ideas about writing instruction beyond the mandated curriculum. His own narrative, depicting a personal teaching dilemma, is an example of that. Entitled, Adjusting Curriculum to Effectively Teach Students, Blake articulated the value of flexibility and attention to student needs had in his own development as a writing teacher. In it he explains, “I am enjoying teaching writing…but I am going to continue to add and revise aspects of (Lucy 173 Calkins’) lessons… To me, that is the most important thing about teaching; doing your best to give your students what they need to succeed, even if you have to deviate from the required curriculum” (Blake, narrative, December, 2010). Here, Blake described his ideas about what the writing and revising of curriculum revealed to him. The creation of texts like mini lessons and the reflections and revisions on those lessons allowed Blake an opportunity to express his vision for writing instruction. He was able to share ideas about what writing instruction could or should be all while envisioning himself and his experiences as contributing the embodiment of a successful writing teacher. In articulating the importance of prospective teachers’ vision of practice, Hammerness suggests that “understanding teachers’ vision may offer a good way to appreciate the decisions that beginning teachers make and the experiences they have in the classroom” (Hammerness, 2002, p. 1). The production of text allowed interns to begin to articulate their own vision of writing instruction and provided me a way to do what Hammerness suggests, to better understand the experiences of my interns. Below, I present three portions of text, written by Blake, that serve as samples of his conceptual development regarding writing instruction. I used these texts to scaffold his pedagogical development by pushing him to articulate his ideas rather than simply report his experiences. In the first column I list Blake’s words, in the second column I list the conceptual tool he referred to in his written text. The third column lists my notes to Blake taken from my comments on his written assignments. In the final column I list the instructional idea I was trying to 174 scaffold as I commented on Blake’s ideas. For example in the last excerpt in the table, Blake refers to “making the lessons his own” and instructional “adjustments.” I saw this text as a place to encourage Blake to think about his instruction in terms of its authenticity and its potential for student engagement. I argued that instructional adaptations can be made to “scripted curriculum, to allow for those ideas. 175 Table 9. Scaffolding Conceptual Tool Use Blake Wrote Often times students get stuck in their writing or feel as though they are finished when they could really add a great deal to their story to improve it. I am aiming to give them strategies to help them develop their stories more fully. (Inquiry 2, unit plan) I am still just starting out teaching writing, but I feel like I am good at modeling writing techniques. I try hard to show the students that I enjoy writing too to help get them enthusiastic about it. I think carefully about giving rationale for the methods we teach. We try to show them examples of professional authors using the methods so they can see how powerful the methods are Conceptual Tool Writing process and tools for developing writing. Students learn through modeling and practice (Blogged reflection) 176 I said I scaffolded I like that you are talking about strategy development and its ability to help your students. The best teachers I know offer their students a menu of strategies to refer to when they get “stuck.” Modeling is such a valuable way to connect with our students. It shows them what you think about while you write. Strategy-based instruction (Graham et al., 2003; Harris, Graham, Mason, & Saddler, 2002; Troia & Graham, 2002) Modeling for instruction: thinking aloud.(Pressley et al., 1996) Table 9 (cont’d) My CT and I sat down and had a discussion about “making the lessons our own.” He told me that while we have to stick to the “script,” we could still make adjustments that allow it to address issues we see with our students. Once we had this discussion, I began to think differently about my unit. I began adding in things to help liven it up and get the students more engaged. (Inquiry 3, teacher narrative) Instructional adaptation to meet students’ needs and interests. Writing for authentic audiences and purposes Authentic instruction is closely related to student interest and engagement. If you are excited about a writing project, like your rafting trip, your students will likely be interested and excited too. They will want to hear your story. Making instructional adjustments like these to a scripted curriculum are a way to get your students engaged. 177 Authentic instruction/ engagement (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Duke, PurcellGates, Hall, & Tower, 2006/2007; Jacobs, 2004; Pritchard & Honeycutt, 2007) Because I attended to Blake’s ideas about writing instruction (e.g.: strategy based instruction, authentic instruction, modeling and thinking aloud), we were able to have conversations about the practice of writing instruction beyond the four walls of his classroom, a classroom that was beyond my direct instructional reach. For example, Blake reflected above about student engagement during writing instruction and his desire to “liven up” his lessons in order to increase student interest and excitement. Because Blake reflected in this way, I was able to scaffold the idea that authentic instruction often breeds greater student engagement. When teacher and students are engaged in reading and writing about ideas that are interesting, or matter to students and other real world audiences (Duke et al., 2006/2007), authentic instruction occurs. Beyond actual instructional experiences like those listed above, the relationships interns built during and through instruction also affected pedagogical development. Relationships between intern and cooperating teacher proved to be a powerful conceptual tool. Relationships as conceptual tools. An “important relationship” grew as Blake worked to teach alongside his cooperating teacher, a relationship that Blake says helped him become a writing teacher. Blake’s consistently positive comments about his CT’s willingness to discuss and model ways to make the writing curriculum “work for our students” made Blake more excited to teach writing at the end of the semester than he was at its beginning. When I asked Blake about the reason for this change, he talked about both his own and his CT’s vision for teaching their students and not just the curriculum. “I learned a lot from Mike (Cooperating 178 Teacher), I learned that you have to keep on thinking about the students in your classroom AND the curriculum and standards you are responsible for teaching” (Blake, interview, January, 2011). Rather than dismiss their fifth graders in favor of attention to the mandated curriculum in their classroom, Blake said that he and his CT continued to talk about their students as well as whether their writing instruction was or was not working. To support Blake’s own development of writing pedagogy, Blake said that his CT modeled his personal vision for teaching writing by talking through lesson plans with Blake, discussing assessment of student writing, and talking about the changes they could make to the curriculum in order to make it more accessible to their students. All of these experiences helped Blake adopt a vision of writing instruction that, he said, is focused on his students. The relationship and subsequent vision for teaching shared between Blake and his cooperating teacher are an example of those conceptual tools that can have an impact on pedagogical development. While I, as a teacher educator was based at the university and had no control over the important conceptual development that Blake witnessed during his internship, I was able to use his report of that relationship and his growing conceptions of writing instruction to drive our conversations and blog prompts during class time. Most importantly, by allowing Blake to articulate the conceptual ideas driving the writing instruction in his classroom, I believe I allowed him to articulate his own developing pedagogy on writing teaching and learning. 179 Making Instructional Moves Based on Text David Russell (1995) noted that the act of writing, while solitary, has the potential to produce action and influence others. I found this to be true as I worked alongside interns authoring text to adapt and shape their work as teachers of writing. As interns developed pedagogy for writing, I came to understand how text, written to guide instructional work in classrooms and to fulfill requirements for coursework, had the power to influence instructional decision-making. Interns used their reflections on teaching and revised lesson plans to start conversations with colleagues, to problem-solve, and to evolve as writing teachers. An important premise of activity theory is studying growth and development of an individual within a larger activity system—interacting simultaneously among settings such as elementary classrooms and university courses. In this chapter, I presented how intern teachers Dana and Blake used writing in both in the university course and in their classrooms to navigate pedagogy for writing. I showed how writing, such as lesson plans, lesson reflections, and teacher narratives, encouraged interns to translate course ideas to real classroom teaching. Activity theory helped me study and conclude that the act of writing and intern-authored text does influence how interns translate ideas about writing instruction within and between elementary and university settings. As a teacher educator, I found it valuable to consider the ways written texts and the act of writing influenced pedagogical development—and how text could help interns navigate an often confusing internship experience. The texts we ask interns 180 to write, whether instructional or reflective in nature, can serve as a navigational beacon and platform for further scaffolding dependent on individual experience- and for higher order pedagogical development. While as a teacher educator I was not present in every classroom for every writing lesson, intern-created text gave me a window through which to peer into important pedagogical thinking. In the following chapter, I move from the texts interns created during my course and move toward the influence of context on intern development. I articulate the significance of context’s proximal and distal resources in the development of writing pedagogy. 181 Chapter 5 Navigating Context: Resources and Mentors Contribute to Pedagogical Development My ideas usually come not at my desk, writing, but in the midst of living. –Anais Nin In the previous chapter I presented evidence pertaining to two themes that arose regarding the significance of text as interns navigated pedagogical development in writing. Specifically, that the production of text facilitated both instructional adaptation and the emergence of interns as “writing teachers.” In this chapter, I focus on the experiences and resources interns encountered as they navigated pedagogical development in writing. I have found, assisting intern teachers as they develop and enact writing pedagogy in various classroom and school contexts is, as writer Anais Nin alludes to above, most meaningful in the midst of teaching. And, in the midst of teaching, attention to the internship context has been proven invaluable. Over the course of my five years working with beginning writing teachers, I noticed intelligent and enthusiastic interns whose pedagogical roadmap lacked an accurate vision of the big picture- consideration of context and its features that might influence successful instruction. All too often, interns seemed to neglect the important aspects of a particular classroom’s landscape, features such as instructional tools, classroom routines, or potential mentors. I have also found that, through purposeful 182 coursework, interns can learn that teaching writing with careful attention to classroom context is very important in navigating alternative instructional routes when “real life” does not match first-laid lesson plans. Attention to contextual factors was invaluable as interns developed pedagogy for writing. Contextual factors can be defined as the features of those spaces where texts are produced, consumed, and utilized that affect teaching and learning (Kamberelis & de la Luna, 2006; p. 230). Kamberelis and de la Luna (2006) note that context “exerts effects on writing” in two ways through proximal and distal influences. Proximal influences include those that are readily available to a writer or teacher of writing and may be perceived as a resource (e.g., a positive lived experience, a helpful written text) or a constraint (e.g., inappropriate curriculum). Proximal influences for interns included writing curriculum, unit and daily lesson plans, and course texts. Distal influences were more abstract and “socialized” in that they led teachers of writing (and writers) toward particular acts, activities, and ideas. Distal influences perceived as resources included a helpful mentor or peer relationships, while constraints existed in seemingly dysfunctional mentor-intern relationships or feelings of inadequacy to teach writing on the part of the intern. Distal influences in this study included mainly relationships- those between an intern teacher and his/her cooperating teacher or peers as well as an intern’s relationship with course expectations and myself, as the course instructor. It is important to note that patterns in my data revealed both the more readily visible and relatively stagnant proximal influences such as instructional or 183 curricular resources and routines as well as more interpretative and malleable distal influences such as influential instructional relationships. And, as the semester progressed, it became increasingly clear that contextual factors played a major role in the internship and in interns’ development of writing pedagogy. Specifically, proximal and distal resources present in individual contexts influenced interns as they made instructional decisions regarding writing instruction. As interns moved through the semester, their ability to foster relationships with mentor teachers was directly affected by the classroom and school context within which they taught. Such relationships proved important to the development of writing pedagogy. Below, I emphasize the significance of context, and particularly proximal and distal contextual resources present to interns as they navigate unique internship experiences planning and teaching writing. Two themes regarding context emerged during my data analysis: 1) Attention to context, and its proximal resources, can support the discovery and use of instructional tools and, 2) Attention to context, and its distal resources, can support the discovery and use of intern/mentor relationships. Investigation into the data that supports both themes are presented in depth, below. In the final section of this chapter, What Context Reveals to Teacher Educators, I detail how I used my university-based methods course to allow interns to share their individual contextual experiences in order to scaffold the development of writing pedagogy. 184 I discuss in detail both proximal and distal influences and how they seemed to affect an intern’s pedagogical development within a particular classroom context. I highlight the two themes that emerged during my analysis 1) Attention to context, and its proximal resources, can support the discovery and use of instructional tools and, 2) Attention to context, and its distal resources, can support the discovery and use of intern/mentor relationships. I argue that the identification and adaptation of contextual resources influence pedagogical development and that the existence of an instructional mentor is a powerful contextual resource. The Significance of Context The student teaching experience is culturally mediated: cultural influences help to form the context within which interns begin their teaching experience. Expectations for writing instruction for interns are filtered through experiences within the classroom context- the interactions interns have with curriculum, students, cooperating teachers, and expectations. Learning to write and to teach writing is particularly culturally mediated due to the various influences placed upon writers and their given products (Dyson, 2003a, 2003b). Two distinct findings arose regarding contextual influences and their ability to impact interns’ interpretation of ideas and practices in writing instruction: 1) The availability of proximal resources to assist planning and instruction and 2) an intern’s relationship with an instructional mentor, a distal resource. All four interns in this study engaged with both the proximal and distal resources available to them within their individual classroom context. For example, recall that Dana and Blake felt 185 “trapped” by the writing curriculum that each was “assigned” to teach, so influenced that Dana noted a “lack of confidence” due to the expectations of a curriculum that was not her own, while Blake reiterated a desire for more flexibility. And, while Dana admitted that she, at times, disagreed with her cooperating teacher’s teaching decisions saying, “I will do things a bit differently some day,” Blake claimed his CT was a strong positive influence in his development of writing pedagogy. On the other hand, Renee and Olivia, both of whom taught writing in a classroom devoid of writing curriculum, referred to similar contextual stressors due to their context and particularly the distal resources available, or unavailable, to each of them: Renee felt “immensely supported” by her cooperating teacher, Olivia felt “neglected.” Both regarded the support of a cooperating teacher to be invaluable. Put simply, no two internship contexts are alike. Course assignments and in-class activities were designed to help interns not only identify contextual resources and constraints existent in each classroom situation, but also to inform me, as the teacher educator, of the circumstances in which each intern would be teaching. While one goal of the methods course was certainly to expose and increase intern knowledge and awareness of instructional strategies for writing in elementary classrooms, an equally important goal was to assist interns in their application of instructional strategies learned in class into existing “real world” classrooms. Because, as Putnam and Borko (2000) found in their study of the situative nature of “knowledge, thinking and learning,” the influence of “school-based experiences on prospective teachers’ ideas and practices” 186 is so strong, I found it important to highlight those experiences during our course time and in encouraging interns to specifically identify and reflect on those aspects of their classroom context that affect pedagogical development in writing. The remainder of this chapter focuses on my research questions regarding interns’ development of writing pedagogy with special attention to the significance of contextual resources and constraints (RQ1) and my role in developing that awareness (RQ2). To do so, I draw on Kamberelis and de La Luna’s (2004) framework for writing with attention to the proximal and distal influences on interns’ discovery and use of context during their pedagogical development of writing instruction. Importantly, Engstrom’s (1999) ideas regarding multiple activity settings (e.g. methods course and classroom environment) took center stage in my analysis as interns worked to balance their growing subject matter knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge with the reality in their classrooms. While it is important to note that all four study participants experienced what I characterized as pedagogical development as a result of attention to contextual resources, I highlight my findings with two specific stories that I felt were representative of all four interns’ experiences. First, I tell Renee’s story to illustrate how interaction with proximal resources such as graphic organizers and children’s literature present in her classroom context assisted pedagogical development in writing instruction. Amidst proximal resources that, while “plentiful,” were neither directive nor scripted, Renee’s experience illustrated how clearly proximal resources influence and support intern work. Following Renee’s story, I tell Olivia’s story 187 about how poignantly distal resources, such as a relationship with a mentor, can affect an intern’s experience both developing a pedagogy for writing and successfully implementing that pedagogy. Specifically, Olivia’s drive to seek and utilize mentor support, and those mentors’ subsequent shaping of her teaching experience, illustrate how important interaction is to interns while they develop pedagogy for writing. Renee’s Experience with Proximal Resources: Tools to Support Teaching I found wonderful resources that were far more exciting and engaging than reading from a scripted curriculum, and I’m grateful that I had the opportunity to create a unit that was entirely new… it [the experience] both challenged and encouraged me to think outside the box” (Renee, interview, January, 2011). Renee’s internship took place in a fifth grade classroom where she worked alongside a cooperating teacher whom she described as “passionate about writing.” Her classroom had no set curriculum for writing instruction but she described it as “full of material resources” such as books, paper, art supplies, and technology (e.g. SmartBoard ). While Renee admittedly struggled with the sheer volume of ideas ® and “freedom” present in her teaching context, she said she “really enjoyed teaching writing.” Renee also made a point to note her curricular freedom in writing instruction, she did not see it as a detriment, rather she saw it as an opportunity, she says, to “teach a writing unit that was exciting and interesting to my students” (Renee, interview, January, 2011). And, as Renee explained above, her creation of an “entirely new unit,” one separate from a boxed or mandated curriculum, posed challenges. The challenges were mainly, she says, in locating and adapting 188 resources such as curriculum, graphic organizers and checklists to her larger unit goals and the needs of her students. Renee described her navigation of writing instruction as sometimes confusing, but exciting and often referred to the experience, specifically the creation of a unit and daily lesson plans, as important for meeting the needs of the fifth graders that sat in her classroom. Renee sought a variety of curricular resources including lesson plans, supplementary texts, videos, and websites, all of which can be classified as proximal, in order to plan and subsequently teach her writing unit: a two-week unit on mystery stories. She noted that several of these resources were available to her within her school and classroom. For example, in response to a course assignment requiring an overview of her literacy curriculum (See Inquiry One, Appendix C), Renee described several resources as helpful in her planning: Literary Place is our basal reader, but it is only used as a supplement. We use excerpts from the basal in mini lessons. Writer’s workshop [in our classroom] consists of prewriting, drafting, and peer editing. We have a copy of “Vicki Spandel’s, Grade 5: Write Traits.” This includes mini lessons on the six traits of writing, teacher rubrics, and student self assessment rubrics. My CT does very informal writing conferences with the students when they are done with their drafts. There is no guided writing process set up in the classroom” (Renee, Inquiry One, September, 2010). She sought other resources through Internet searches, like books, “I read aloud The Westing Game (1979, Raskin),” or ideas for a culminating project, “Our unit ends with a Super Sleuth-A-Thon, where students share their mystery stories with one another.” Identifying proximal resources was not problematic for Renee. More 189 problematic she says was determining whether, and how, to use the resources she did locate. While Renee did not have a set curriculum, she said learning goals, based on state standards in writing, and her students drove her desire to “pick and choose” resources that would allow her build a mystery writing unit that was curricularly sound and met the needs of her students. “Context,” she says, “and my investigation of it really influenced how I thought about and planned for writing instruction. I had to pull from a number of resources and figure out what fit best in my unit.” During our interview, I asked Renee what most influenced her development as a writing teacher. She said: Lack of curriculum and being in a new environment where I had to use all resources available to come up with a plan affected me and what I taught. I didn’t have a lot of direction in the form of “traditional” resources like a basal or a unit to follow. So, I used other things like ideas from the internet and just brainstorming. I feel that the resources from your course also encouraged me implement a new structure within my classroom- the writing process (Renee, interview, January, 2011). Above, Renee reiterates that her investigation and subsequent work with proximal resources, both those she found and utilized within her fifth grade classroom context and those she sought and found externally, influenced her planning and instruction. In order to scaffold interns’ identification and utilization of proximal resources, our first course assignment asked interns to investigate and report both on the classroom context and curriculum available for their identified unit. Renee agreed that this investigation helped her to focus on what and how she might best 190 instruct the fifth graders in her classroom. When I asked Renee to what extent her investigation helped her planning, she responded: I was careful to investigate and record what was available to me. I learned that where I was, I really had to get creative. I learned quickly that I could not rely on one set of materials to tell me how to teach this unit. I realized I would have to pull from a number of resources and figure out what fit best in planning my unit in order for my students to reach the learning goals I had set for the unit. And, I thought about my students, what was available to us, and what would work for them and within our situation (Renee, interview, January, 2011). Renee’s investigation of resources, as she stated above, was as much about locating functional and practical materials to assist her work planning and teaching writing as it was about learning how to adapt multiple sources for her classroom of fifth grade students. As she moved through the process of identifying, adapting, and utilizing proximal resources, Renee grew pedagogically. She revealed that two events, in particular, influenced her work “wading through resources.” First, Renee learned that it was important to identify all of those resources available to her, and then to specifically research what she felt was missing or wanted to add to her unit. She noted that the “obvious resources were not always the best [resources]” (Renee, interview, January, 2011). She, for example, rejected the “old basal and teacher’s manual” because it “did not cover genre or focus at all on writing a mystery.” As Renee learned to search for and locate materials from sources beyond her classroom’s supplemental basal reader, she experienced an increase in instructional ideas and confidence. Secondly, Renee’s work with proximal resources led her to the realization that few resources fit easily into her unique classroom situation. She 191 found it necessary to adapt resources and routines to match her goals for instruction. Below, I detail Renee’s experience identifying and adapting resources. Identification of resources. Renee spoke of three major sources for locating the proximal resources she utilized during her unit: Classroom/schoolbased materials, coursework, and Internet searches. “I didn’t have a lot of direction in the form of “traditional resources.” In my classroom I had an older scripted basal unit that I used for a few mini-lessons, some mentor texts including picture books and one short story, and one worksheet on plot development” (Renee, interview, January, 2011). Renee spent quite a bit of time describing her work seeking out materials to support her ideas for the mystery unit she envisioned teaching. “I really had to get creative,” she says. Many interns, like Renee, sought materials and learning resources/aides to assist their teaching and student learning. The time and energy Renee spent locating resources to support her instruction, though worrisome, seemed to be pedagogically beneficial. Renee reiterated her nervousness at not having more concrete resources to support her work. “In the beginning,” she says, “I was really hoping for something more spelled out. I was nervous! I didn’t always feel like I had resources to fall back on, I spent a LOT of time on the Internet” (Renee, interview, January, 2011). Renee relied heavily on her own search for resources to direct her planning and teaching. She struggled to find a definition of “mystery” as a genre. Additionally, she struggled to compile a descriptive list of the features of the genre. And, she described searching and choosing materials as “very important” to the success of her unit, saying these 192 searches resulted in brainstorms and conversations with her colleagues (Renee, blog reflection, November, 2011). Renee’s search not only resulted in proximal resources to support her writing unit, but also promoted an increase in instructional ideas and interactions. In addition to her search for materials usable for unit planning, Renee also reiterated the value of proximal, material resources from coursework that promoted her growth as a writing teacher and her students’ resourcefulness as writers. “Our coursework encouraged me to implement a new framework for implementing writing instruction in my classroom” (Renee, interview, January, 2011). My ideas about writing have grown- thinking and reflecting on my teaching and professional articles have made me think about writing differently, reflects Renee. She says she spent considerable time “re-reading and reviewing” the course texts. During our interview together (January, 2011), she even brought one quote with her that, she says, helped drive her ideas about writing instruction and unit planning. “I wrote this down because I wanted to have it for you, “The more they [students] use writing as a tool to explore the complexities in texts, the more their own writing begins to reflect the complexity of ideas, sentence structure and word choices (Raphael, 62).” When I asked Renee why the quote was so important to her, she said, “I wanted to have my students reading and writing things that were interesting and complex, not something they could do without thinking… I wanted to make them [students] independent thinkers and writers,” she said (Renee, interview, January, 2011). The idea that Renee worked to build a unit that honored 193 the complexities of writing instruction matched to the needs of her students was also reflected in her teacher narrative where she described her work by saying, As I develop a classroom community of my own, I need to make the resources and strategies available known to my students in order for us to make our time for learning as productive and valuable as possible. I strategically planned for my unit to not only teach the content [mystery genre], but also to push our students to use their many resources and to teach them new strategies that would encourage them to take more ownership in their learning (Renee, teacher narrative, December, 2010). Renee’s focus on student learning, as evidenced by her teacher narrative, was supported by her desire and ability to identify and provide proximal resources for teaching and learning that could effectively support her overall unit goals for student development in writing. Renee’s search for resources was multi-faceted. She engaged her cooperating teacher for resources, she sought resources on her own via the internet, and she relied on course texts and professional literature to supplement her ideas. Renee was essentially writing units from “scratch,” which was different from Dana and Blake’s experiences (i.e., Chapter 4). While Dana and Blake needed to adapt and revise, Renee was required to construct. The search for “ideas” and “materials” is often extensive and, in some cases, exhausting. When I asked Renee why she felt compelled to search out proximal resources she claimed that seeing and reading others’ ideas (e.g. published literature, lesson plans from other teachers) both helped her brainstorm her own ideas as well as gave her confidence that what she was planning was adequate. She was quick to note, however, that she did not just “copy and paste” the ideas she found into her own plans. “I took a lot of time to re- 194 work the ideas I found to match them with what we were learning and to think about my students and my unit” (Renee, interview, January, 2011). Renee’s determination to design and implement her mystery writing unit did not end with the location of resources; the adaptations she made to those resources she identified as useful were “very important,” (Renee, inquiry three, December, 2010). Adaptation of resources. While the adaptation of instructional methods and materials is not something new to the work of teachers (Graham et al., 2003; Stahl et al., 1996), beginning teachers often struggle with understanding how and when to make appropriate curricular modifications based on the students and curriculum present in their classrooms (Feiman-Nemser, 2001a; Pardo, 2006). Different from Dana and Blake’s experience adapting resources (i.e., Chapter 4) in that Renee had no “set plan” or curriculum dictating what her instructional goals should be, Renee’s experiences were an exercise in picking, choosing, and creating instructional resources served her own instructional purposes. Renee’s experience identifying and reflecting on instructional methods and materials was supported by coursework such as the investigation of classroom materials (e.g., Inquiry One, see Appendix C) and exposure to a variety of methods for writing instruction through course video, literature, and conversation. Proximal resources that Renee identified as helpful for her own pedagogical development were, “lesson plans from other teachers, conversations with other interns and my cooperating teacher, and videos we saw in class” (Renee, interview, January, 2011). Below, I show how Renee 195 adapted both instructional methods as well as materials in order to meet her needs, as well as the needs of the writers. Adapting instructional methods. Renee spent significant time and energy reflecting on proximal resources to “improve and support” her writing instruction. It is important to note that these resources included the instructional routines Renee identified and recorded. Upon reflection, she noticed that the current instructional routine in place for writing (rather than the mandated curriculum, as in Dana and Blake’s experience) did not match the unit learning goals she had set for her students: writing independently and thoughtfully. In her teacher narrative, Renee described her thought process for recognizing and adapting the instructional routine for writing in her fifth grade classroom. The methods we were using became very frustrating for the students, me, and for my CT. [Students] would bring in their drafts, put them on our desk and then wait for us to make corrections. Some students would turn in up to four drafts before their final, and this was extremely time consuming and frustrating because I knew that many of the students who were taking advantage of this were not editing themselves at all. Also, this hindered the students from reaching their full potential because we did not have time to edit for content as much as conventions. If the work was coherent, we would simply check for grammar and conventions. The adaptation of Renee’s classroom routine in writing began with her realization that the routine in place was not one that would allow her students to reach the goals she set for them. Supported by proximal resources she identified both on her own and influenced by her cooperating teacher and coursework, Renee adapted the routine for writing instruction in her classroom. She reflected on her thought process for making such adaptations saying: 196 As a result of my observation, I decided to use explicit instruction, modeling, and scaffolding in mini lessons to teach that writing is developing a piece of work they can always improve starting with moving through the writing process. By bringing in the writing process, I hope to have created a classroom environment to promote a classroom of independent writers (Renee, teacher narrative, December, 2010). Renee’s scaffolding of her students’ writing process illustrates how her recall and adaptation of those instructional techniques (e.g. modeling strategies) she was exposed to during our methods course helped her to meet both the needs of her unit and her writers. For example, in describing her work with students writing she wrote: As I was conferencing with students and then reading though their work, I realized how much they struggled with applying their prewriting strategies in their drafts. One of the prewriting strategies was to crate a character map for three characters, students had to apply the elements of a mystery to this strategies and us create characters using descriptions. We talked about what traits a character in a mystery should have, and created a character map in class, this gave them ideas about what kinds of traits they should be including. I believe that, from reviewing the product of this exercise, doing this as a class really effected the end results for each individual student. I firmly believe this would not have come without explicit modeling and scaffolding (Renee, Inquiry 3, December 2010). As illustrated above, the routine for writing changed in Renee’s classroom. She adapted it to meet the needs of her students. Through using think alouds, modeled use of graphic organizers, and checklists for her writers, she scaffolded her students toward the writing goals she set for them. Renee’s adapted routine placed emphasis on modeling and scaffolding of the writing process, two ideas highlighted in our coursework together. 197 Renee’s teacher narrative described her unit plan as “relying heavily on modeling, in order to scaffold the writing of her students” (Renee, teacher narrative, December, 2010). Because Renee hoped to create a classroom of writers who utilized the writing process by walking through the steps of prewriting, drafting and revising, she decided to implement a peer-led writing conference in her unit, rather than the teacher led conferences she had witnessed prior to her unit. To begin, she explicitly described what she hoped the students would gain from peer conferencing, “I wanted my students to not rely only on me, but to understand and use one another [as resources]” (Renee, interview, January, 2011). She and another intern also modeled a peer conference that she described as “very different from the teacher led conferences,” that had taken place in her fifth grade classroom. Lastly, she provided students with materials aimed to scaffold the process. She said these things: specific instructions, modeling, and the editor’s checklist, made her students more successful in conferences. Renee described her thought process regarding peer editing in her teacher narrative. She said: The students were first given a peer-editing rubric which they would use to check off required elements and make comments and suggestions. They were told this rubric must be filled out before they could move on in the writing process. I explained the rubric and how it was to be used. I also let my students know that the expectations I have for them in the classroom do not change in a peer conference. They were to read their draft to their partner or group, and then the responders were to first provide a compliment and then make meaningful suggestions for revisions. They were to listen for the elements and check them off as they heard them read, and make note of elements that were missing or could be further developed (Renee, narrative, December, 2010) 198 When I asked her why she made the modifications that she did, specifically altering the instructional routine that was already occurring in her classroom (the teacher led writing conference), she reiterated the goals of her unit as well as her desire to try something she had learned and believed would benefit fifth grade writers. Adapting instructional materials. Renee also made adaptations to resources throughout the course of her unit. As an example of one such adaptation, Renee described the PowerPoint presentation and small group activity she adapted in order to help her students interact with both the elements of a mystery as well as an actual mystery storybook. She made a point to say that her adaptations were, she believed, “important for student understanding and engagement.” During the first lesson of her unit on the mystery genre, Renee’s objective was to have students: “identify and recognize the key characteristics of the mystery genre by creating and sharing a chart of collected elements with a small group after listening to/reading mysteries” (Renee, Inquiry Two, November, 2010). Working from a resource provided by her CT (a handout listing mystery elements, See Appendix F), Renee created the following graphic organizer and student-directed small group activity (See Appendix G). When I asked her to compare the handout from her CT and her newly adapted graphic organizers, she spoke about the importance of engaging students in their own learning through “being active participants.” “I wanted my students to get their hands on some mystery stories and to begin to label and see examples of what we were learning about” (Renee, interview, January, 2011). She also wanted to help her students begin to build a 199 “set of resources” to help them become “more independent writers.” Renee’s adaptations to the organizer and creation of a supporting instructional activity is evidence of her use of proximal resources and her further adaptation to meet the needs and learning objectives of her unit and her students. Proximal resources influence pedagogical development. Renee’s experiences both identifying and adapting proximal resources present in her teaching context provided evidence of pedagogical development in writing instruction. Through identifying and seeking resources to support her instruction, Renee was able to utilize instructional methods and resources that might have otherwise gone unnoticed. Similarly, through her evaluation and subsequent adaptation of material resources, Renee was better able to address the teaching and learning goals she set for her writing unit. Renee was not alone in her quest for resources to support her work. Nor was she the only intern to adapt and modify resources (instructional methods, routines, or materials) that existed in her context. All of the interns participating in this study focused heavily on the material resources available to them, whether or not they had a writing curriculum. In fact, proximal resources were the contextual factor most referenced during my work with these intern teachers and their experiences developing writing pedagogy. Two specific actions of intern teachers, the identification and adaptation of instructional resources, repeatedly made their way into intern talk about their development as writing teachers. In sum, interns, like Renee illustrated above, found it was not easy to identify and locate high quality resources to support their 200 instructional decision-making. Often, curriculum and instructional aides such as lesson plans, anchor charts, or small group activities did not exist in a “ready-made” state. And, while these proximal resources were popular among interns, who are typically collectors of “stuff” to support their beginning teaching work, instructional routines and methods set in place within each classroom context also affected interns’ ideas about their ability to successfully teach writing. The significance of proximal resources in intern teaching contexts can be seen through Renee’s experience planning for and teaching her mystery-writing unit. But, interns do not seem to develop pedagogically through interaction with instructional resources, alone. Equally significant, it seems, are distal, or more relational, resources present in the form of relationships between an intern and his or her cooperating teacher, peers, or course instructor. Below, I describe Olivia’s experience learning to teach writing, and the influence distal resources, specifically mentors, had on her development as a writing teacher. Olivia’s Experience with Distal Resources: Building Meaningful Relationships Is it okay if I talk about my Cooperating Teacher? I just hated it [my internship experience]. Everything in my classroom was so teacher facilitated and, not that I didn’t mimic that, because I did, and it was hard. How do I create a classroom of writers when it was not implemented in the first place? (Olivia, interview, January, 2011) While Olivia described her fifth grade classroom as a friendly middle school environment where her fifth grade students were not only organized, on task, and well-behaved but also “on-target” for grade-level expectations, she also described her semester learning to teach writing as “a struggle.” Her experience alongside a 201 cooperating teacher (CT) who taught, by her observation, in a very teacher-centered manner was, “frustrating and disappointing.” Of writing instruction Olivia said that her classroom had “all the resources in the world other than enthusiasm for writing.” During our interview together I asked Olivia to reflect on those classroom experiences that influenced her specifically as a writing teacher. She responded: I haven’t had any. The [cooperating] teacher I am working with does not talk about it [writing] and only teaches the students how to write letters. It has really hindered me in feeling like I can teach writing. I feel completely unprepared [to teach writing]” (Olivia, interview, January, 2011). Olivia described her experience with her mentor as one that did not lead to pedagogical development or new ideas for writing instruction. “It [classroom environment] was very routine, very teacher directed, and really very boring” (Olivia, interview, January, 2011). Furthermore, she claimed that the classroom environment negatively affected the writing unit she planned and taught on tall tales. Because her mentor didn’t teach writing in a nuanced or exciting way, she felt she could not teach writing in a nuanced or exciting way. Olivia’s struggles learning to teach writing stemmed, she said, from little to no experience seeing or discussing writing instruction with a practicing teacher. While she felt supported proximally (e.g. plenty of resources and instructional aides), Olivia felt that she lacked support for her own developing ideas about writing instruction. In her cooperating teacher, she lacked a distal resource, someone who she could trust with her developing ideas and who could answer her questions and offer support. When asked if she felt prepared as a writing teacher, 202 Olivia vehemently answered, “no, absolutely not.” When asked, “why?” she claimed a lack of direction on the part of her school’s curriculum and her lack of relationship with her cooperating teacher. “I only know what I’ve read. I’ve never seen it [writing instruction] implemented. So, to be honest, this is terrible, I want to do it, but I can’t even envision it [writing instruction]” (Olivia, interview, January, 2011). The language arts classroom that Olivia described was one where her cooperating teacher implemented a “traditional round-robin” type of instructional format that she calls “very teacher mediated.” Students, she said, have 50 minutes to read out of basals, answer recall-type questions and write responses to the “kinds of questions you see at the end of the story.” Of her experience, Olivia says, “I’ve seen more of what I don’t want to be- who I don’t want to be as a writing teacher- I’ve not seen good writing instruction in my classroom” (Olivia, interview, January, 2011). Writing instruction in Olivia’s fifth grade classroom did not follow a curriculum and also did not seem to be paired with the state learning standards. “Students have not had a lesson on the writing process. They have gone through the motions of creating a rough and then final draft but do no conferencing, proof reading or editing. Revision takes place based only on the comments we give them” (Olivia, interview, January, 2011). Furthermore, Olivia noted that students were not introduced to a variety of writing genres. All of the above, together with just a fifty-minute window to teach language arts, of which writing was to be only a part, made Olivia feel “very restricted.” Olivia’s unit on tall tales tackled not only new instructional models (e.g. the writing process, cooperative learning, revision), but 203 also tackled new ideas such as genre elements, word choice, and writing with a specific purpose. Though, at the conclusion of her unit, Olivia felt like she did not complete what she set out to teach. “I am disappointed,” she concluded that things “didn’t turn out how I had planned.” When I asked Olivia what she thought could have helped make her writing unit more successful, she spoke about how she “wished” she could have had an experience where, “we [cooperating teacher and intern] co-taught, like a team. But, I am on my own, and I do not know what I’m supposed to be doing” (Olivia, interview, January, 2011). Not only did Olivia’s mentoring relationship affect her confidence- but it also seemed to affect her access to ideas and to enthusiasm for writing instruction. During our interview, Olivia reflected on the idea that her learning was not the only one suffering from few opportunities to engage in writing instruction. “My students’ attitudes toward writing need work, I don’t know what to do to turn them on to writing, and it is a huge, important, scary thing to teach” (Olivia, interview, January, 2011). And, while she clearly noted the instructional deficits present, Olivia felt strongly that she had great potential as a writing teacher. “I like writing. I like thinking about teaching writing” (Olivia, interview, January, 2011). What she needed from her cooperating teacher was access to scaffolded support in the form of conversation or feedback. Olivia’s access to an instructional mentor seemed to affect her pedagogical development. Specifically, she had a difficult time envisioning successful writing instruction in a classroom where neither the resources nor the instructional 204 routines clearly laid out a path for teaching and learning. While Olivia did not find support for her work as a writing teacher in her relationship with her cooperating teacher, she did begin to seek, and find, the scaffolding she needed to build pedagogical ideas and enthusiasm for writing instruction in the classroom context where she completed her internship. Below, I highlight a source of support Olivia identified as instrumental in her pedagogical development for writing: the “teacher down the hall.” Olivia’s experience highlighted the positive influence an experience with “educative mentoring” (Feiman-Nemser, 1998, 2001a; Stanulis, 1995; Stanulis & Floden, 2009; Stanulis & Russell, 2000) can have on a beginning teacher. Identification of mentors . Good models were something Olivia did not take for granted. Not having someone to engage with regarding teaching decisions “100% hindered my confidence and my ability to teach writing,” she said. Even in a classroom rich with materials and a cooperating teacher who was present, Olivia felt something lacking: engagement and enthusiasm for writing instruction. “I really felt a lack of discussion and talking about writing and how to teach it” (Olivia, interview, January, 2011). Olivia, though, was resourceful. She used our literacy methods course to ask questions and to research instructional ideas for her tall tales unit. She brought questions and concerns about her planning and teaching to her peers. Olivia went beyond her classroom context to find support for her developing pedagogy. To her credit, Olivia did not shy from her struggle to plan and teach her tall tale unit. She went in search of answers to her questions and concerns. And, in the end, Olivia utilized distal resources to support her growing 205 pedagogy for writing. “I definitely don’t have a clear idea of writing in fifth grade, but I did walk through this experience, and I know more now than I did before” (Olivia, interview, January, 2011). Because of the relationship she appeared to foster with another teacher in the middle school building where she taught, Olivia’s struggle did not end at the door to her classroom. The teacher down the hall. While interns are each assigned a cooperating teacher and classroom in which to complete their year-long internship, resources beyond the assigned classroom can be sources of support. Olivia found support in a teacher down the hall whom she identified as a mentor, “especially for language arts.” This teacher provided much more than proximal resources for Olivia’s use, she also provided a source of encouragement and a safe place to talk about planning and teaching. Of the teacher down the hall, Rebecca, Olivia said, “She gave me more than resources, she gave me confidence, and she is so passionate about what she does, I can’t help but feel like when I leave her classroom that, I can do it” (Olivia, interview, January, 2011). When Olivia went to her with help for ideas about writing, Olivia said that Rebecca, “always listened to my ideas and gave me hers.” It was this sharing of ideas, validating Olivia’s plans for instruction, that made Olivia perceive the relationship as Rebecca so constructive. Those things that made the teacher down the hall accessible to Olivia were her location, her willingness to share her ideas and her knowledge, and her ability to provide a place where Olivia’s successes and failures were welcome. “She has such amazing content knowledge, something that I feel like I’m lacking… and she 206 let me know it’s okay to fail or not to do it right the first time.” Olivia said she “bounced lots of ideas” off of Rebecca, especially after her lessons did not go as planned. In asking Olivia about what made this relationship helpful, she said, “I think she understood my context. I feel that, in the end, all that matters is where you are teaching, and what is modeled for you there. I didn’t have a good example in my CT, but I learned how lessons could be from the teacher down the hall” (Olivia, interview, January, 2011). Olivia noted one very specific area of pedagogical development provided by Rebecca: tools, such as literature, to support writing instruction. Literature to support writing instruction. Olivia’s first lesson plan illustrates instructional changes she made in her writing instruction based, she says, on advice from the teacher down the hall. Her original objective for the lesson was for her students to be able to recognize strategies such as figurative language that authors use for character development in tall tales. While Olivia originally planned to read aloud Johnny Appleseed (Steven Kellogg, 1988) to her fifth graders, after discussion with the teacher down the hall, she changed her mind and instead read John Henry (Julius Lester, 1994). Of her decision to revise her instruction, Olivia said, “I realized that I needed to read something that was newer to my students, [a story that was more] at their level. Johnny Appleseed seemed too young” (Olivia, interview, January, 2011). In Olivia’s reflection of her use of John Henry she reported that, “They [students] loved that I used a picture book and were engaged 207 when I asked them to share their ideas with the class” (Olivia, Inquiry 2, November, 2010). When I asked Olivia if she believed she would have gotten the same level of engagement from her students with Johnny Appleseed she said, “No, I really think that John Henry’s story was interesting and new and exciting… I wouldn’t have known about it myself, so that was really lucky” (Olivia, Interview, January, 2011). Rebecca supported Olivia’s instruction through introducing her to more appropriate literature as well as pedagogical support for more effectively using that literature in her writing instruction. Originally, Olivia had planned to simply “talk her students through author strategies” for character development found in her read-aloud (e.g. John Henry). After talking with Rebecca, she decided to support her lesson with a graphic organizer that she would display on her classroom’s Smart Board. In her lesson revision and reflection she said: I added a graphic organizer web with 15 bubbles on it that students could take notes on when I was reading. The purpose for this was to organize identification of figurative language throughout the story, and recall it when we had a group discussion after the book. I suggested that students label a group of bubbles a specific device, so that they could more easily group their ideas. I let them know that the ‘matching figurative language to an example’ game (that they had played during the mini-lesson) would be posted up on the Smart Board so they could refer to it while I was reading (Olivia, Inquiry 2, November, 2010). Olivia’s revisions to her lesson, the literature she read and the graphic organizer she utilized to support it, occurred because she discussed her plans and ideas with Rebecca. Olivia’s lesson plan changes are evidence of pedagogical development that occurred because of Olivia’s interaction with a mentor who supported her ideas for 208 writing instruction by offering not only instructional tools but also support and encouragement. Olivia’s work with the teacher down the hall filled a self-identified void in her internship experience, a relationship with a teacher who “supported my ideas and got excited with me” (Olivia, interview, January, 2011). The relationship she built with Rebecca was something that became important to her future teachingpedagogical development. When Olivia reflected on her semester of literacy teaching, she acknowledged her struggles and pitfalls. She also acknowledged her pedagogical growth, citing a newfound belief in student-centered instruction, something she did not see or discuss with her original cooperating teacher. Of her pedagogical development Olivia reflected: As I was constructing my first-ever literacy unit, I began to see that my lessons needed to reflect my [newfound] philosophy as a teacher. I am a newly, and very strong, proponent of student collaboration and responsibility. My students did not have the opportunity to engage in a collaborative learning environment where student-lead talk is the norm. Of the few conversations and discussions they had, they were extremely superficial and lacking depth. They were never asked to explain their thoughts, provide reasoning, or deliberate with one another. My tall tale unit was therefore infused with these ideas and theories in mind, with a multi-day focus specifically geared towards group work and discourse (Olivia, Inquiry Three, December, 2011). When Olivia worked to sum up what she had learned from the relationship she sought out from Rebecca, Olivia reiterated her newfound mentor’s, “great willingness to share” (Olivia, interview, January, 2011). A self-identified hands-on learner and over-planner, Olivia wanted and needed someone with whom to brainstorm and share ideas. After she established her relationship with Rebecca, 209 Olivia said her long hours brainstorming alone, spending “way too much time” on the internet in search of the “perfect lesson, or ideas,” were replaced with more faceto-face sharing of ideas. Distal resources influence pedagogical development. Kamberelis and de la Luna (2004) defined distal resources as those resources within a context that support thinking/learning in a more abstract way- relationally. Olivia’s experience with the teacher down the hall illustrated how important and influential a distal resource can be for a beginning teacher who is in the midst of her own pedagogical development. Even in Olivia’s circumstance, one where the most likely distal resource (her cooperating teacher) was unable to effectively fulfill the role, an alternative distal resource was found to be invaluable in providing resources and encouragement for Olivia’s pedagogical development in writing instruction. Distal resources that arise as relationships in which intern teachers are able to grow and develop a philosophy for instruction, material resources, and encouragement reiterate how important it is for beginning teachers to feel supported through more than physical resources- but through the sharing of ideas. Research has shown that mentorship of this kind is an important and valuable process for beginning teachers (Stanulis, 1995; Stanulis & Floden, 2009; Stanulis & Russell, 2000). Mentorship can provide the means for the development and use of an important contextual tool in pedagogical development: the distal resource. In her study of beginning teacher development, Madeline Lampert (2010) reiterated the idea that a beginner must practice and rehearse teaching in order to grow and learn 210 and develop (p. 27). The pedagogical growth and development of interns, like Olivia, who planned and taught units in writing during the internship experience often occurred at the hand of a mentor and in the midst of practice. The path to pedagogical growth was not always unhindered and included not only the shepherding from assigned cooperating teachers, but also interactions with other members of the practice, teachers who openly shared their practices, experience and ideas with interns as they began to develop their own ideas about writing pedagogy. Olivia, who described her interaction with her classroom cooperating teacher as “minimal” found support beyond her classroom door, “There is another teacher in my building, she gives me resources, and talks to me” (Olivia, interview, January, 2011). Fortunately for Olivia, a distal resource presented herself in the form of the teacher down the hall, a teacher who knew the instructional context, who openly shared her practice, and who, most importantly to Olivia, “made me feel like I could do this” (Olivia, interview, January, 2011). As we closed our interview together, Olivia reiterated the difficulty she had in learning to teach writing using only proximal, or material, resources. “I didn’t have a clear idea of writing in fifth grade, I hadn’t seen it. Unfortunately, I only knew what I’d read. But, that wasn’t enough,” she said (Olivia, interview, January, 2011). Olivia went on to describe her own learning to teach writing as analogous to learning to dance (Olivia, Inquiry 2, November, 2010 and Interview, January, 2011). “I can read as much as I want about it (e.g. dancing/writing), but once I am actually in a studio or classroom without a model to follow, it becomes much more difficult 211 and terrifying (Olivia, Inquiry 2, November, 2010).” Olivia required a model, a mentor with whom to discuss her ideas and to share her practice. Of her eventual experience teaching writing she said, “I am thankful because I learned a lot, but I am still nervous to teach writing because it, like dancing, is abstract, with so much to teach” (Olivia, Inquiry 2, November, 2010). Contextual factors in the form of distal resources such as mentors and relationships proved to be invaluable to Olivia as she began to develop pedagogy for writing instruction. Sometimes these valuable distal resources are easily accessible to interns as they work alongside a cooperating teacher within the classroom context. Other times, interns must explore alternative avenues to distal support within the context of their internship experience. Below, I detail how I used both proximal and distal resources, revealed through the instructional contexts of interns in my university course community, to support their growth and development as writing teachers. What Contexts Reveal to Teacher Educators When interacting with intern teachers beginning to teach writing, it was important for me to acknowledge both to myself and to each intern that no two classroom contexts were alike. Each unique internship experience was composed of both proximal and distal resources that served to influence how interns developed as writing teachers. Put simply, context mattered. As evidenced in Renee and Olivia’s stories above, proximal and distal influences can act both as resources to support pedagogical development and constraints to impede it. As discussed previously in Chapter 4, my work scaffolding intern work in context was very much 212 akin to Auckerman’s ideas of scaffolding learners (2007). Each intern was treated as a “possible knower” of his or her instructional domain. I had little (or, no, really) influence over the classrooms where my interns taught. Therefore, my scaffolding took the form of coaching interns to plan for and enact pedagogy that employed high quality writing instruction but was realistic for their unique classroom situation. In this section, I share themes that directly address my second research question: How did I scaffold pedagogical development in writing instruction while acknowledging the various and varied contextual experiences of interns in my course? My findings reveal that providing means for understanding intern context allowed me to plan coursework and experiences for interns that addressed the proximal and distal resources available in each unique classroom setting. Three themes arose. For example, I detail how I used course assignments as a way to reveal proximal resources and scaffold intern use of them. I share how I structured course time to allow interns to share their individual experiences in a forum that allowed for the scaffolding of what writing instruction “could” look like. And, I share how blogged reflections allowed interns to build relationships, distal resources that were able to transcend university-classroom divide and allowed interns windows into contexts that, while different from one another, led to shared pedagogy. Context as a teaching tool. Planned exploration, documentation and reflection on context proved powerful scaffolding as interns worked to match writing instruction to contextual demands. The classroom experiences of Renee and Olivia 213 presented above were just two examples of how classroom context can reference what John Dewey referred to when he claimed that experiences, while they may be educative, are not necessarily equal or identical (Dewey, 1938). The tools and resources available in each classroom context differed greatly even within school systems or school buildings, while my expectations for writing instruction remained consistent. In order to scaffold intern development in writing pedagogy I relied on interns’ reports of their teaching contexts. And, while I acknowledge that their reports might, in some instances, be skewed by each intern’s own limited teaching experience, their reports did present me with information useful to engage interns in conversations about writing instruction. I saw my role as allowing interns to consider the writing instruction that was currently occurring in each classroom compared to their vision of writing instruction that could be occurring in each classroom context. To do these things, I presented interns with structured (e.g. course assignments) and unstructured (e.g. roundtable conversations) opportunities to share information about contextual resources available to each of them. Below, I share three ways I attempted to scaffolded my interns’ learning within their individual teaching contexts. First, I share how my methods coursework seemed to scaffold Renee toward the development of a more complete unit plan for writing instruction by focusing on identification and use of proximal resources. I then share an example of how I scaffolded Olivia’s use of distal resources in order to help her overcome a somewhat difficult or, in her eyes, disappointing internship experience. Lastly, I share how the scaffolding I built 214 during class time through small group forums called roundtables seemed to contribute to the development of writing pedagaogy. These roundtables were focused directly on intern experiences and aimed to combine proximal/distal influences to foster ideas about what writing instruction could look like. Scaffolding proximal resources. Beginning teachers rely heavily on proximal resources for direction in the early stages of their instructional thinking and planning (Grossman & Thompson, 2008; Valencia, Place, Martin, & Grossman, 2006). For purposes of this study, I have defined proximal resources as those material resources such as curriculum guides or supplemental texts that interns were able to use as they worked to plan and teach writing. As my findings suggest above, beginning teachers needed practice both identifying and wading through and choosing those proximal resources that will be most productive for their instructional goals and for their students. For me and my interns, it was imperative to scaffold pedagogical development individually, allowing interns to work toward the vision of writing instruction that each of them envisioned in their classroom context and for their students (Aukerman, 2007). Both due to the differing intern contexts and because teachers often struggle to effectively determine and utilize proximal resources (Grossman & Thompson, 2008; Moore & Chae, 2007; Valencia et al., 2006; Youngs, Jones, & Low, 2011), my methods course made purposeful moves to scaffold interns’ identification and use of proximal resources. To illustrate an example of the kind of scaffolding I provided through my methods coursework, I show below how I used responses to the literacy field guide 215 to better understand each intern’s context and to help interns move toward more successful use of proximal resources for writing instruction. Course assignments. While all three course assignments helped interns identify and utilize the proximal resources available in each individual teaching context, Inquiry One specifically required interns to identify and describe the resources available for writing instruction. This assignment asked interns to investigate the school and individual classroom as “a context for learning and explore both cross-grade and grade-level curriculum, instruction and assessment resources in your unique context” (Inquiry One, 2010). Below, I show how all four interns who participated in my study responded to Inquiry One. In order to illustrate the differences in instructional resources and, therefore, the differences in pedagogical scaffolding, I display all four intern responses. Bolded text indicates those words or phrases directly related to writing pedagogy. All four descriptions of instructional resources illustrate the vast differences that exist within and between intern contexts. Dana and Blake described a mandated and largely scripted writing curriculum (Lucy Calkins, Units of Study) while Renee and Olivia describe less structured, and therefore less supported, writing instruction. 216 Table 10. Inquiry One: Context Description, Instructional Resources Intern Instructional Resources Dana We are required to use Lucy Calkins, Units of Study . Writing Workshop emphasizes that every day activities and the child's own life are things worthy of writing about. Calkins stresses the idea that all students are writers. The workshop approach places the student in the captain's chair concerning their writing, they pick it and work through their pieces slowly and purposefully (SIC). Writing Workshop wants students to know what the writing steps are and to apply them to every writing piece they create. The mini lessons give a play-by-play of what Calkins' says to her students, so you can envision how they run. But, not everything seems to fit my students or my ideas about teaching third graders. Blake My school follows Lucy Calkins Units of Study for our writing instruction. This means we do a writer’s workshop every day for an hour. Writer’s workshop works the same way every day. The teacher gives a quick mini-lesson and usually models a strategy or method. After that, the students are given time to work individually or in groups to practice what they just learned or to do some other writing task. This gives us time to circulate the room and check in on students. We can do some formative assessments by observing and also by conferencing with students. Renee We use our own version of Writer’s Workshop. It consists of prewriting, drafting, and peer editing. We also have whole group sharing, complimenting, commenting, and suggesting. My CT does very informal writing conferences with the students when they are done with their drafts. There is no guided writing process set up in the classroom. Many of the teachers in my school developed and use their own literacy programs. Olivia I have yet to see evidence that my CT follows a writer’s workshop model, or even a large program like Lucy Calkins or ‘6 Traits of Writing’. As far as writing goes, I just witnessed the first two writing assignments occur in the classroom (at the end of September). As far as I am aware, the other fifth grade classrooms use more structured and well-known instructional models, such as writer’s workshop. Very few resources are used in my classroom for writing instruction. 217 Note that, above, Dana and Blake made it clear that their teaching context required them to use an assigned writing curriculum, Lucy Calkins, Units of Study. Dana and Blake also provided contextual information regarding the structure of their writing lessons: teachers use mini-lessons to instruct students in writer’s workshop every day. These mini-lessons are scripted for teachers. Students used their own writing ideas to practice the skills and concepts presented in mini-lessons. Conversely, Renee and Olivia share details about a much less structured instructional environment for writing. They both gave details about a more “hybrid” instructional model, using pieces of what they name “Writer’s Workshop,” but offer few instructional details. Neither Renee nor Olivia reference use of a curriculum or curriculum material, nor do they make it clear that their students either write every day or work within a writing routine. Not only did this assignment help interns identify pedagogical resources available to them, but it also helped me, as a teacher educator, identify those additional resources that might help interns supplement their teaching, or reach their instructional goals. I shared the contextual descriptions above to illustrate the diverse contexts facing interns as they worked to develop pedagogy for writing. For example, Dana noted their classroom instruction was based on a specific writing curriculum. Renee noted the individual nature of instruction in her classroom, while Olivia struggled to identify proximal or distal resources for writing. And, as the responses illustrate, writing instruction in all four classrooms required scaffolding uniquely constructed to support the needs of each intern. One way I did this was to use my responses to 218 course assignments in order to ask questions, suggest further resources, or push interns to identify proximal resources they may have not considered. For example, in response to Dana’s contextual description and her own admission to struggling with the mandated curriculum “fitting” her needs and the needs of her third graders, I asked: “Are you required to follow the Calkins books to a tee, or are mini lessons sometimes based on student needs (judging from student writing)? Can you more clearly name those pieces of the curriculum that you feel are not “fitting your students” or “fitting your teaching”?” Could you use some children’s literature in the form of picture books to explain the concepts or strategies you are using, instead of the short stories Calkins suggests (e.g. “Eleven” by Sandra Cisneros)? Dana responded in her weekly blog to this idea of “curriculum fitting her needs and her students’ needs,” saying, I think it is hard to teach a curriculum that is supposed to reach three grade levels, from grades 3-5, no way are my students ready for every one of the abstract ideas that Calkins presents in many mini lessons. I would like to find some books, maybe by Patricia Polacco, that could help me show the idea of narrative. Also, the question I have with my students is how to hold them truly accountable for writing everyday when we only see their writing once or twice a week as we rotate through conferencing during writing workshop? I think it is sometimes difficult for beginning third graders to understand the delayed gratification Writing Workshop works with (Dana, blog, October, 2010; instructional memo, November, 2010). Here, I more clearly saw what was bothering Dana, this idea that her students were not ready for some of what she considered more “abstract” ideas or materials. I was able to help her locate materials such as graphic organizers, “status of the class” writing update, and children’s literature that she felt addressed the needs of her students. Through responses to her teaching reflection and time spent in small 219 group conversation, I was also able to help her think about writing as an iterative process that is almost always entrenched in “delayed gratification.” As they worked through their internship year, interns used experience and feedback to build their pedagogical visions for writing instruction. Conscious of their individually unique classroom contexts, I used individual responses to their work to scaffold more complete ideas about writing instruction. I refrained from sharing one “correct” writing pedagogy and instead aimed to develop interns’ own ability to clearly articulate how and why they taught writing the way they did, and whether or not they agreed with the structure in place for that instruction. To support their instructional planning and development, I also spent one two-hour long class meeting sharing materials such as children’s literature, videos of teachers engaging in writer’s workshop, and instructional materials such as graphic organizers, to help interns envision the kind of proximal resources available for use in most learning contexts. Scaffolding distal resources. Contextual resources in the form of relationships, labeled in this study as distal resources, can be a powerful source of intern support. Mentors can provide a strong, positive, and structured influence on beginning teacher thinking, called “educative mentoring” (Ball & Forzani, 2009; Feiman-Nemser, 2001a). Successful educative mentoring that improves a beginning teacher’s instruction is carefully structured to include attention to specific instructional contexts (Ball & Forzani, 2009; Stanulis, Burrill, & Ames, 2007). It is focused on understanding both practice and curriculum (Coburn, 2001). 220 Olivia’s story, above, illustrated how a powerful teacher mentor (the teacher down the hall) can and does influence how an intern navigates pedagogy for writing. Research on successful beginning teaching shows that new teachers are most successful when they are able to see a specific practice in action, and then attempt it themselves with scaffolded support and reflective conversation (Stanulis, 1995; Stanulis et al., 2007; Stanulis & Floden, 2009; Stanulis & Russell, 2000). In this study, it was the Cooperating Teacher who most often served in this role for interns. It is no surprise, then, that CTs were referenced most often when I asked interns about influential classroom or school based relationships. Three of the four interns in this study referred to their CT/intern relationship as a positively influential one. One intern spoke negatively about the CT/intern relationship. In the table below, I list intern answers to the following interview question: Who has helped you learn to teach writing? What about your interaction with these people was helpful? Table 11. Influences on the Navigation of Writing Pedagogy Intern Who helped you learn to teach writing? Dana My CT, she just knows the curriculum and the nuances of what will work for third graders and what will be left for other years (Dana, interview). Blake My CT, he’s great. I told him my struggles with it [teaching writing], and he reminded me that he still struggles with it at times as well. We made writing instruction our project (Blake, interview). Renee The number one thing that influenced me was my CT’s passion and beliefs about writing instruction (Renee, interview). Olivia Not my CT, I’ve never seen it [writing instruction] implemented. The teacher down the hall gives me resources, she has amazing content knowledge, and she understands the [school] context (Olivia, interview). 221 The table above illustrates how interns, in their own words, referenced the significance of their Cooperating Teacher as they navigated writing pedagogy. Inquiry assignments that asked interns to consider their cooperating teacher and other teaching professionals in their classrooms and schools as resources promoted intern interaction with potential sources for pedagogical support. By scaffolding intern conversations with CTs (and other school-based professionals) through course-directed assignments, interns grew to see CTs and other school professionals such as librarians, speech language pathologists, and resource teachers as distal resources. For example, of her cooperating teacher, Renee said: In the beginning, I was really hoping for a curriculum that was a little more spelled out, I didn’t always feel like I had resources (instructional materials) to fall back on but, then she [CT] helped me to think about writing. The number one thing that influenced my teaching was my CT’s passion and beliefs about writing instruction. She talked about how writing is the form in which students are able to express themselves and learning cannot happen without readers and writers” (Renee, interview, January, 2011). Renee’s Cooperating Teacher not only helped her think about writing pedagogy, but also influenced Renee through her excitement for the subject. Similarly, Dana and Olivia spoke about teachers, beyond their CTs, who served as resources for their writing planning and instruction. Dana shared, “There is a firstyear teacher in third grade. And he and I talked when I was planning my [writing] lessons and I didn’t get it… I see from his struggle things that I can start thinking ahead for… sometimes we don’t even have lunch because we are talking” (Dana, 222 interview, January, 2011). In hindsight, my scaffolding of the CT/intern relationship was not nearly as strong as it could have been. By requiring interns to have purposeful weekly conversations with CTs about writing instruction (or other practicing teachers) these relationships might have been even more fruitful then they were. Practicing teachers were not the only distal resources to provide instructional support. Structured peer groups also created supportive networks for interns. I initiated peer-led conversations (e.g., roundtables) because interns repeatedly came to class with “real world” questions or problems related to literacy pedagogy that I believed were important to the development of their ideas about literacy instruction. Through my course design, I promoted interaction through peer led, small group conversations. These conversations proved, through data analysis, to be meaningful experiences for interns. Below I show evidence of how peer support networks were a positive influence on interns as they navigated writing pedagogy. I give specific examples of how conversations where intern teachers brought real problems and issues concerning writing instruction created peer support that was not only supportive, but also pedagogically based. Structuring pedagogical support. As indicated above, Olivia felt she could not rely on her Cooperating Teacher as a source of pedagogical support for writing instruction. And, she conceded that while she felt unprepared to teach writing, even at the end of her semester-long experience, university course days were a bright light in her experience. “I loved going to class, hearing what people had to 223 say and feeling like I could share ideas. There was such a lack of that in my classroom, which really shut me off, and I just hated it” (Olivia, interview, January, 2011). Olivia fondly recalled course activities and conversations with colleagues about mystery units, tall tale units, assessing writing, and the general abilities of fifth graders. These structured in-class activities often took the form of small group work. Interns were divided into groups of 3 or 4. Task cards directed intern engagement with course topics. One such task card is presented in the figure below. In small groups, interns discussed their own students and classroom context as it related to writing instruction and the assessment of writing. As presented here, interns not only listed and discussed what they noticed about their students but also made plans or got suggestions from peers for how to proceed. Activities like these served to not only allow interns to bring organic artifacts and practices into the University setting, but also allowed interns to give and receive pedagogical support to their peers. Additionally, at the end of these activities, I collected the task cards from each intern and used them to inform my understanding of each intern’s classroom context. 224 Task Card Step One: THINK Refer to your students’ writing samples. Recall the learning goals of the samples. Jot them down here: Refer to the frameworks you used for assessing student writing (6 Traits, Writing Continuum, and Alternate reading). Which was most insightful? What did your chosen framework allow you to do as a teacher? Jot those down here: 1. What did you learn about your students as writers? 2. What would you teach next, defend your instructional decision-making? 3. How do you feel about writing instruction and assessment? (I feel… ) Step Two: TALK When members are ready, address questions 1-3 during your conversation. Figure 3. Writing Instruction Task Card Making Instructional Moves Based on Context I began this chapter by addressing my first research question. I articulated the ways that teaching context, its proximal and distal resources, was significant as interns navigated internship experiences and developed writing pedagogy. First, data pointed to the significance of proximal resources to support writing instruction. Interns spent significant time identifying instructional resources available for their pedagogical use. Additionally they adapted these resources, both the instructional methods, such as writing routines, and instructional materials, such as lesson plans or graphic organizers. Secondly, I presented the ways distal resources, in the form of supportive mentors and peer networks, influenced the development of writing pedagogy. I presented an example of how an intern, who sought an outside mentor for pedagogical support, was able to navigate writing instruction in new and 225 positive ways. Over the course of their inaugural semester as writing teachers interns grew to understand and teach writing through proximal and distal resources present in each unique intern context. In this chapter, I also addressed my second research question. I presented how I, as teacher educator, used context as a teaching tool. Through specific assignments and course activities, such structured peer groups, I was able to encourage inters to identify and utilize unique resources available for writing instruction in individual situations. I also scaffolded pedagogical development by facilitating intern talk. I provided a forum for interns to discuss their planning, instruction, and reflection in a format that was safe and based as much on intern success as it was on intern questions or perceived failure. As a teacher educator, I found it invaluable to consider the ways proximal and distal resources, present in each unique teaching context, influenced pedagogical development. Through scaffolding the identification of both proximal and distal resources through course assignments and activities, interns located contextual tools that offered pedagogical support. By asking interns to thoroughly investigate the proximal resources available in their classrooms, and by supporting the sharing of intern ideas surrounding writing instruction, I brought elementary classrooms to my university course. I allowed classroom context to take a prominent place in our university-based coursework and classroom. In the following chapter, I move my focus from the contexts where interns enacted their 226 developing pedagogy and move toward the influence of politics. I articulate the significance of politics on the development of writing pedagogy. 227 Chapter 6 Navigating Politics: Curricular Mandates Influence Pedagogical Development Watch out lest we suffer hardening of the ideologies. Watch out lest we lose the pioneer spirit which has made this field [education] a great one. -Donald Murray, writing teacher and researcher (as quoted in Calkins, 2001; p. 6) In the previous two chapters, I demonstrated the significance of interncreated text and the proximal and distal resources in interns’ varying contexts. In this final findings chapter, I focus on the political influences interns encountered as they navigated pedagogical development in writing. By looking at data through a “political lens,” I argue that politics, specifically in the form of mandatory, scripted curriculum, affected interns as they navigated their unique internship experience planning and teaching writing. Two themes regarding the navigation of politics emerged: 1) Translating scripted curriculum in order to find a distinct “teacher voice” is difficult for beginning teachers, 2) Retro-fitting scripted curriculum to meet the needs and interests of students can be a confusing process. My conception of retro-fitting is the addition of new features in order to improve or update a system, process or, in this case, curriculum. For example, when engineers add newly developed technology to water plants in order to provide better service, or when teachers (like Blake) add features like children’s literature or personal examples to a “boxed” or “scripted” curriculum, retro-fitting has occurred. In this chapter I present evidence that suggests how one mandated writing curriculum, Lucy Calkins,’ Units of Study, affected two interns, Dana and Blake, 228 who were learning to teach writing at two different grade levels and in two different schools and districts, both of which had mandated the use of Units of Study on a district-wide basis. In Chapter 4, I used evidence of Dana and Blake’s own writing of text to better understand how they adapted instruction to meet their own and their students’ needs. In this chapter, I examine Dana and Blake’s instructional adaptation through a political lens to better understand not how they adapted instruction (e.g., through writing and re-writing) but why (e.g., because the scripts didn’t fit). Working alongside interns who were learning to teach writing over the last five years has meant not only assisting beginning teachers develop pedagogy for writing, but also assisting beginning teachers in their development of pedagogy for writing in schools that are increasingly “politicized.” By “politicized” and political, I refer to the presence of regulated instruction often put into place by local or state boards who are increasingly adopting and then mandating the use of such curriculum due in part to recent federal education legislation (e.g., NCLB, 2002) (Gerstl-Pepin & Woodside-Jiron, 2005; Valencia et al., 2006). In this study, interns were required to utilize a mandated, scripted curriculum for writing instruction, Lucy Calkins’ Units of Study. All of this has led me to question how to best support interns’ development of writing pedagogy. Time and again, interns claimed they were “required” to teach as the curriculum demands, regardless of student needs or their own instructional ideas. My work as a teacher educator often felt like I was walking a fine line between 229 upholding the requirements that interns faced in classrooms and honoring the research, ideas, and enthusiasm my intern teachers invested creating thoughtful writing instruction. Often it felt like we (the interns and myself) were walking a tightrope stretched between genuine instructional decision-making and scriptfollowing. In my experience, this tightrope walking can be precarious business, but it is also authentic business, as practicing teachers of all levels are experiencing an increase in politicization of their work in classrooms. This increase in politicization has meant an increase in standardized instruction that, in turn, often means fewer instructional options and freedoms for teachers. As Donald Murray alluded to above, teaching all children to write in one way not only eliminates important instructional decision-making for teachers, but also precludes teachers from teaching writing in ways that are exciting and appropriate for their students. Because interns were faced with mandated and/or scripted curriculum as they navigated teaching for the first time, they became increasingly hesitant to draw on their own developing pedagogy or base instruction on the organic needs of their students, lest the curriculum be neglected. And, while Sawyer (2004) agreed that beginning teachers do benefit from curricular structures and instructional routines, they also need to flexibly apply them, I believe it is an ironic misguidance to allow the creativity of writers and writing instruction to suffer at the expense of the very creativity that drives writing—and teaching— itself. For me, this has meant educating beginning teachers not only for best practice in writing instruction, but also how to best teach and advocate for high quality writing 230 instruction within the communities in which they teach. Part of this has meant scaffolding interns not to work directly FROM curriculum, but to work alongside WITH it; encouraging interns to become knowledgeable advocates for the writing instruction their students’ need, when their students need it. In the following two sections I present evidence that address my first research question: how interns understand and use resources (in this case, a politically mandated curriculum) to develop pedagogy for writing. Qualitative data analysis revealed intern struggles with embodying, or translating, scripted lessons and retrofitting lessons based on specific student or classroom needs. Specifically, I make claims about how interns interacted with mandated curriculum and show how scripts influenced interns’ development of writing pedagogy. I chose to focus on Dana and Blake here not because our conversations about their teaching experiences were unique, but because our conversations about their classrooms were representative examples of the type of political influence present in teaching. Dana’s difficulty translating the language of a mandated and scripted writing curriculum and Blake’s struggle to retrofit a curriculum that seemed, to him, a mismatch with his students’ interests and needs are important examples of intern struggles with politically mandated curricula. In the final section of this chapter, What Context Reveals to Teacher Educators, I detail how I used course assignments and course time to allow interns to share their interaction with politics as it related to the scaffolding of writing pedagogy. 231 Translating Scripted Lessons I don’t see a lot of ways to put myself into my lessons… because with the script I felt like I was teaching Lucy’s lessons, not my own (Dana, interview). To Dana, it was important that she, her personality, her life as a writer, her experiences, be present in her writing instruction. “I felt like I should be able to naturally use my own experiences as a writer to relate to my students, but I also felt like I didn’t know where in the script I could do that” (Dana, interview notes). Throughout our semester together, she continually expressed frustration with scripted language that was “never something [she] would say” or “never something [her] third graders would say.” She struggled to understand what third graders should “take away” from a curriculum that was used for third through fifth graders, and questioned if the script was truly appropriate for such a wide band of learners. Lucy Calkins’Units of Study was the curriculum Dana was mandated to use in her third grade classroom. When I asked her how she taught writing to her third graders she simply replied, “I teach Lucy Calkins.” Dana described her work with the curriculum as teaching “a Calkins’ mini lesson then the students work independently in their writing journal.” Dana often voiced her concern with the structure and language present in the mini lessons. “The mini lessons sometimes allow for a quick pair-share and often allow the students to give their input for things like a detail on a timeline, but don’t often have the students address issues they find confusing. Interactions are teacher driven with students responding” (Dana, Inquiry 1, September, 2010). When I asked Dana about the curriculum’s influence on her instruction she vehemently responded saying: “The curriculum 232 completely dictated my teaching (writing).” Dana noted a lack of confidence in teaching writing due, she says, to “having this fear that [she] missed something, of always second-guessing if [her] lesson was truly Lucy’s intent” (Dana, interview, January, 2011). Dana’s confidence level, she said, led her to question her own ability to detect the needs of her third grade writers and to doubt her own pedagogical inclinations. The mandated curriculum negatively affected her sense of agency as a writing teacher (Hammerness, 2002; Sexton, 2008; Sloan, 2002). Dana described her work with Units of Study in a course assignment. In her description, she noted her difficulty translating the script for a curriculum that was written for students in grades 3-5 for her third graders alone. Regarding her work she said: My writing unit was “Unit Two” in Lucy Calkins’, Units of Study. The mini lessons seem clear-cut at first, until you start to think of how students who work in Writing Workshop work through the workshop for three years in the same books, with the same lessons. This means the lessons laid out in the book, Raising the Quality of Personal Narratives(sic), cannot be followed to a T in third grade, because the book is not written for third grade students to fully comprehend the lessons (Inquiry three, November, 2010). Dana, therefore, said she spent tremendous “time and energy” trying to “figure out” what pieces of the workshop script where appropriate for third graders and how to translate pieces that were beyond their understanding due to vocabulary or reading/writing fluency. When I pushed Dana to articulate what about the curriculum she found particularly frustrating, she returned time and time again to the language she was 233 “supposed to use” during instruction. In our interview together, she said of the curriculum: The challenge I had with writing workshop was due it being so scripted. Each mini lesson is supposed to take no more than 15 minutes, but if you were to follow what Calkins prescribes, you would spend 15 minutes defining the words used to describe different writing aspects. I was faced with taking Lucy’s words, drawing the meaning out of them, weeding out the higher level next grade ideas and finding the core of the lesson. I felt like I was stuck with Calkins and when I wasn’t seeing my students getting a certain lesson I had difficulty seeing how to stick with Calkins but still allow them to learn” (Dana, interview). In short, Dana felt like she spent a lot of time translating her script’s language into terms and ideas that were appropriate for her third grade writers. Not only did Dana find much of the script inappropriate for her third graders, but she also seemed to wrestle with the idea that she was required to use Lucy Calkins’ words as her own. She struggled understanding when and if she was “allowed” to move away from the script. I felt that I was always second-guessing if my lesson was truly Lucy’s intent…” (Dana, interview, January, 2011). “Don’t get me wrong, I see the value in Lucy Calkins, Units of Study, and think she has some really great ideas. I also really believe the writing workshop model is a great one.” In navigating her developing pedagogy, Dana gradually began to make changes to the script, but not without hesitation or great effort. In the chart below, I show progression of Dana’s lesson planning language for one lesson that Dana shared during her work in my methods course. In the first column I list the scripted language as it was presented in the curriculum. In the next column, I show Dana’s original translation, and in the final column, I show Dana’s revised translation. 234 Table 12. Dana’s Translation: Listening for Significant Seed Ideas Scripted Language Dana’s Original Dana’s Translated Lesson Plan Lesson Plan What is one way you can What is one way you After reviewing this show me you just heard can show me you just lesson I believed this my story? Another? heard my story? concept of the students (point out a part you Another? (point out a “showing” they heard like, retell the story part you like, retell the each other’s stories to back to me) (10 minutes) story back to me) (10 be too abstract for them minutes) due to my previous Units of Study writing conferences and Book Two Units of Study that it would not lead Raising the Quality of Book Two to a productive lesson Narrative Writing Raising the Quality of Narrative Writing One thing brought up often while conferring *Note that Dana did is the importance of not intend to make any adding details to stories changes in her original instead of listing lesson plan. events, so I turned this time into peers extracting more details out of each other. They were to either read a story they were working on or share a story idea with each other The listener had to ask for why sentences to the reader. 235 Table 12 (cont’d) Tell students they will share either the current story they are working on, or a seed idea of theirs they are thinking of turning into a story after some writing time Students will write for 20 minutes Units of Study Book Two Raising the Quality of Narrative Writing Tell students they will share either the current story they are working on, or a seed idea of theirs they are thinking of turning into a story after some writing time I switched sharing and writing. So, sharing took place for the ten minutes after the mini lesson so the why ideas were fresh in their heads. Students will write for 20 minutes Units of Study Book Two Raising the Quality of Narrative Writing Evidence displayed in the table above shows the progress Dana made moving toward writing lessons that she felt were most appropriate for her students. In the beginning, she did not translate the language or activities present in the script at all, but rather she tried to follow each lesson as written. In the midst of her writing unit, though, Dana realized that the script required translations that did not come about easily, nor was she “sure what I was allowed to say or do.” Dana spent many hours rewriting, revising, and second-guessing her writing instruction. Rather than continuing on with Units of Study, as it was written, Dana used the powerful message from her students that “it’s not working” as motivation to change. Dana’s growth as a writing teacher was visible not only in the instructional changes she made, but also by the fact that she stopped what was not working. She made instructional changes when she noticed that her third graders need additional 236 scaffolding. To scaffold, she shared her own story with students and modeled making changes as a real author would do. The politics of the situation seemed to make it difficult for Dana, as a beginning teacher, to translate a mandated script into lessons that she believed were appropriate for her third grade writers. Nevertheless, she used feedback from her experience trying to follow the script to motivate her instructional decision-making and made adaptations. While her sense of agency, as a beginning writing teacher, was originally negatively affected by the mandated, scripted curriculum, I began to see it evolve through her willingness to make strategic pedagogical moves (i.e., agency). Below, I show how Dana’s colleague, Blake similarly struggled with mandated and script lessons in Units of Study. Retrofitting Scripted Lessons What I really need to know is how to make the curriculum my own. What I mean by that is I need to know how to alter it or spice it while still “sticking to the script” like the school expects. (Blake, Inquiry 3, December, 2010) Blake recounted his experience with writing instruction in a narrative that he titled: Adjusting Curriculum to Effectively Teach Students. In it, he detailed his experience with a mandated curriculum and detailed his struggle to meet the instructional needs of the students in his fifth grade classroom. He wrote: There are six Lucy Calkins books that we are supposed to get through during the school year. What you get is a daily scripted lesson plan that you are supposed to enact in the classroom. When it came to planning my unit, my CT told me that I would teach the second book in the Lucy Calkins curriculum. It is called “Raising the Quality of Personal Narratives.” He told me that we are required to teach each lesson in the book. Worse, about half of the lessons were almost exact replicas of lessons from the first book. I honestly felt like I was being 237 redundant with the students as I worked through the book. There were even a few times when the students would say, “we’ve already done this!” It’s true; they had already done a lot of the things I was teaching. Not just when they did the first book with my CT, but the same Lucy Calkins books are used in grades three through five (Blake, narrative, December, 2010). Blake said that “enacting” the daily scripts, as his CT presented, were “not enough” for his students. He had to retrofit the scripted curriculum in order to accommodate and engage his students due to what he saw and heard from his fifth graders. “I don’t think it was more challenging to have to stick to the curriculum. The challenging part was feeling like I was going over things the students have already done multiple times while not being able to fully address areas where my students struggle” (Blake, Inquiry 3, November, 2010). Going against his instinct, Blake said he tried his best to “stick to the script,” even when, he said, “my professional opinion told me otherwise.” Fifth graders, said Blake, knew enough to realize the monotony present in the curriculum. Blake described his students’ response to writing saying, “Every time I said it’s writing time, most of them say “Oh no!” and a lot of them wanted to know, “When are we going write fantasy (genre)?” I wish I could say we’ll do it right now, I know you want to do it, let’s do it.” (Blake, interview, January, 2011). It is important to note that Units of Study is written as a “spiral curriculum,” and as such teachers teach and re-teach the same concepts at greater levels of complexity as students progress through the grades. Units of Study is written to span three grade levels, grades 3, 4, and 5. Blake recognized that the curriculum was not working for his students. He cited one of his troubles as the “redundant” 238 nature of the curriculum. It is possible that as a beginning writing teacher, with limited pedagogical knowledge, he did not understand how to revisit a writing concept while going deeper into the content, rather than just repeating what was already taught. To Blake, learning to teach writing meant, “feeling constricted” (Blake, interview, January, 2011). When I asked him to explain what he meant, Blake said: “I had to stick to the script, and it felt a little stale to me, to be honest” (Blake, interview, January, 2011). And, while Blake admitted struggling through scripted lesson plans, he did appreciate the general structure of Writers Workshop, and Units of Study, in specific. “I like the workshop format,” he said, and went on to explain, “I like that you have time in front of the room to model and have discussions, and then time to work individually.” But, he also acknowledged that the curriculum, as it was presented to him, was far from ideal for his fifth graders. “I’m okay with having a curriculum, that’s totally fine, but I would like to be able to address areas where my class is struggling and maybe even bring in other experiences or subject matters such as social studies.” Blake found it difficult to both stick to the script and to honor not only his students’ needs but also their interests. In Blake’s fifth grade classroom retrofitting the curriculum took on several different faces. At times he said it meant moving more quickly through a mini lesson. Other times it meant improvising when what students said made it clear they had “seen this before,” and still others it meant retooling the script completely. 239 For example, Blake said, “I have been trying to make them (lesson plans) my own… my big thing is that I wanted to modify it (Units of Study) for the sole reason to get the kids interested. Because I didn’t want to change what Lucy Calkins was talking about, because I see the merit in it” (Blake, interview, January, 2011). During one lesson, Blake decided to “personalize” his instruction he says, I changed the script and instead, “told my own personal narrative. It was cool because I got to personalize and I could show them (students) how I was using memories and visuals to write MY story… and those four or five lessons were the most engaged I ever had them, I wish I could do that every time. (Blake, Interview, January 2011). Below, in Table 13, I show the original lesson Blake had planned for November 7, 2010 and list the original lesson objective, which Blake left unchanged. Then, in the left-hand column, I quote Blake’s original lesson plan, which he quoted directly from Units of Study. In the right-hand column I show how Blake thought about his revised lesson in which he altered the lesson script in order to engage his students. His reflection and revisions show how he chose to model the telling of his own story about white water rafting in order to show his students how to “show what happened” in their own personal narratives. 240 Table 13. Blake’s Retrofitted Lesson Lucy’s Lesson Blake’s Retooled Lesson Lesson Objective: Students will write a personal narrative from their own point of view by “showing” what happened and including how or what they were feeling. “Think about your everyday life. My students had no idea what You experience many things pickled eggs were, what was I everyday. For example, your thinking? I decided to use my own parents might have made you try a story to reach the same objective. new type of food last night, like pickled eggs. Or maybe you rode I told the story about white water your bike to a friend’s house and rafting and that was going to be my saw a baby squirrel that lost his personal narrative. So then the mother on the ground. Those are kids started asking me questions things you experience, but your life like: Oh you went white water is more than just things that rafting… they were interested! I happen to you. Your response to brought in pictures; we were talking what happens to you is equally about how you can look at pictures important, isn’t it? What was the to help you think. It happened that first thing you thought to yourself my friend fell off into the water, so when you saw the pickled eggs? I it was perfect for my story. It know my mind would have been literally showed them my story racing to think of something to say through pictures. to get out of eating it. I might be sweating as I put it in my mouth, I used You Tube to show rapids, anticipating something terrible.” And, it was cool because I got to personalize it, so they could relate Blake intended on reading the to me as a person and I could show script as it was written. them how I was using these memories and these visuals to write (Blake’s lesson 11/7/2010, Calkins, my story and add details. 2006) (Blake, Interview, January, 2011) 241 Table 13 (cont’d) I will tell them that I want them to go back to their drafts. I want them to find the heart of the story. I will tell them to ask themselves “What was I thinking/feeling?” I will tell them to go back and give their audience clues as to their feelings and what they were thinking. (Blake’s lesson, 11/7/2010, Calkins, 2006) I had them rewrite parts of my white water rafting story with me, adding the internal story. I learned the importance of modeling. After I taught the minilesson, I realized a lot of students had no idea how to start doing this in their own stories. That was when I decided to pull out my story and have them help me add internal parts, with the hope that they could then do this with their own Blake said that after the success I detailed above, he continued to retool and revise the script present in Units of Study. In an excerpt from his narrative, Adjusting Curriculum to Effectively Teach Students, Blake tells of his “big triumph.” He noted a place in his teaching where his students were not engaged in their writing work. So, he got creative and adjusted using improvisation (Sawyer, 2004). My big triumph was when I was planning a lesson on concluding our stories. If I taught it exactly like the book said to, it would have been a repeat of what we did earlier in the year, so I made an adjustment. I found a way to integrate a clip from Star Wars to show how we can make effective endings to our stories. I knew it would get the students engaged because the entire class loves Star Wars. Sure enough, I had the most lively and engaged class that day when we had our discussion about endings. I did what my CT said to do; I stuck to the curriculum by covering the main topic, but then I made adjustments to make it my own and cater to my individual students. Through thoughtful retrofitting of a mandated curriculum, Blake found a way to support his students and their development as writers. His use of Star Wars is an 242 example of his disciplined improvisation (Sawyer, 2004); disciplined in that he acknowledged the value of the lesson in Units of Study, but improvisational in that he chose to bring in material that he thought would excite and engage his fifth graders. During our interview together, he spoke candidly about both his hesitation at retooling a script that he was required to utilize and his growing confidence in doing just that. In the end, said Blake, “I want my students to write really well, and to write stories they feel like they want to tell” (Blake, Interview notes, January, 2011). Blake’s struggle to navigate his own developing pedagogy for writing ended with a very personal and important revelation. At the close of our semester together, Blake wrote: “I enjoy teaching writing but I really want the students to have the best instruction possible. To me, that is the most important thing about teaching; doing your best to give your students what they need to succeed, even if you have to deviate a little from the required curriculum” (Blake, Narrative, December, 2011). Below, I address my second research question: How did I, as a teacher educator, scaffold the pedagogical development of interns like Dana and Blake as they encountered influential politics and mandated curricula? What Politics Reveals to Teacher Educators In order to address my second research question: How do I, as a literacy teacher educator/researcher scaffold pedagogical development in writing instruction while acknowledging the various political experiences of interns?, I summarize in this section how my course scaffolded intern work in writing instruction as it related to the politics and policies in individual classrooms. I assert that the Unit 243 Plan (Inquiry One), Teacher Narrative (Inquiry Three), and peer-led conversations (e.g., roundtables), provided insight for me, as the writing teacher educator, into how policies affect interns as they navigate writing instruction for the first time. I begin by defining my own ideas about instructional adaptation and why I found it to be inextricably connected to intern development in writing pedagogy as it related to politics. Next, I discuss how and why the politics interns experienced in schools and classrooms were a rich teaching tool. Lastly, because this study viewed teacher learning and pedagogical development through the lens of Activity Theory (Engstrom, 1999) I spend time discussing my role in the following two areas: scaffolding of practical tools through a focus on course assignments and scaffolding of conceptual tools through a focus on course experiences such as roundtable conversations. Scaffolding adaptation. The two themes that emerged from my analysis of data, Translating scripted lessons and Retrofitting scripted lessons both focused on interns’ abilities to recognize when and why mandated curriculum was not working and, subsequently, to adapt instruction. In my mind, and in my course, it was important to encourage interns not to work directly from a curriculum, but to work alongside it, allowing their own observations and ideas to guide instruction. Rather than promoting a single “correct” pedagogical stance on writing instruction, I employed Auckerman’s definition of scaffolding which honors the ideas and understandings of interns as “possible knowers” in their individual classrooms (Aukerman, 2007). I encouraged each intern to consider his or her own classroom, 244 and in this case, the policies in place that might govern writing instruction. It was my goal to scaffold intern learning to help each teacher become knowledgeable advocates for the writing instruction their students needed, when their students needed it. Instructional adaptation, as I thought of it, meant not only changing instruction, but also recognizing instructional ideas and planning as a place for advocacy for writing instruction. I worked to ask interns to think of themselves as “advocates” in their classrooms. In our case, being advocates often meant making instructional adaptations. Politics truly became a teaching tool—for adaption and for intern-initiated pedagogical action, or agency, in classrooms. This, for example, meant adapting scripted language like Dana did, supplementing scripted lessons with more engaging and authentic examples like Blake did, or revising instructional routines for writing, like Renee and Olivia did. Enacting pedagogy beyond the status quo meant interns embodied a sense of agency in their teaching. Recall that for the purposes of this study, I define agency as an intern teacher’s active desire to discuss, through course assignments and activities, and act on new ideas for writing instruction (Fairbanks et al., 2010; Hammerness, 2002; Sexton, 2008; Sloan, 2006). Below, I show how I perceive my course scaffolded interns’ sense of agency which resulted in the adaptations they made in their writing instruction. Scaffolding practical tools. In Engstrom’s vision of activity theory, tools mediate interactions between individuals and their goals in a particular setting, such as a classroom (Engstrom, 1999). One type of tool is the practical version. In 245 Chapter Two, I clearly defined the elements of practical tools and their common uses in teaching. Here I claim that course assignments such as The Unit Plan (or Inquiry Two) and Teacher Narrative (or Inquiry Three), scaffolded interns such as Dana to make changes, or adapt one specific practical tool in her classroom workthe scripted curriculum. The policies in place in Dana’s school required her to “follow the script” (Dana, interview, January, 2011), but through coursework and teaching, says Dana, she decided she needed to adapt the script, translating it into words and ideas that her third graders could grasp. In the table below, I show the instructional text from our course assignments: Inquiry Two, The Unit Plan and Inquiry Three, Teacher Narrative. I noticed that Dana reflected often on the mandated, scripted curriculum she used during her writing unit. Dana’s reflections below show that during the first three lesson plans in her unit, she both made some changes “mid-stride” and also decided to adapt her instruction as she moved forward. And, in reflecting on her unit as a whole, Dana grappled with how to make “Lucy’s words” her own. 246 Table 14. Course Assignment as Scaffolding for Adaptation Inquiry Two, Unit Plan Dana’s adaptive ideas After teaching the lessons and reflecting I learned that my students do not on how they went, you will also make keep up with me when I am also busy notes on your plans regarding what you jumping around and trying to figure would do differently in the future and out how to translate things midwhy you think these changes would sentence. I think I need to do some improve learning opportunities for your more thinking about what I want the students. students to get from the lesson. I felt • What students learned and which like we were speeding through everything. students struggled with the lesson. If I was going to teach this again, I • What are alternate reads of your would do LESS because I think I lost students’ performance or my students. I need to think ahead or products? read ahead of teaching. • What did you learn about your (Dana, Inquiry 2, November, 2010) students’ literacy practices that extend beyond your objectives? • When and how will you re-teach the material to students who need additional support? • If you were to teach this same lesson again, what would you do differently and how do you think the changes would improve students’ learning? Inquiry Three Interpreting Evidence and Making Claims Dana’s Adaptive Ideas 247 Table 14 (cont’d) Consider ‘implications for your practice.’ Think about the instructional context in which you are learning to teach literacy and how that may have influenced your teaching experiences and opportunities for professional learning during Guided Lead Teaching. Jot down notes about the following: Review your notes from Inquiry One regarding the literacy resources and programs available to you, and think about what part of your curriculum your literacy unit fit within (e.g., guided reading program, daily five, writing workshop, book club). • To what extent were you were expected to follow a scripted curriculum, or add your own ideas to a curriculum that already exists, or create a unit that is entirely new? • What was unproblematic and/or challenging about planning a unit in this context? • What obstacles did you face? How did you overcome them? • What enabled you to be successful? My classroom follows Lucy Calkins' Writing Workshop almost religiously. The challenge I had with Writing Workshop was due [to] it being a scripted curriculum. Each mini lesson is supposed to take no more than 15 minutes, but if you were to follow what Calkins' prescribes, you would spend 15 minutes defining the words used to describe different writing aspects. I was faced with taking Lucy's words, drawing the meaning out of them, weeding out the higher level next grade ideas and finding the core of the lesson. As each lesson has different parts to it, I also had to decide which part should have the most focus and which ones will just be introduced. This required a very forward view, looking through the whole year's Writing Workshop, not just the unit, to try and understand Lucy's focus. (Dana, Inquiry 3, December 2010) Interestingly, Dana attributed some of her learning to course assignments that forced her to name, investigate, and reflect on the practical tools in her classroom, such as Units of Study. She referred to her investigation of her classroom’s writing curriculum (Inquiry 1) and to her revised lesson plans (Inquiry 2) as “really important” to her thinking about writing instruction in her particular circumstance. The politics and policies that Dana faced during her teaching led her 248 to make instructional adaptations to practical tools that she used on a daily basis (e.g., she translated her daily scripted lesson plans to make them “more appropriate” for her third graders). The coursework she engaged with in during my methods course were one way that she was able to begin to think about what she might adapt and how she might go about it (i.e., reading ahead in the curriculum or cutting lesson activities that seemed to complicated). Dana’s instructional adaptation was scaffolded, in part, by her thoughtful work in the classroom and in our course together. In this way, her teacher thinking spanned both the university and course settings. Below, I consider how coursework provided a scaffold for conceptual tools interns utilized during their pedagogical development. Scaffolding conceptual tools. In order to scaffold conceptual tools, defined by Engstrom’s (1999) model of activity theory as those practices and ideas that mediate interaction between individuals and goals, I encouraged interns to articulate the concepts and ideas that they believed drove their instructional decision-making. I wanted them to move beyond the debate about “scripts” or “no scripts” and to consider the assumptions those scripts might make about teaching and learning. This became particularly important as interns began to talk amongst themselves and notice the vast “political” differences between their classrooms and schools. Renee and Olivia, both fifth grade teachers in the same school, for example, began to see large discrepancies in the way their classrooms were run. Conceptually, they noticed that students were treated as partners in learning in one room (Renee’s) and objects of learning in another (Olivia’s). And, Blake and Renee, 249 both fifth grade teachers in different school systems, had several conversations about the writing units they were planning and the “policies” that made learning difficult in certain situations. For example, Blake who admired Renee’s Mystery Unit and her curricular freedom said, “Honestly the shared discussions in our class [helped me think about teaching writing] because I heard a lot of great ideas from other teachers, like Renee. Her mystery unit was awesome! I got creative tidbits, fresh ideas, and it was exciting to me (Blake, interview, January, 2011). These experiences articulate examples of how structured, peer led conversation among interns can be a productive way to think about instruction and its intersection with politics. I argue that the weekly structured “roundtables” that interns engaged in during our course together scaffolded their pedagogical development as it related to their ability to articulate the conceptual ideas behind the policies present in their classrooms. In my methods course, I recognized that interns were continually wanting to bring field experiences into the course-which was important- but sometimes off track. And, while I did not want the course to become a place for only troubleshooting or venting, lest we neglect the research and pedagogical ideas I thought important in an advanced methods course, I did believe that classroom experiences were valuable learning tools. Because I view learning through the lens of Activity Theory, I recognized that interns’ actual experiences were rich with examples and evidence of teacher thinking. I recognized that sometimes, in the midst of venting about a negative experience with a script, interns neglected to 250 recognize the conceptual idea behind the script. Because I wanted to encourage my interns to be advocates for writing instruction, I thought it necessary for them to begin to move beyond simple reporting of what they did not like about their teaching work and to begin to discuss the reasons why their frustrations existed. To do this, I initiated roundtables. Our roundtables were discussion based, peer led discussions that began every course together. For the first twenty minutes of class, interns met in grade level groups of 4 or 5. There, I prompted them to discuss (and use evidence from their teaching) and think about topic areas that I chose based on their weekly reflections or conversations during class time. Sometimes these roundtables began with a Think, Write, Pair, Share activity where I asked students to recall an experience they had during their teaching. More often than not, these conversations were based on policies at the school or classroom level and dealt with how interns might mediate their work between the University and the Classroom. In the table below, I list the roundtable discussions we had during the course. It is important to note that I only planned weeks 1 and 10 before the course began. The other weeks I tailored to the interests, questions or issues brought to me by interns. 251 Table 15. Topical Schedule of Roundtable Discussions Week Roundtable Topic Week 1 Getting to know our classrooms: What kinds of literacy learning do you hear/see? Think: reading, writing, listening, speaking, viewing Week 3 Who has a stake in our work in classrooms? Week 4 What is balanced literacy? What does it look like? What could it look like? Week 5 On-Line Discussion: Writing instruction Week 6 Instructional planning and adapting to meet the needs of learners Week 7 Scripted Curricula and policy mandates Week 8 What kinds of assessment do you do? Week 10 Final Roundtable: sharing our teacher narratives While I cannot say for certain that interns learned BECAUSE of their conversation during these roundtable discussions, I can argue that Dana and Blake’s talk about pedagogical ideas was more articulate and adaptive after having had time to think about and discuss these issues. Below are two separate excerpts from my teaching memos on days we discussed scripted curriculum during our course time. I know from experience that the writing curriculum in all of these districts vary vastly. I’m interested to see whether my students pick up on that. I think I could use the second part of Inquiry One to get my students to articulate what they are seeing and what those decisions (curriculum choices) mean for their teaching and the learning of their students (September, 2010). One of my students (Dana) asked about something that was currently going on in her school/classroom—the big idea was that the district was considering stricter pacing guides with writing curriculum. While a certain curriculum is in place now, teachers aren’t really stringent with how the adhere to the curriculum. Automatically, some of my students were anti this idea saying that they wanted to be able to address the needs and interests of their students. Others were pro this idea noting that having a guide would be valuable in helping students learn everything they need to before middle or high school. Rather than ignoring the dissonance, I seized it. I pushed my students to talk 252 more about why they might be anti or pro. Was it because they didn’t like the way learning was happening? Was it because they didn’t like what it meant for teachers? I was excited to hear professional vocabulary such as “spiral curriculum” or “student-centered instruction” and references to learning tools such as writing time, modeling and individual conferences. I also noticed that my interns were not quite able to articulate why they did or did not believe in this type of pacing guide. While we did not all agree in the end, I think my interns were now able to see that being an articulate advocate for good teaching ideas/tools/skills is almost as important as being able to enact those ideas/tools/skills. I am going to bring this to roundtable next week. (October, 2010) Roundtable conversations allowed interns to learn from one another and to reflect on the practice of writing instruction as an endeavor that is beyond the singular classroom where they spent their instructional time. And, while interns brought difficult questions and often left with no perfect answers, fruitful discussions about the difficult topic of navigating in, around, and through those policies dictating writing instruction surfaced as a result of course time conversation. Making Instructional Moves Based on Politics The instructional experiences focused on the policies in place in intern classrooms largely influenced my instructional moves particularly as they related to mandated, scripted curriculum. Both Dana and Blake were cautious in making adaptations to writing instruction that they originally understood to be “set in stone.” And, while both teachers saw value in Units of Study, each had to be scaffolded (or encouraged) to make curricular adjustments. During the course of their experience with Units of Study, interns often asked me what I knew about its efficacy. Below, I give a brief overview of the current research on Lucy Calkins and 253 show how I used Blake and Dana’s experiences with the curriculum to help me better scaffold their learning as it related to writing instruction and politics. Research specific to Lucy Calkins’ Units of Study. The truth is, research on Writing Workshop and specifically on Units of Study is extremely thin. Units of Study is based on a longitudinal study Lucy Calkins conducted thirty years ago exploring how children learned to write (Calkins, 1982, 1983a, 1983b, 1986). Her study, a case study of one child’s development in writing, drawn from a larger study of sixteen children in seven elementary classrooms in New Hampshire, describes a child-centered and writing focused “workshop” where teachers are highly involved in shaping student development as authors as well as the development of one student’s growth and development as a writer (Calkins, 1983a). Additional research has shown writing workshop to have a positive influence on writing instruction and students’ interaction with writing (Batel, 2005; Corden, 2007; Hachem, Nabhani, & Bahous, 2008; Jasmine & Weiner, 2007). Perhaps Calkins’ most important legacy, and a central tenant of Units of Study, is that the workshop treats all children as true and valued authors with important stories to write (Calkins, 1986, 2006). However, research shows little hard evidence for lockstep instruction with Units of Study, as it is written. No studies have been done on the specific impact of the scripted language on students’ writing or teachers’ work with the curriculum. Below is a table illustrating three excerpts from a scripted lesson in Units of Study, Book Two, Raising the Quality of Narrative Writing (Calkins, 2006). Raising the 254 Quality of Narrative Writing was the curriculum guide used by both Dana, a third grad teacher, and Blake, a fifth grade teacher, in this study. The Scripted language I list below is taken from Lesson 8 titled, “Telling the Story from Inside it.” I first list the lesson goal and the “connection”- a scripted introduction to the lesson. I then list three separate excerpts from this one lesson. In the left-hand column of the table I note potentially problems with research citations that support these statements. In the right-hand column I list the script as it was written. Most interesting is the script’s suggestion that teachers “pretend to write,” rather than acting as true writers or authors. One of the benefits of the Writer’s Workshop is its encouragement of students to act as “real authors.” In an introduction to her curriculum, Lucy Calkins, herself, encourages teachers to write in their own author’s notebooks. Additionally, research shows that “more restrictive” teacher materials such as paced scripts and lesson plans inhibit teacher learning and their ability to adjust instruction to meet the diverse needs of students (Oakes et al., 2002; Valencia et al., 2006). Table 16. Potential Problems with Units of Study Lesson Goal In this session, you’ll teach students to write from the narrator’s point of view. “Connection” Over the past several days, you have been busy planning your narratives, writing entries about your seed ideas, and crafting several leads. If you haven’t started your first draft yet, today is the day to get started! Before you get started on your drafts, I have an important lesson to teach you. Today I will show you how good writers write from the narrator’s point of view. 255 Table 16 (cont’d) Excerpt One POTENTIAL PROBLEMS An authentic teacher story relating to the students has more potential for engaged learning. (Cambourne, 1995; Pritchard & Honeycutt, 2007) Excerpt Two POTENTIAL PROBLEMS This section of the script restricts teachers’ improvisation (Sawyer, 2004; Valencia et al., 2006) Students might not relate to the story of illness as well as they might relate to another story.(Gerstl-Pepin & Woodside-Jiron, 2005) Using a real teacher story might allow a teacher to supplement lessons with photos, additional stories, or artifacts(Oakes et al., 2002; Pritchard & Honeycutt, 2007) I learned about seeing the story through the narrator’s eyes when I was writing a story about a time that I got some bad news. In my story, I was washing dishes when the phone rang. I was up to my elbows in soap suds, so my sister answered the phone. I heard her say, “Hello?” In my story, I wanted to write about how my mother was on the phone and it was my mom saying that she had been to the doctor and she had some bad news. So I tried to write this [read or pretend to read from writer’s notebook]: My sister picked up the phone. It was my mom saying that she had been to the doctor. Then I realized that I couldn’t write the story like that. I was in the middle of washing dishes, so I didn’t answer the phone, my sister did. How could I know who was on the phone or what was said? I realized that my writing would be better if I wrote the story as it unfolded from my point of view. So, I revised my writing to read like this [read or pretend to read from writer’s notebook]: My sister picked up the phone. I heard her say, “What did he say?” and “Did he give you anything for it?” After she hung up she said, “That was Mom. She’s been to the doctor.” (Calkins, 2006, p. 95). In the second version of my story, I wrote as I saw it through my eyes. As the narrator, it is my job to write the story from my point of view and explain exactly how I experienced the events of the story. 256 Table 16 (cont’d) Excerpt Three POTENTIAL PROBLEMS Why not act as a true writer writing for a real audience? (Nystrand, 1986)(Pritchard & Honeycutt, 2007) Let’s practice. I am going to do some more writing in my notebook. Listen to my story and give me a thumbs-up if the point of view is working and makes sense, or a thumbs-down if slip away from my point of view. [Write or pretend to write while telling story aloud.] I stood alongside my bike at the top of the hill. My brother, Alex, and his friend, Brian, waited as I made Students might not up my mind. In front of me, the road lay like a ribbon. relate to this story as “I’m ready,” I thought. I swung my leg up, climbed well as they could relate onto the seat, and pushed on the pedal. [Pause – to a story about a shared thumbs up.] Soon I was gently slipping down the classroom experience road, faster and faster. The world zoomed past me: such as the Halloween trees, boulders … browns, greens – a blur of color. party or the day the [Pause – thumbs up.] Then I saw something dart out principal came in to in front of me. Was it a squirrel? A chipmunk? I read aloud (Duke et al., swerved to avoid it, lost my balance, and headed into 2006/2007; Oakes et al., the brush as the side of the road. [Pause – thumbs 2002) up]. My bike flipped and I went flying. Suddenly I saw nothing. [Pause – thumbs up.] My brother and What about stopping Alex raced down the hill and then they went inside. and adjusting thumbs Brian looked at Alex and wondered if I was alive. up/thumbs down, [Pause – thumbs down.] particularly if it is not (Calkins, 2006, p. 95) working for a group of students? (Valencia et al., 2006) Some evidence has shown frustration with the scripts in Units of Study. For instance, Common Good, a bipartisan organization, asked elementary teachers in New York City who were mandated to closely follow Units of Study to keep an instructional diary considering, “how bureaucracy impacts every day teaching” (Feinberg, 2007). The responses were overwhelmingly negative. One teacher 257 commented: “Administrators expect all our writing workshops to adhere to an unvarying and strict script. For example: Writers, today and every day you should remember to revise your writing by adding personal comments about the facts. Sometimes, I feel like I am a robot regurgitating the scripted dialogue that’s expected of us day in and out” (p. 29). In a response to Units of Study, Barbara Feinberg (2007) notes that Calkins has over time become increasingly focused on enforcing her curriculum’s methodology; many of her techniques limit children’s’ genuine engagement with writing (p. 27). “This insistence has,” says Feinberg, “translated into a demand that teachers quiet their own impulses, gifts and experiences and speak in one mandated voice” (2007, p. 27). Interestingly, this idea that Calkins is favor of lockstep instruction is in direct contradiction to her original ideas about writing instruction (Calkins, 1982, 1983a, 1986). Similar to Murray’s plea not to hinder the “pioneering spirit” inherent in teaching, Feinberg and her colleagues lament the loss of teacher creativity and professional pedagogical decision-making that comes with mandating a lockstep, scripted curriculum (Feinberg, 2007). But, Lucy Calkins, herself, says in the introduction to Units of Study, A Guide to the Writing Workshop, “With adaptations, these lessons can provide the backbone for your own units of study, but you will want to tailor your teaching based on what you see your children needing. After each lesson, there is a description of mini lesson extensions (Calkins, 2006, p. 6). 258 And so, the evidence is mixed. Some say Lucy Calkins, and her curriculum, are to blame for restrictive and lockstep instruction (Feinberg, 2007), others point to the ability of scripted curriculum to help pace teachers and scaffold beginning teachers (Cohen et al., 2007; Gerstl-Pepin & Woodside-Jiron, 2005; Grossman et al., 2008). In this study, I noticed that politics, in the form of mandated, scripted curriculum, specifically, Units of Study, did affect the way interns navigated pedagogical development in writing. But, I cannot say that the policies, or curriculum, were detrimental. What I can say is that through my interns’ interaction with mandated, scripted writing curriculum, I was able to scaffold intern ideas about curricular adaptation. I also contend that lessons on curricular adaptation, while not something that I had the foresight to put into my syllabus, are valuable and important, particularly in today’s political climate. In sum, evidence revealed that politics and policies in writing instruction helped interns learn to translate and retro-fit scripted curriculum in ways that best attended to the needs of particular students and teachers in writing classrooms. 259 Chapter 7 Implications Teaching that is responsive to students and situations requires teachers who know who they want to become and who are both proactive and skilled in navigating places for themselves as teachers. (Fairbanks et al., 2010; p. 167) Little is known about how teacher educators in university settings might best support beginning teachers as they navigate the development of pedagogy in writing. While teaching the methods course, working to understand interns’ experiences, and analyzing data through a sociocultural lens, I have worked to better understand how four interns navigated internship experiences, with a specific focus on text, context, and politics, as each developed pedagogy for writing (RQ1). I investigated how interns came to understand and utilize textual, contextual and political features such as writing curriculum, coursework, peer interaction, and instructional expectations within each individual internship classroom in order to better understand how I, as a teacher educator could support pedagogical development in writing (RQ2). I have come to understand that interns benefit from the scaffolding provided by methods courses, such as mine, that specifically take into account the individual contexts in which interns are learning to teach. I have also come to understand that creating opportunites to scaffold responsive writing teachers, while attending to the text, context, and politics of individual intern situations, is complex and multifaceted work. 260 As I analyzed intern assignments, reflections on teaching, and conversations about our work in the advanced literacy methods course, six themes, within three categories, arose as important for teacher educators as they work with interns learning to teach writing: Text 1. Texts facilitate curricular modification; 2. Texts facilitate the emergence of interns as writing teachers; Context 3. Attention to context and its proximal resources can support the discovery and use of instructional tools; 4. Attention to context and its distal resources can support the discovery and use of intern/mentor relationships; Politics 5. Translating scripted curriculum is difficult; and 6. Retro-fitting scripted curriculum to meet the needs and interests of students can be a confusing process. Throughout my study and analysis of data resulting in these themes, one commonality, one larger, more important idea has surfaced: Each of the themes above is related to responsiveness by interns. These actions, writing and revising texts; seeking and utilizing curricular resources; or translating and retrofitting mandated curriculum are focused on actions interns made in response to the instructional and student-based demands of their classrooms. 261 In the quote above, Fairbanks and colleagues (2010), underscore the value of teacher responsiveness as a kind of responsiveness that helps beginning teachers as they navigate teaching (Fairbanks et al., 2010). This study has helped me articulate the idea that as interns navigate classroom experiences (with regard to text, context, and politics) and work to develop pedagogy for writing, their own responsiveness is significant. For example, interns who have opportunities to be responsive through writing and revising text (themes 1,2), discovering and using contextual resources (themes 3,4), and adapting politically mandated curriculum (themes 5 and 6) are better able to develop writing pedagogy that is contextually (i.e., pedagogy fits the classroom and the writers present) and personally (i.e., pedagogy fits the beliefs and personal practical theories (Fairbanks et al., 2010)) adaptive. I also argue that the purposeful crafting of experiences in methods courses can create the adaptive expertise (Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2007) intern teachers need to become actively involved in navigating their pedagogical development in writing. Through the lens of activity theory (Engestrom, 1999) and with the help of Kamberelis and de la Luna’s framework for understanding writing (2004), this study shows how the careful crafting of advanced methods course can scaffold responsiveness that leads to a more successfully navigated path toward the development of writing pedagogy. In this chapter, I describe my understanding of “responsiveness” as it relates to my work with interns and the development of writing pedagogy. I then give examples of how teacher educators might foster this responsiveness in their 262 preservice teachers in order to develop more successful writing teachers, through attention to text, context, and politics. Next, I discuss this study’s implications for teacher education, professional development and policy makers. Lastly, I review limitations of the study and potential future research on the study of the development writing pedagogy. Fostering Responsive Teachers Through action research I have come to understand that by scaffolding interns’ attention to the texts, contextual resources, and politics within their individual teaching experiences through coursework focused on individual experiences and structured and purposeful conversations with peers, I was able to encourage interns to be responsive (Dewey, 1938; Fairbanks et al., 2010). Responsive teachers are those that are “deeply aware of people and context” (Dewey, 1938) and are thoughtfully adaptive in the classroom (Fairbanks et al., 2010). Similarly, responsive teachers practice “adaptive expertise” (DarlingHammond & Bransford, 2007) which stresses a purposeful pedagogical response based on knowledge of students and classroom setting. This scaffolding in and for practice (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999) is instruction that is often improvised and responsive to students and classroom setting. And, scaffolding interns to be responsive is necessarily diverse work, as interns are each scaffolded toward different outcomes depending on the intern and the context in question. In my work, responsiveness encompassed interns’ willingness to adapt instructional text, contextual resources, and scripted curriculum, as I described in chapters 4, 5, and 6. 263 In this section, I show how my own flexible scaffolding (Aukerman, 2007) of course assignments and course activities created space for teachers to become more responsive to the writers and writing curriculum in their classrooms. In the two sections that follow, I illustrate how my work as a writing teacher educator did two things to allow interns to make the adaptations they did during their writing instruction. First, within my methods course, I purposefully designed learning opportunities where interns were encouraged to bring their ideas about teaching writing into their classrooms. Secondly, interns were required to reflect on and make changes to their instruction. This forced teachers to create a more current, or realistic, vision for their ideas, encouraging responsiveness, or as Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1999) refer to it: “knowledge in practice”. It is important to note that all four interns did not become more responsive at the same rate or to the same degree, nor were they equally receptive to my scaffolding. For example, while Dana and Blake seized opportunities to adapt their instructional plans and ideas about writing instruction, utilizing most of the tools and resources that I made available, Olivia resisted changing her ideas about writing instruction and often lamented her situation, rather than being responsive to it. Responsiveness. Responsive teachers are those who are able to understand and react to students, classrooms, and policies, utilizing a sense of agency to “thoughtfully respond” to students and situations. As I alluded to in Chapter 2, Sawyer (2004) identified responsiveness as a kind of “disciplined improvisation,” or the “collaborative and emergent nature of effective classroom 264 practice” (p. 12). Teacher responsiveness incorporates teachers’ (or, I argue, interns’) sense of agency and professional/instructional decision-making. Rather than unsystematically altering instruction, responsive teachers consider the whole instructional situation by researching, asking questions, and making necessary adaptations to pedagogy. Fairbanks characterized responsiveness and agency this way: “The intent of purposefully negotiating personal and professional contexts to institute thoughtful and responsive teaching” (Fairbanks et al., 2010, p. 161). Fairbanks and colleagues go on to say, “teaching that is responsive to students and situations requires teachers who know who they want to become (self knowledge) and who are both proactive and able to recognize that virtually every situation is different, must see multiple perspectives and imagine multiple possibilities” (2010, p. 167). In addition to focusing interns’ attention to individual classroom situations, the course allowed Dana, Blake, Olivia, and Renee to begin to develop a sense of responsiveness, incorporating it into their pedagogy for writing. Dana and Blake were responsive as they wrote and re-wrote texts such as course-assigned lesson plans in order to “thoughtfully adapt” (Duffy, 2002) curriculum that was politically mandated. Renee and Olivia were responsive as they practiced what Hammerness (2002) called “crossing the gap between vision and reality” (p. 9). Both Renee and Olivia had to adapt their pedagogical ideas and instructional routines for writing in their fifth grade classrooms. Course assignments such as the Literacy Field Guide helped Renee identify and adapt resources available in her classroom, while course 265 activities such as roundtables encouraged Olivia learned to seek and find a mentor beyond her original CT to assist in her in planning the writing unit she envisioned. Teaching is demanding, say Ball and Cohen (1999, p. 10) because teachers (and beginning teachers) must deal with “the particulars” including particular students, interaction with particular ideas, in particular circumstances. Like theories of sociocultural learning, I believe these particulars, along with other particulars such as text, context, and politics, influence pedagogical development in writing. In this study, I found that beyond merely recognizing “the particulars” – interns can be scaffolded to act on them, with respect to each individual teaching context. My findings suggest that the development of writing pedagogy can take place as interns move through the internship experience. And, as Fairbanks et al. suggest, it is possible for interns to be able to negotiate, or navigate, their internship placement, rather than “merely hope for a setting” that matches their vision of writing instruction (Fairbanks et al., 2010; p. 165). The development of situated, contextual knowledge, in particular, can help interns as they navigate the unfamiliar terrain of writing instruction. Coursework that scaffolds intern attention toward classroom text, context and politics through fostering adaptive expertise (Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2007) encourages responsive and adaptive teaching that can positively influence interns in their pedagogical decisionmaking. 266 While my work alongside interns over the course of this one semester class did reveal pedagogical growth, our work was not always simple, nor did things always operate as planned. I realize now that providing opportunities for interns to talk about being responsive is important, but even more important is helping interns make a plan for that responsiveness (or adaptation). For example, while my study revealed that intern teachers struggle to adapt scripted curriculum for their use in specific classrooms, I did not provide specific direction and support in making those adaptations. The idea that I needed to create/foster adaptive experts (Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2007) was not something that I came into this course (or this study) possessing. It was something that arose as I reflected on and analyzed course data and intern evidence. Instructing interns who were all teaching in different schools and contexts was messy business; often I felt ill informed as to interns’ goals or responsibilities related to writing instruction. Because I had to rely on interns’ reports of their contexts, I cannot be sure that I always heard, or rightly understood, the whole story. Finally, having a course that meets away from the school, and in the university setting, creates a gap that instructors, like me, need to think about bridging. One way I have begun to think about building such a bridge is by working to bring intern work into direct conversation with course goals. My structuring of roundtable discussions are a start at this, but working to bring real, teaching dilemmas into conversation with course methods and goals is something that requires much more research and thought. As I have alluded to above, my work with interns in this course did not 267 eliminate the two worlds pitfall (Feiman-Nemser & Buchmann, 1985). Interns were still students in my university class, working for a grade one day, and teachers in classrooms working to “stay afloat” the others. Reconceptualizing the Development of Intern Writing Pedagogy. Drawing on my findings, I offer a suggested reconceptualization of the development of intern writing pedagogy based on my ideas about fostering responsive teachers who are beginning to develop and exercise adaptive expertise (Darling-Hammond and Bransford, 2007). For me, the development of responsive teachers meant creating opportunities for interns to move within what DarlingHammond and Bransford (2007) call the Optimal Adaptability Corridor (OAC), or allowing interns to “experience ideas (about teaching writing) and to experience the need to change those ideas” (Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2007; p. 51). In the figure below, I illustrate that my course was, a purposeful place where ideas and experiences from both the university and elementary classroom contexts came together so that interns were better able to consider responsive teaching practices as they related to individual texts, contexts and politics. I purposefully structured time in my course to merge both the reality and the possible (for writing instruction) not because university and classroom ideas were oppositional, but because interns benefitted from identifying and discussing what high quality writing instruction within individual contexts could look like. It is important to note that interns did not find that what we discussed in class was always “impossible” in their writing classrooms or “unthinkable” in and during their 268 beginning experiences with writing instruction. In fact, on more than one occasion, interns, such as Renee, used what we discussed in class to enhance her teaching (e.g. setting up a writing routine). Similarly, Blake used my modeled examples during class to understand, beyond his mandated curriculum (e.g. teacher response to students within writing lessons) how his fifth graders were thinking about writing. This, and evidence from my findings chapters, point that responsive conversations about instruction and context was not only helpful, but necessary, in “open” situations just as much as it was in those classrooms where writing instruction was more regimented (e.g. Lucy Calkins-based curriculum). Secondly, conversations about adapting instruction, or exercising adaptive expertise, proved more necessary in those classrooms with open curriculum than in those classrooms with more regimented curriculum. For example, Olivia and Renee both felt overwhelmed when they began to plan for their unit on writing instruction. While Olivia struggled to envision writing instruction in her fifth grade classroom at all, Renee worked to consider what a writing “routine” should encompass. Those interns working with open curriculum benefited from opportunities to think about how they could effectively combine what they were learning about writing instruction (knowledge for practice) with what they knew about their students as writers (knowledge in practice) (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999). My reconceptualization of how interns navigate and utilize textual, contextual and political features depicts the simultaneous, reciprocal influence (note the double-headed arrows) that the development of adaptive expertise has both on 269 intern learning in the university setting as well as within the elementary classroom. I contend that while the methods course itself allowed interns to interact with knowledge development in and around writing pedagogy, interns also had to be able to shape and restructure their ideas about writing pedagogy based on their actual teaching experiences. Similarly, while the elementary classroom experience allowed interns to begin to develop writing pedagogy in an adaptive sense (i.e. interns had to adapt their plans to meet the textual, contextual, and political requirements of each individual classroom), my methods course allowed interns a place to discuss their adaptations about writing pedagogy. In a sense I tried to foster the OAC (Darling-Hammond and Bransford, 2007). Following a depiction of my reconceptualization of the theoretical framework (See Figure 4), I explain in further detail how I scaffolded the development of agency and disciplined improvisation as interns navigated teaching writing. • Methods Coursework • Text • Context • Politics Development of Knowledge Development of Adaptive Expertise • Responsive Teaching • Encouraging disciplined improvisation and agency • Scaffolding conceptual and practical tools Figure 4. Reconceptualization of Theoretical Framework 270 • Classroom • Text • Context • Politics Development of Writing Pedagogy Scaffolding adaptive expertise. In order to address my second Research Question (How do I, as a literacy teacher educator/researcher scaffold pedagogical development in writing instruction while acknowledging the various and varied textual, contextual, and political experiences of interns in my course?), I found it necessary to expand my original conceptualization of scaffolding. I moved beyond Auckerman’s (2007) idea that my interns were “possible knowers” who were coconstructing their knowledge of writing pedagogy within a unique classroom experience (Searle, 1984) in order to include scaffolding for intern responsiveness to the dual activity settings that influenced their pedagogical development in writing. Most importantly, my shift in scaffolding occurred in the way I thought about scaffolding for responsiveness as distributed and inquiry-based. It was the creation of responsive learning opportunities that allowed me to do this. Because I made time at the beginning of every class to be purposefully responsive to interns, I thought more carefully about how to craft thought-provoking experiences that addressed textual, contextual, and political difficulties within individual intern classrooms. I was able to do this because of the responsiveness I encouraged during blog responses, exit tickets, or class discussion. This responsiveness meant that, together, we were able to use the course to adapt writing pedagogy by allowing both knowledge development AND elementary classroom realities (text, context, politics) to influence our ideas about what effective, responsive writing instruction could look like in individual situations. While I acknowledged the distributed nature of the scaffolding I hoped to include within my course at the outset of this study, 271 accounting for the multiple forms of support I might offer interns while interns simultaneously developed knowledge of and active pedagogy for writing, I was not able to name “responsiveness” as a quality that I originally hoped to scaffold. Recalling that distributed scaffolding includes synergistic scaffolds that “promote both performance and learning” (Putembekar & Kolodner, 1998), I did design and plan course-based activities and conversations such as roundtable discussions where interns completed think, write, pair, share activites like: Star, Wish, Next. During this activity, interns listed a Star (something going well) in their writing pedagogy, a Wish (something pedagogical that they wish were better), and a Next Step (some action they planned to take in the coming week to address either the star or wish). Activities like these pushed interns to place their methods instruction in conversation with their classroom reality in ways that allowed for instructional decision-making. These activities acted as synergistic scaffolds in that they were interactive supports that addressed interns’ needs while navigating and developing a pedagogy for writing. My own responsiveness and the responsiveness of interns as we worked to align ideas about effective writing instruction with the realities (text, context, politics) of individual classrooms meant that I had to consider “a large assortment of learning and support needs (Tabak, 2004; p. 313)” including “multiple means and agents of scaffolding (Tabak, 2004; p. 313).” In this case, it meant not only asking interns to be responsive to the pedagogical strategies I presented in class, but also it meant acknowledging my own responsiveness to individual intern situations. For 272 example, I encouraged Renee to express to her cooperating teacher why a writing routine might be helpful. I pushed Blake to articulate why he thought his students were bored with the curriculum and to brainstorm ways to solve the problem. I asked Dana to consider why policies regarding scripted curriculum might exist in elementary classrooms. In these ways, scaffolding became much more complex than simply building knowledge for writing instruction. Instead it became dynamic and synergistic. Scaffolding meant responding to writing instruction with a juxtaposition of texts, artifacts, activities, and conversations (Gee & Green, 1998) that might support intern ideas about effective instruction within each particular classroom. At the beginning of this chapter, and in Chapter 2, I alluded to the growing importance of developing a sense of teacher agency when working to encourage effective writing instruction. As we worked through the semester, my interns and I became better at identifying instructional dilemmas (e.g., “boring/redundant” scripted curricula; little planned writing time; feelings of indecision; desire for instructional routine) during our roundtables and in other one-on-one conversations. What became frustratingly clear was that while I designed activities (e.g., Star, Wish, Next) for interns to thoughtfully talk about the merge between their classroom and methods instruction, I could not force each of them to be responsive to their unique situation, or instructional dilemma. That would take agency- or as I have defined it (Chapter 2): An intern’s active desire to discuss and ACT on individual or new ideas for writing instruction (Fairbanks et. al, 2010; 273 Hammerness, 2002; Sexton, 2008; Sloan, 2006). I found that the learning opportunities I created needed to encourage strategic pedagogical moves and responsive teaching (Sawyer, 2004). I needed to both give my interns permission to “improvise” writing pedagogy in a way that honored Sawyer’s (2004) ideas about “collaborative and emergent nature of effective classroom practice” (p. 18). Scaffolding agency is not an easy task; interns have any number of “issues” that conflict with their individual desire to ACT. As my findings chapters show (particularly Chapter 4), some interns improvised more or better than others. My findings also illustrated the need for my own instructional practice to recognize teacher agency in the form of disciplined improvisation and to name it as a pedagogical strategy for responsive instruction. I started to do this when I asked interns to articulate their “Next Step” during roundtables. I learned from Dana and Blake that disciplined improvisation, like other pedagogical strategies, must be scaffolded. By purposefully working to develop interns who are adaptive experts, my methods course could be a place for naming and modeling teacher agency in ways that allow interns to practice disciplined improvisation in their classrooms with effective writing instruction. Implications In the previous section I theorized about the importance of creating space that provides purposeful interaction for interns with text, context, and politics. Study data did more than reveal intern moves as they were scaffolded to develop pedagogy for writing during a semester-long advanced methods literacy course. It 274 revealed that literacy teacher educators can, and I would argue should, assist interns in thinking about writing instruction in direct relation to their individual teaching contexts. By creating space for interns to practice being responsive teachers, literacy teacher educators can position interns to interact with students and classrooms in creative and proactive ways (Fairbanks, 2010, Holland, 1998, Sawyer, 2004). Below I outline implications, based on my findings, for teacher education, professional development, and policymakers. Teacher education. This study provided evidence to support the development of interns as adaptive experts. This meant preparing interns who employed a sense of agency and/or disciplined improvisation in order to do more than “reflect” on their instructional experiences as writing teachers as Fairbanks et al. (2010) suggest. For example, rather than focusing only on the course readings as fodder for class time discussions, I purposefully asked interns to bring instructional dilemmas to class for discussion. Beyond subject matter and pedagogical content knowledge, writing teacher educators may need to embrace the unique classroom and personal goals of beginning writing teachers (Fairbanks et al., 2010). “Doing so equips teacher candidates to negotiate the demands, discourse and politics of educational settings” (Fairbanks et al., 2010; p.167). Beyond encouraging more undergraduate programs to require courses dedicated explicitly to writing (The National Commission on Writing in America’s Schools and Colleges, 2003), these courses should also include space for interns to merge ideas about writing instruction with classroom practice. Below I list explicit 275 implications for writing teacher educators from this study classified by text, context, and politics. TEXT • Assignments, such as the Literacy Field Guide (Inquiry 1) and the Teacher Narrative (Inquiry 3), can help interns carefully document and analyze context and politics in ways that put interns in direct contact with real classrooms, students and curriculum. Inquiries, partly because they are related to the ongoing practice of interns, allow interns to study and reflect on their own work. The teacher narrative, in particular allows interns to reflect on their work and identify places of pedagogical growth and continuing questions. • Writing teacher educators can and should model the creation of instructional texts, thinking aloud and writing lesson plans that are responsive to students and classrooms. For example, I modeled the creation and use of a graphic organizer to support writers as they moved from the pre-writing to the drafting phase of the writing process. • Using “typical” assignments such as lesson plans and unit plans in purposeful ways, can encourage interns to make and discuss instructional adaptations. One way I did this was to use my 276 responses to course assignments in order to ask questions, suggest further resources, or push interns to identify proximal resources they may have not considered. I asked questions like: “Are you required to follow the Calkins books to a tee, or are mini lessons sometimes based on student needs (judging from student writing)? Can you more clearly name those pieces of the curriculum that you feel are not “fitting your students” or “fitting your teaching”?” CONTEXT • Assignments, such as Inquiry 1, the Literacy Field Guide, can require interns to investigate and describe the resources for writing instruction, including people, available for interns as they plan and teach writing units. By not only listing, but investigating and evaluating resources, interns are better informed and able to utilize diverse resources, or seek out necessary additional resources. Additionally, by learning where to locate instructional resources, interns are gaining a skill they can take to any classroom in any school situation. Importantly, Field Guides, like these are meant to guide an intern’s year-long literacy planning and instruction, not just a singular unit. • Methods courses can scaffold relationships between interns and CTs focused on writing instruction by prompting interns with 277 interview questions built into assignments such as The Literacy Field Guide (Inquiry 1) such as: What is your philosophy for writing instruction? What is the writing curriculum? What writing genre do you teach? How often do you believe students should write, and what kind of writing should they do? • Methods courses can prompt conversations between interns about context. We can structure our courses to be places of shared practice. By creating peer led roundtables that feature topics of interest to interns, we can encourage interns to create true communities of practice; places where interns can share, borrow and talk about ideas. This building of ideas can span multiple grade levels and contexts. POLITICS • Methods courses should structure purposeful conversations about mandated and scripted curriculum, giving interns a place to discuss how to be responsive to such policies. • Writing teacher educators should model the translation and adaptation of scripted curricula for interns, so they might envision doing the same. Course activities could include small group or individual project (perhaps during an on-line class) where interns think about making translations/adaptations to scripted curricula. Dana felt like she spent a lot of time 278 translating her script’s language into terms and ideas that were appropriate for her third grade writers. Teacher educators might consider modeling this often complex process. Professional development: Professional development for elementary teachers in writing has been very scant (The National Commission on Writing in America's Schools and Colleges, 2003). And, while this study did not focus on professional development for experienced teachers, it does suggest that experiences where teachers could bring together their instructional ideas into conversation with their classroom realities may be rich learning opportunities for both practicing and novice writing teachers who are faced with navigating writing pedagogy that is becoming increasingly politicized (i.e., scripted) and decreasingly open to responsiveness. In a chapter on professional development for teachers of writing, Roberts and Wibbens (2010) suggested, “Professional development, at its best, is not one size fits all. Rather, it is tailored to meet the unique needs of the teachers involved and their students” (p. 181). Effective professional development emphasizes the link between professional learning and application in the classroom (e.g., Fishman, Marx, Best, & Tal, 2003; Franke, Carpenter, Fennema, Ansell, & Behrend, 1998; J. W. Little, 2002; Loucks-Horsley, Love, Stiles, Mundry, & Hewson, 2003). This study revealed that the writing of text, working with proximal and distal resources (e.g., writing curriculum, peers, and colleagues), and the adaptation of writing curriculum can enhance the development of writing pedagogy for intern 279 teachers. Beginning and practicing teachers might also benefit from the same kinds of work in a professional development setting. The National Council of Teachers of English recommended an increase in the quantity and quality of professional development in writing (NCTE, 2008). Evidence from this study suggests that high quality professional development in writing should attend to the text, contexts, and politics within each teacher’s classroom. Furthermore, this study suggests that novice teachers benefited from learning opportunities carefully aligned with the “Optimal Adaptability Corridor” that encouraged adaptive expertise through purposeful teacher responsiveness (Darling-Hammond and Bransford, 2007). Perhaps university-led professional development or university work within Professional Development Schools could bring these opportunities to light. In short, writing instruction is changing, and professional development that is contextually based and scaffolded to include the examination and adaption of scripted and spiral curriculum may beneficial for elementary level writing teachers. Below I list implications from this study for writing professional development classified by text, context, and politics. TEXT • High quality writing PD incorporates a component in which teachers act as writers in the same capacity in which they ask their students to do so (Roberts and Wibbens, 2010). Dana, Blake and Renee all spoke about how writing in the same genre in which they asked their students to write was revealing in 280 terms of how to plan for and scaffold writing. Additionally, Roberts and Wibbens (2010) suggested allowing teachers to reflect on how they feel when writing, what was difficult, what was motivating, and so on, as well as how students might interact with the same process. These reflections can lead to adaptations in lesson and unit plans and support for student writing. CONTEXT • Mentors and professional developers can work with teachers to build a list of resources, similar to the Literacy Field Guide, for writing instruction in each school context. This list of resources can help, as Renee explained, teachers brainstorm ideas for units and lessons. • Effective professional development in writing should be tailored to meet the unique needs of the teachers involved and their students. Effective professional development emphasizes the link between professional learning and application in the classroom (e.g., Fishman et al., 2003; Franke et al., 1998; J. W. Little, 2002; Loucks-Horsley et al., 2003). • Professional development that mimics a school’s writing curriculum (e.g., Fletcher & Portalupi, 2001) with teachers engaging in the various stages of writing while professional 281 developers act as teachers, giving mini-lessons about the stages and conferring with individuals and small groups along the way (Roberts and Wibbens, 2010). POLITICS • Professional development should be available on the topic of working with scripted and spiral curriculum, such as Lucy Calkins, Units of Study. In this study, it became clear that teachers, like Dana and Blake, were unsure about adapting mandated, scripted curriculum. Professional Development that highlights the ways teachers can build lessons and units from scripted, spiral curriculum can help teachers better understand how to use curriculum to best serve their students. Policymakers. This issue of “policy” is a complex one, and one that arose as an important force behind the kinds of writing instruction that the interns studied here felt as though they should (or could not) practice. District and school policies that mandated scripted writing curriculum such as Units of Study strongly influenced the initial plans and ideas of interns like Dana and Blake. These same policies did not, however, help novice writing teachers adapt instruction when “it wasn’t working” for their students. As I reported in Chapter 1, there has been a call on the national level to better prepare teachers of writing (Nagin, 2006). In Cutler and Graham’s (Cutler & Graham, 2008) national survey of writing instruction at the primary level, teachers responded by saying they felt their students spent too 282 little time writing in too few genres (e.g., expository, poetry) and for too few purposes (e.g. to persuade, to describe). Survey data led the authors to conclude that writing needed more attention at the federal and state policy level (Cutler & Graham, 2008). One way to respond to these calls to better prepare teachers of writing, and to insure diverse and meaningful writing instruction, is to consider what teachers of elementary aged writers need. This study revealed that attention to classroom context (e.g., the needs, interests, and abilities of students) and practice in adaptation and disciplined improvisation were valuable for teachers who are developing a pedagogy for writing. Policymakers on local levels who are tasked with authoring and initiating policies to help novice teachers learn to teach writing need to know and understand the complex nature of writing as a social and historical process, one that requires attention to “the particulars” of each individual classroom (Ball & Cohen, 1999; Kamberelis & de la Luna, 2004). As such, policies that mandate adherence to scripted curricula need to also consider providing novice (and practicing) teachers with the space and support to enact responsive instruction that is based on the needs and interests of students in classrooms. Furthermore, proponents of recent initiatives to tie measures of the quality of teacher preparation programs (of which this advanced methods course is part) to the achievement test scores of elementary students need to consider focusing instead on teachers who are flexibly adaptive or disciplined improvisers. In short, the development of quality writing teachers is much more complex than student achievement tests can measure. Below, I list 283 implications for policymakers who work within the realm of literacy education policy. I specifically focus on implications from this study on policy for writing instruction. CONTEXT • As this study revealed, current curricular policies (such as scripted curriculum) do not seem to be meeting the needs of teachers in all schools and situations. Policymakers need to realize that policies cannot be separate from the classroom contexts where teachers teach, and consider flexible application of policies to account for school and learner needs. POLITICS • In the most recent reauthorization of national policy on literacy teaching and learning, NCLB, policymakers excluded writing (NICHD, 2002). This study showed that writing across four classrooms is treated in varying and varied ways across schools and districts, even at the same grade level in the same state. Writing should be included as part of district, state, and for federal literacy research agenda (Graham & Perin, 2007; Magrath et al., 2003). • As this and previous studies have shown, policies are constantly being adapted to fit the needs of particular students and classrooms(Coburn, 2001, 2005a; Cohen et al., 2007). Policies, 284 like the Common Core Standards, that include reading and writing across the content areas (e.g., science, social studies) might be improved by providing guidance on how curriculum might span those content areas. • Instituting National Conference on Writing (Magrath et al., 2003) would bring together researchers, policy makers, teachers and teacher educators to study the topic of writing in modern American schools. Future Research Navigating the transition from in front of the desk to behind it is not always a smooth process. This study has shown that as interns navigate pedagogy for writing, creating purposeful opportunities for interns to practice responsiveness and begin to build adaptive expertise as teachers is important. And, it illustrates that attention to interns’ teaching experiences, specifically highlighting the text, context, and politics associated with the development of writing pedagogy is both important and beneficial. A focus on interns’ teaching experience can come through the creation of carefully scaffolded learning opportunities within university methods courses. Such courses should specifically allow for exploration of teaching context in connection with pedagogical planning, reflection and revision. My work as a literacy teacher educator, and this study, has supported the idea that beginning teachers learn through acting as writing teachers in authentic writing classrooms. Data collected such as lesson plans, and revised lesson plans show that interns 285 developed pedagogy for writing by practicing it. Data collected supports the idea that interns do use tools such as university course assignments and evaluation (e.g., my comments on assignments) and course activities (e.g., roundtable conversations) to think about and develop ideas for writing instruction. Limitations of this study, including its small sample size and limited scope (only one section of an advanced methods course) along with the fact that I was studying my own practice, do exist. More research should be done on the development of opportunities aligned with the OAC (Darling-Hammond and Bransford, 2007) within university settings. And, studying more varied contexts and over longer periods of time with more teacher educators could be helpful. Furthermore, it would be helpful to begin to identify the aspects of these opportunities that make them helpful/beneficial for beginning writing teachers. This study highlighted intern difficulties with mandated scripted curriculum in writing. Because scripted curriculum are becoming more prevalent in elementary classrooms, future research might examine the ways that intern teachers interact with scripts, how they use them, and how university coursework might scaffold their thinking about such scripts. The timeframe for data collection that accompanied this study was relatively short, one semester, August- December. Future research might follow interns for an entire academic year as they work in classrooms and interact with specifically designed activities aimed to set a foundation for adaptive expertise by bringing together subject matter and pedagogical knowledge with contextual knowledge. 286 This study also revealed that as interns navigate pedagogy for writing, they often became increasingly responsive to their teaching context. Future research might study this responsiveness. What characteristics in interns’ personalities or in interns’ classrooms allowed them to be more (or less) adaptive? Similarly, I am curious as to why and how interns made the decision to adapt instruction, particularly in the case where mandated, scripted curriculum existed. Finally, collecting data on student learning, specifically examples of student writing within interns’ classrooms, would also be interesting. By analyzing writing samples alongside intern unit and lesson plans as well as interns’ interviews about teaching and perceived student learning, we might gain insight into how to best support not only interns as writing teachers, but also the writers in elementary classrooms. Conclusion Learning to teach writing, like learning to teach in general, is a complex process during which teachers must navigate classroom text, context and politics while employing pedagogical knowledge, subject matter knowledge, and contextual knowledge in order to plan for and carry out meaningful instruction. This study was designed to examine teacher development in writing instruction and add to current research literature by systematically investigating an advanced literacy methods course in teacher education entitled, Advanced Methods: Literacy Teaching and Learning (pseudonym) for ways in which I, the writing teacher educator, scaffolded the development of preservice teachers’ writing pedagogy. My data 287 analysis revealed six themes centered upon intern attention to the text, context and politics of writing instruction. These six themes, 1) Texts facilitate curricular modification; 2) Texts facilitate the emergence of interns as writing teachers; 3) Attention to context and its proximal resources can support the discovery and use of instructional tools; 4) Attention to context and its distal resources can support the discovery and use of intern/mentor relationships; 5) Translating scripted curriculum is difficult; and 6) Retro-fitting scripted curriculum to meet the needs and interests of students can be a confusing process, reveal that writing teacher education needs to provide space for interns to investigate, plan and learn to adapt writing instruction in their individual classrooms. In Chapters 4, 5, and 6, I carefully considered how I, a writing teacher educator, was able to scaffold intern attention to the text, context and politics surrounding writing instruction. What I noticed was that carefully crafted assignments, class time activities, and conversations that included (or even required) interns to bring their classroom teaching experience into conversation with their growing pedagogical knowledge provided pedagogical development and more responsive teaching. I argue that creating space for interns to do the above provides the kind of balance between university and classroom settings that Putnam and Borko (2000) cited necessary for “optimal teacher development” (Borko & Putnam, 1996). My findings show that while work within dual activity settings (e.g., the university methods course and the elementary classroom) can be tricky, 288 the space teacher educators structure for beginning writing teachers to do the work of pedagogical development is significant. During the course of this study, I often alluded to development of writing pedagogy as being akin to navigating a dark, winding, and unfamiliar road. I stand by that metaphor, but would now add that writing teacher educators, who create space for interns to attend to the text, context, and politics of writing instruction, are able to serve as luminaries along this unfamiliar path. Grossman et al. (2000) highlighted the value of preservice teacher education in writing, but called for more focused research into the nature and support of that pedagogical development (e.g. the support and development of pedagogical tools). In this study I answered that call by illustrating how scaffolded support of pedagogical development through carefully crafted space can allow intern teachers to be responsive in the real, changing, and exciting classrooms where students transform into authors and meaningful writing happens every day. 289 APPENDICES 290 Appendix A Table 17 Timeline of Course Topics Week 1 Course Topic INTRODUCTION TO REFLECTION AND INQUIRY IN TEACHING PRACTICE • Articulating and Defending Your Vision of Literacy and Goals for Students as Literacy Learners • Understanding the Connections Among Literacy Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment • Using Data Analysis, Reflection and Writing to Contribute to Your Own and Others’ Professional Learning 2 ON-LINE KNOWING COMMUNITIES, FAMILIES AND LEARNERS • How can I explore context, culture and critical literacy? • What is literacy in my internship context? How do diversity and difference matter for teaching, curriculum and assessment? WHO HAS A STAKE IN DEFINING LITERACY EDUCATION IN MY INTERNSHIP CONTEXT? • What can I do? (agency) 3 BALANCED LITERACY • What are the components of a balanced literacy curriculum and how do these components reflect, address and/or extend literacy in my internship context (Inquiry One)? • How do learners learn literacy, learn about literacy and learn through literacy? • What are the ‘texts’ that comprise literacy instruction? Which texts are present or absent? FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT How can anecdotal records help me understand my students as literacy learners? 291 Table 17 (cont’d) 4 WHAT CRITICAL ISSUES ARISE IN DESIGNING AND PLANNING A LITERACY UNIT? What can I do? (readiness) What can I do? (action) 5 ON-LINE BALANCED LITERACY • What are the components of a balanced literacy curriculum and how do these components reflect, address and/or extend literacy in my internship context (Inquiry One)? • How do learners learn literacy, learn about literacy and learn through literacy? • What are the ‘texts’ that comprise literacy instruction? Which texts are present or absent? • What is informal writing? How can I add it/combine it WHAT CRITICAL ISSUES ARISE IN ASSESSING STUDENT KNOWLEDGE AND ACHIEVEMENT? What can I do? (readiness) What can I do ? (action) 6 APPROACHES TO TEACHING AND ASSESSING WRITING • How are various approaches to teaching writing implemented? • How can I support the revision process? How can I learn about writers’ needs through classroom interaction? WHAT CRITICAL ISSUES ARISE IN ASSESSING STUDENT KNOWLEDGE AND ACHIEVEMENT? What can I do? (readiness) What can I do ? (action) TEACHING READING FLUENCY AND COMPREHENSION • What role does children’s literature play in teaching reading comprehension? • How do readers use schema, questioning, and inference to comprehend text? • How do I prepare a high quality comprehension lesson? 292 Table 17 (cont’d) 7 READING ASSESSMENT • What can I learn about my students’ reading development using Informal Reading Inventories? • What are effective approaches to assessing fluency? How do I build assessment into my reading program WHAT CRITICAL ISSUES ARISE IN ASSESSING STUDENT KNOWLEDGE AND ACHIEVEMENT? What can I do? (readiness) What can I do ? (action) TEACHING READING COMPREHENSION • How do readers use sensory and emotional images to comprehend text? • How can I help readers learn to determine importance? • How can I help readers learn to synthesize? • How can I facilitate effective discussions? 8, 9, 10 11 12 READING ASSESSMENT • How do I build assessment into my reading program? Guided Lead Teaching USING DATA ANALYSIS, REFLECTION AND WRITING TO SUPPORT PROFESSIONAL LEARNING • How can I gather and use multiple sources of information to determine what my students learned? • How can I use assessment data to make decisions about curriculum, instruction and student achievement? How do teachers communicate about curriculum, instruction and student achievement to multiple stakeholders? USING DATA ANALYSIS, REFLECTION AND WRITING TO SUPPORT PROFESSIONAL LEARNING • How can I use assessment data to make decisions about curriculum, instruction and student achievement? • How do teachers communicate about curriculum, instruction and student achievement to multiple stakeholders? 293 Table 17 (cont’d) 13 USING DATA ANALYSIS, REFLECTION AND WRITING TO SUPPORT PROFESSIONAL LEARNING • What happened? • Why did it happen? • What might it mean? • What are the implications for my teaching practice? WHAT IS BALANCED LITERACY? • What can I do? (agency) • What can I do? (readiness) • What can I do ? (action) *Highlighting indicates points during the course when writing when writing was planned to be discussed/course content 294 Appendix B Interview Protocol The interview is meant to help me to better understand how my course/instruction allowed interns to articulate their developing pedagogical experiences and dilemmas in writing instruction. Further, this conversation is meant to help me better understand if/how my instructional practices scaffolded pedagogical decision making with respect to individual instructional contexts. First, I’d like to take some time to talk about your experiences this semester learning to teach language arts. What does that encompass this semester….as general or as specific as you can. Tell me about your opportunities learning to writing this semester. * Where would you put writing in relation to the others—More or less opportunities to teach writing? • What are some of the things that you think affected your experiences learning to teach writing? (e.g. context, students, curriculum, CT, course) • Can you recall any course experiences that influenced learning to teach writing? (context description, unit planning, reflecting, blogging, online course experience, instructor modeling) • Can you recall any classroom experiences that influenced learning to teach writing? • I’d like you to think about what you learned in your classroom with what you learned during coursework. Do you think these two pieces of your learning fit together? Complimentary? Or, was there a lack of fit/match? One of our assignments was to describe the focus of your literacy unit, and specifically its context and curriculum. Let’s take a look at that description. • Some of the things you said with regard to your context and instruction were… (individualized) • What did you learn about your context (with respect to writing instruction)? • To what extent and how did your investigation of context and curriculum help your planning? How? Why? Let’s take a look at the writing unit you planned for your students. (individualized) • Tell me about the focus of this unit. • What was the most difficult thing about planning this unit for you? • What made it difficult? • What factors did you pay attention to as you were planning? • What did your students learn? 295 • • • What do you think was your biggest success? What questions do you still have? What would you differently if you were to teach this unit again? Let’s take a look at your teacher narrative- You chose to write about a particular teaching dilemma as… (individualized) How/Why did you choose to focus on this dilemma? • What did you conclude/learn from writing about this dilemma? • How do you think (or did) your teaching context influence what happened and what you learned? Have your ideas about teaching writing changed throughout the semester? • How? • What do you think influenced that change? • Can you talk about that change? What brought it about? What influenced it? How have you grown this semester as a writing teacher? • What influenced that growth? • What have you learned about writing instruction? (strategies, resources?) • What questions do you still have? • What do you envision doing in the spring semester with writing? • Hopes for writing when you have your own classroom. (how/why does this differ from your context now…) Now, we’re going to think about learning to teach writing in a more general sense. So, that means that I’m curious about all the learning experiences and things that have contributed to your learning to teach writing. What experiences have helped you to learn to teach writing?(previous course experiences? Previous experience? Reading articles? Watching other teachers teach writing?) • What about those experiences was helpful? Pedagogical strategies? Resources? Who has helped you learn to teach writing?(previous instructors? CT?) • What about your interaction with these people was helpful? How do you believe writing can/should be taught in your classroom? • Where do you get these ideas? • Do your beliefs align with your experiences thus far as a writing teacher? Why? How? 296 Appendix C Full Text of Inquiry Assignments TE 802 Inquiry One Developing a Literacy Field Guide for the Internship Context Teacher researchers are investigators of their own practices who ask their own questions, collect their own information, and regularly reflect on their own assumptions about children and families. Compton-Lilly, (2009), p. 450. Teacher research can be done in classrooms, libraries, homes, communities, and anywhere else one can obtain, analyse and interpret information pertinent to one’s vocation as a teacher. Lankshear & Knobel (2004), p. 9. Overview __________________________________________________________________________ All teaching and learning happens in context. Teaching takes place in real time and space, involves communication and relationships, and reflects the culture and society in which it is happening. So, in order to design curriculum, plan units and lessons, instruct students, and assess learning effectively, teachers need to know about the “who, what, where, when, how and why” of teachers’ work and students’ learning lives. In the internship you are becoming a part of a new context for teaching and across the year you will have an extended period of time to work and learn there. Instead of a once or twice a week observation or a brief teaching experience, you are a teacher in one classroom nested in one school and community that is part of the wider contexts of city, state, and nation. Learning to teach during the internship offers the opportunity to understand how context matters to education. This is the focus of Inquiry One, but it will also remain a part of your professional learning throughout the course and the school year. There is an intimate relationship between curriculum, instruction and assessment, and we’ve designed some activities to help you understand that relationship as it is situated in the broader internship context. For this first inquiry, you will familiarize yourself with the city, community, and immediate neighborhood in which your school is situated. You will also learn about your students’ families and 297 their lives, interests, and activities both in and out of school. You will investigate the school itself as a context for learning and explore both cross-grade and gradelevel curriculum, instruction and assessment resources in your unique context. Of course, you will focus, too, on your classroom as a context for learning. This is the place of greatest interest to you because you will both investigate and also create this context as you prepare for and participate in Guided Lead Teaching. Some scholars speak of this context as a “community of learners,” and you will have ample opportunity to get to know this community both as a group and as a collection of unique individuals. Discovering the context for your teaching and your students’ learning is taking a stance of wonder or inquiry toward your work. It is asking questions about and of people who comprise the webs in which your relationships with your students are suspended. So, for example, it is natural to wonder what it is like for students to live in a particular community; what they do when they are not in school; what places they encounter literacy in their lives; what their (and their families’) hopes and dreams are, and how school plays a role in fulfilling them. It also helps to know “what’s happening” in the community that impacts the school. Is this a school that is a center of activity for adults as well as youngsters? Is it being slated for closure? If so, why? How has the severe recession in our state affected the families served by this school? How has it affected the teachers’ jobs? What special resources does the wider community of this school hold for students? Wondering about and seeking information on these questions is a little like being an anthropologist trying to understand another culture. This is special work that involves observing, collecting other forms of information, asking questions, and participating in daily life. It is aimed at understanding other people’s understandings—which is essential to the teacher, whose job is to engage those understandings and, through curriculum and instruction, guide, extend, and help to shape them. As you gather information, you will discuss what you are discovering and wondering about with your CT, Field Instructor, Course Instructor, and your colleagues in this course. In this way, our class (and those who support your learning within it) will grow to be a “community of practice” where you and your colleagues share information and ideas and support one another’s learning. Figure 1 (p. 3) shows one way to think about how the teaching and learning within a classroom is “nested” in various settings, activities, and relationships—and how these, together, comprise your teaching context. The Literacy Field Guide: The Literacy Field Guide is the name of a text you will create to share the results of your investigation for Inquiry One. The guide will represent what you are coming to understand about your internship context. You will make decisions about how you want to represent your teaching context to 298 others who are newcomers within and outside this context. As you construct your Internship Portfolio this year, your Literacy Field Guide will be a valuable resource for selecting portfolio items. To support the development of the guide, you will be responsible for keeping your own meticulous notes and records and organizing them in a way that is useful to you as a professional. Throughout this investigation you will learn about the types of literacies present in a range of settings (community, neighborhood, school, classroom) shown in Figure 1 (p. 3 below). You will also observe and take notes on how participants learn, learn about, and learn through these literacies and the resources available to them. You may recall that as you explored your own definition of ‘literacy’ in TE 401/2 and shared your thinking with your colleagues, you discovered that today’s literacies include a wide range of ways to interact and communicate with others that include more than reading, writing, speaking, listening and viewing. These include literacies such as cultural, digital, social, emotional, environmental, visual, political, and numeracy. Today’s teachers need to take into account the ways in-school and out-of-school literacies are part of their students’ experiences and help their students make meaningful connections. Your Literacy Field Guide will orient you and your colleagues to the opportunities, resources, challenges and constraints you will be working with during your internship as you plan and teach literacy in ways that are responsive to the unique learners in your setting. 299 Figure 5. Investigating Literacies Your participation in this inquiry will be 20 points, based on whether you complete the activities thoroughly and on time, bring your information in an organized form to class, share your ideas thoughtfully with colleagues, and support your colleagues’ learning (see Rubric, pp. 11-12). Your Literacy Field Guide will have two parts: Part A will focus on the community, neighborhood, families, school district and school. It will be co-authored with your school group. You have the option of using an online or hard copy format. In either case, this product should be in a form that allows you to share your findings with your colleagues and instructor and it should contain visual information (e.g., photographs and other artifacts) as well as written descriptions. You also may find it useful to include audio material (e.g. music present in the community; explanations of your artifacts). The following are suggestions for digital and online formats, but you are also free to consider other options: Wiki http://pbworks.com 300 http://www.wikispaces.com/ Website http://www.weebly.com http://sites.google.com http://wix.com Social Network http://wackwall.com Google Docs http://docs.google.com Presentations Multi-Modal Power Point Show: http://www.electricteacher.com/tutorial3.htm Online presentation: http://prezi.com If you choose a hard-copy format (e.g., loose leaf notebook) you will need to coordinate outside of class how each member of your group will contribute to Part A as co-authors. Two sets of Guiding Questions for completing Part A are listed below. ! Part A of your Literacy Field Guide is due September 23 Part B will focus on the literacy programs in your classroom and include information obtained about your students through a series of assessments. It will be individually authored. If your group decides to develop Part A of the Literacy Field Guide in an online format, you may add Part B to that online resource as well, or create a separate online or hard copy resource. Part B must be in a format that can be shared with colleagues and your instructor. Two sets of Guiding Questions for completing Part B are listed below. ! Part B of your Literacy Field Guide is due October 14 301 Table 18. Literacy Field Guide Checklist Literacy Field Guide Checklist Week Week 2 (Online Class) Week 3 Activities Literacy Field Guide, Part A: • Explore Community, Neighborhood, Families for Literacy Field Guide (see Guiding Questions, pp. 5-6) • Explore Literacy Resources (see Guiding Questions, p. 6) Literacy Field Guide, Part B: • Explore Literacy Program(s) in the Classroom (see Guiding Questions, pp. 7 – 8) Week 4 Literacy Field Guide, Part B: • Continue exploring Literacy Program(s) in the Classroom (see Guiding Questions, pp. 7 – 8) • Learn About Your Students Through Literacy Assessments (see Guiding Questions, pp. 8 – 9) Week 5 (Online Class) Literacy Field Guide, Part B: • Continue Learning About Your Students Through Literacy Assessments (see Guiding Questions, pp. 8 – 10) Week 6 What’s Due 9/23: Share Literacy Field Guide, Part A in class (coauthored) Bring anecdotal records based on Boyd-Batstone (2004) article to share in class 10/14: Literacy Field Guide, Part B (individually authored) 302 Guiding Questions ( Literacy Field Guide , Part A): Learn about Literacies in the Community, Neighborhood, and Families (Co-Authored) __________________________________________________________________ Anthropologists think of their investigations as ‘making the familiar strange’ so they can see everyday settings with new perspectives that help them notice unique characteristics. We’ve all been to community settings such as museums, libraries, parks, playgrounds, the local grocery store and so on, so we sometimes assume that these settings are pretty much alike. When you take the time to notice community settings and neighborhoods with an eye toward the literacies present and the culture and norms for interaction, you may notice new things and gain new perspectives. You and your school group will select various community and neighborhood settings to visit and you will document your learning. Talk with your CT and especially the students in your classroom. Get their advice about the settings where they and their families spend time as a way to learn more about your students’ families, their interests, and how community activities may impact the school. If possible, work with your field instructor to coordinate a time that your group could talk to your school principal about the local community and neighborhood. Below are some suggestions, but you are not limited to these: • Churches • • Museums • • Grocery Stores • • Recreational Activities • Farmer’s Markets Community Organizations Shopping Centers Neighborhood Events • • • • Community Centers Parks • Library • Homeless Shelters Popular restaurants • After School Programs Tutoring Centers Boys’ and Girls’ Club or YMCA • Talk with people in the community settings you visit to get a sense of common as well as diverse perspectives about the community. You might explore topics such as: • Tell me about this community or neighborhood. Who are the people in the community? How would you describe them? • From your perspective, what makes this a distinct community? What do the people have in common? • What are the most important places or events where people in the community come together? • What are the most important things you would like people who aren’t members of this community to know about it? 303 Take notes and gather artifacts that help you document what you are learning about these settings. • What are the main activities in the setting you are exploring? • What types of literacies do participants engage in? • What resources are available to them to learn, learn about, and learn through these literacies? • What are ways you might begin to participate and become part of these community settings (e.g., attend sporting events; stop by the Boys’ and Girls’ club; volunteer in after school programs)? • How could these resources become part of the school setting? • How can these resources help you teach literacy in your classroom setting and support your students in making connections between their in-school and out-of-school experiences? Also consider what you are learning about your students’ families from your investigation. How do these ideas help you deepen your understanding and/or rethink your assumptions about your students and their families (see ComptonLilly, 2009 for issues to consider)? How do these insights help you make decisions about what you will teach in the classroom and how you will draw upon families as resources as part of your instruction? Your documentation may take the form of photographs, videos, audio commentary, photos, brief narratives, collection of artifacts, etc. that will help you represent what you learned in a sharable form in your Literacy Field Guide. Guiding Questions ( Literacy Field Guide , Part A Continued): Explore Literacy Resources (Co-Authored) __________________________________________________________________ Think of a resource as a source of information, support or expertise. Find out about the resources at your disposal in the classroom, building, and school district. This part of your inquiry will involve talking to your CT and contacting other professionals in the building, as well as finding out about district resources for learning literacy, learning about literacy, and learning through literacy. Provide information about both physical resources (e.g., book sets, posters, storage options, technology hardware and software, computer labs, “book” rooms) and human resources (e.g., librarian, reading consultant, community members who can share their experiences and expertise). Work with your school group to share information about resources available in the school and within the district. For each item you include, provide the following information: • What/Who is the resource? 304 • • • Where is it/he/she located? How can you access the resource? How can this resource be used/helpful in a variety of grade levels and subject matters? Also obtain information about your school population: • What portion of students are on free/reduced lunch? • What portion of students are English language learners? • What portion of students receive special services? • Has the school met requirements for Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) http://www.michigan.gov/mde/0,1607,7-140-22709_22875---,00.html ? Your documentation may take the form of photographs, videos, audio commentary, photos, brief narratives, charts, collection of artifacts, etc. that will help you represent what you learned in a sharable form in your Literacy Field Guide. Be creative in your thinking and add to your Literacy Field Guide throughout the year as you learn about new options. Guiding Questions ( Literacy Field Guide , Part B): Literacy Program(s) in the Classroom (Individually Authored) __________________________________________________________________ A literacy program focuses on curriculum, which often collectively describes the teaching, learning, and assessment materials available to you and your students. Literacy programs are a large part of literacy instruction in today’s classrooms. While you are responsible for fulfilling district and building expectations, it is important to remember that you teach students, not programs. For this reason, you need to analyze and understand the literacy program(s) used in your classroom and ensure that you are meeting both the demands of the program and the needs of your students. Again, this is an excellent opportunity for a critical conversation with your CT and relevant others. Include the following information in your summary: a. Instructional Models: • Identify the instructional models used in your classroom and describe how they work (e.g., guided reading, book club, literature circles, reading/writing workshop). Name any programs and/or resources affiliated with those models. Also describe the nature of social interaction that takes place as the models are implemented (e.g., relative balance of whole group, small group, and individual work; types of discussions that take place). • What other grades in your school use the instructional models listed? b. Instructional Resources: What are the main programs and resources used for literacy instruction in your classroom (e.g., basal reader, leveled book sets, 305 centers, classroom library, writing corner, spelling program)? Evaluate these programs by making brief notes. What are the “big ideas” about literacy teaching and learning behind these programs? What is it that the authors want students to know and be able to do? What seems helpful to you as a teacher about the resources or programs? What puzzles you, or what questions do you have? You may find it useful to apply the criteria outlined in the document Features of Literacy Programs: A Decision-Making Matrix (developed by NCTE) to the reading program and adapt the format to evaluating other areas of literacy as well. c. Literacy Schedule: • Outline a weekly schedule that illustrates when/where literacy is taught (or include a longer time period if a one week schedule does not fully represent your program) • Indicate approximately how much time is spent for each component of the literacy program. d. Analysis of Literacy Program(s): Michigan’s Grade Level Content Expectations (GLCEs) outline the content that should be included in the curriculum at each grade level in four broad areas: Reading, Writing, Speaking, Listening & Viewing. • Below, we outline the topics included in the GLCEs within the four broad areas for each grade level. The 5 minute video “Learning to Change, Changing to Learn” (http://www.tomorrow.org/change_psa.html ) provides examples of ways new technologies provide new options for engaging students with various literacies, both in and out of school. Consider the content outlined for your grade level in each of the four areas in the GLCEs (and other literacies that children might be exposed to) and the literacy schedule for a typical week in your classroom. Create a chart that indicates the topic area(s) that receive the most and least emphasis in a typical week, and indicate when during a typical week students have opportunities to learn in each area. • For any topic areas that you find to be under-represented in the literacy program, brainstorm ideas regarding how it could be addressed as part of the existing program. e. Literacy Across the Curriculum: For each subject area below, indicate whether and how reading, writing, speaking, listening, representing, viewing and other literacies are incorporated: • Science • Social studies • Mathematics 306 Guiding Questions ( Literacy Field Guide , Part B Continued): Learning about Your Students through Literacy Assessments (Individually Authored) _________________________________________________________________ Just as children are naturally curious about the world around them, teachers are naturally curious about the students they teach. They want to know all about the students’ home background, interests, prior experiences, skills, and so on because it helps them design instruction that is responsive to the learners in their classrooms. Gather assessment information that will help you make instructional decisions and develop lesson plans that appropriately scaffold your students’ learning. In TE 301 and TE 401/2, you worked with ‘focus students’ to learn about their literacy development and make adaptations in your lesson planning that would support their unique learning needs. Now that you have opportunities to teach a series of lessons in each subject matter across your internship year, your task is to get to know all the students in your class as literacy learners and understand their unique needs. This will be a gradual process across the year as you work with both formative and summative assessments. As a first step in this process, follow the guidelines below: 1. Use the guidelines presented in the Boyd-Bardstone (2004) article to practice writing anecdotal records as you observe your students engage in literacy learning. Make note of similarities and differences among your students. Also consider using some of the approaches described in the Mills (2005) article (lower elementary) or Meyer (2010) article (upper elementary) for knowing students deeply and helping them know each other and themselves. This work is simply descriptive at this point, but should be helpful to you when you settle on a topic for Guided Lead Teaching in literacy. Bring your notes to class on week 4 to share with your grade level group. 2. Also take notes on the different types of writing all students in your classroom engage in throughout the school day. What genres are students engaged in (e.g., narrative, essay, expository, poetry, making lists, letter writing, etc.) to learn literacy, learn about literacy and learn through literacy? Collect some examples of student writing that represent the range of genres present in your classroom. 307 3. Collect writing samples that represent a range of writing knowledge and skill. We will examine them as part of your online work during week 5. In addition, try to find time to talk with your students about their writing to learn more about their writing practices, since the ways in which students approach and think about writing tasks are just as important as the products they create. See Anderson, 2005 for his discussion of what can be learned through conferencing as a form of assessment. 4. Talk with your CT to arrange an opportunity to administer some general surveys that will help you identify ways your students are alike or different (e.g., reading attitude survey, writing attitude survey, interest inventory) and learn more about their learning preferences. See the link to an Assessment Resources page on our course website for resources. Second, identify additional assessments: Now that you have learned about your students through taking anecdotal records, studying writing samples, talking with them, and through general surveys, you are ready to round out your understanding of them by collecting additional information. Since the assessments are unique to your classroom and school setting, once you know which approaches are used, you may need to access further information about them on the Assessment Resources page on our course website so you understand their purpose and format more fully. You will need to talk with your CT about how this information is useful for making instructional decisions. Specifically, find out: • What literacy measures are required in your school and your grade level? • What standardized measures (e.g., Qualitative Reading Inventory [QRI], running record) are being used to assess students in your classroom? • What types of conferences and/or observations of performances serve as assessments? • Who are key resource people who can help you understand your students as literacy learners? Third, analyze the assessment data you have gathered so far and write a brief description of what you know so far about the students in your class as literacy learners. • What proportion of students are ‘on track’ toward reaching Grade Level Content Expectations (remember that GLCEs are goals for the year and you are looking at where they are starting the year)? • Which students are beyond grade level and which students need support in getting ‘on track’? 308 • For these broad categories of literacy learners, what do you know about what they CAN do, and what areas of development are needed to further their learning? Finally, think ahead to the curricular target area (see Book Club Plus, pp. 16-17) you want to work within to design your unit for Guided Lead Teaching. • What additional pre-assessments do you need to administer in order to plan instruction that is responsive to the range of learners in your classroom? For example, consider whether you need further information about students’ interests, knowledge, skills, and/or attitudes. • You may also need to learn about their prior experience with the resources available (e.g., Have they read fables or fairy tales or historical fiction before, and if so, which ones?). • Talk with your CT about how you can go about finding out what you need to know, and make a plan that you can carry out in the next few weeks. 309 Table 19. Inquiry One Rubric Developing a Literacy Field Guide for the Internship Context (20 points) Field Guide Part A (8 points) (coauthored) • Information is provided about about: • community • neighborhood • families • school district • school • Explanations are provided regarding how resources could help students to learn, learn about, and learn through literacies • Multiple forms of representation are used (e.g., photographs, videos, artifacts, narratives) • Completed on time, organized, and brought to class for sharing with colleagues 310 Below Expecte d Quality Range Good Quality Range Range Outstan ding Exempl ary High Range Quality Expectations for Quality Comments Table 19 (cont’d) Field Guide Part B (8 points) (individually authored) Literacy programs in the classroom are clearly described and evaluated • Instructional models • Instructional resources • Literacy schedule • Literacy programs • Literacy across the curriculum Literacy Assessments • Anecdotal records taken • Writing samples across a variety of genres representing a range of writing knowledge and skill collected • Additional assessments planned to learn about o students’ interests and learning preferences o students’ progress in the target areas for guided lead teaching • Informative description of range of literacy learners in your classroom 311 Table 19 (cont’d) Participation (4 points) • Participates thoughtfully in group discussions (e.g., volunteers information and ideas, stays focused on the topic, takes an analytic and reflective stance) • Listens to colleagues and supports their learning (e.g., asks questions, challenges others’ ideas in a constructive manner, probes for further elaboration) Table 20. Michigan’s Grade Level Content Standards (K-8) Reading Phonemic Awareness Phonics Word Recognition Vocabulary K x 1 x 2 x x x x x x x x x x 3 4 x x x Word Study 5 6 7 8 x x x x x Fluency x x x Comprehension x x x x x x x x x Metacognition x x x x x x x x x 312 Table 20 (cont’d) Critical Standards Reading Attitude x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Writing K x 1 x 2 x 3 x 4 x 5 x 6 x 7 x 8 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x K x x 1 x x 2 x x 3 x x 4 x x 5 x x 6 x x 7 x x 8 x x Listening and Viewing K 1 Conventions x x Response x x 2 x x 3 x x 4 x x 5 x x 6 x x 7 x x 8 x x Writing Genres Writing Process Personal Style Grammar & Usage Spelling Handwriting Writing Attitude Speaking Conventions Spoken Discourse 313 TE 802 Inquiry Two: Designing for Learning How will I/we design our curriculum and instruction so that students learn what they need in order to become good literacy learners? How do I select and/or create appropriate assessments so that I have evidence that my students have learned? Overview The purpose of this inquiry is to guide and support you as you design, enact, assess, and reflect on your Guided Lead Teaching. Discuss with your CT which portion of the literacy curriculum you will teach during Guided Lead Teaching. Identify a target area for your Guided Lead Teaching (see Book Club Plus, pp. 16 – 17) that will provide opportunities for you to: • Make a contribution to your students’ literacy learning • Enact your core beliefs about literacy teaching and learning • Advance your own professional learning You are encouraged to select a portion of the curriculum that will enable you to try something that is new to you (e.g., a particular approach to teaching such as conducting mini-lessons and conferences during readers/writers workshop; or facilitating discussion of children’s literature during a thematic unit; or lessons that focus on the reading support that is provided during content area instruction; providing opportunities for your student to learn a ‘new literacy’; or learning to teach a specific comprehension strategy as part of guided reading). Talk with your CT about your idea, locate resources that will help you pre-assess and plan for your teaching and review your notes from Inquiry One: The Literacy Field Guide, Part B. Think about how your selected target area fits with the information you included in The Literacy Field Guide, Part A bout your internship context (community, neighborhood, families, school district, school, classroom). Email your responses to the following guiding questions to me before our Week 4 class: • • • Describe your target area for guided lead teaching. Approximately how much time per day is allotted for your instruction in this area? Which GLCEs will you work toward? 314 • • • • • • How will teaching in this target area provide opportunities for students to learn important content and/or skills that relate to their lives? In what ways does this learning include learning literacy, learning about literacy, and/or learning through literacy? How will teaching in this target area contribute to your own professional learning? What resources within the community, neighborhood, school district, school or classroom do you have to work with in this target area? What additional resources do you need to obtain? How will you pre-assess your students in your target area? What else will you need to find out about all students in your class to help you develop lesson plans for your Guided Lead Teaching? Work closely with your Collaborating Teacher to identify resources available in your broader internship context as well as the school and classroom that will help you as you plan for Guided Lead Teaching. Also work with your CT to preassess your students to get the information you need that will help you plan for Guided Lead Teaching. Remember that pre-assessment might include what your students know (content such as comprehension strategies or parts of the writing process) and are able to do (skills like sentence writing, reading independently). Once you have completed the pre-assessment process, you are ready to design a series of lessons that we will refer to as a “unit.” Although the planning process is often outlined as very organized and linear, designing a unit is frequently an iterative process where teachers cycle back and forth as they think about several questions, such as those listed below, and begin to make instructional decisions. Take notes on the following as you brainstorm ideas for your unit and bring these notes to class to share with your colleagues: • • • • • • • What are my goals for the unit? Why are these important and worthwhile learning experiences for my students? How do these goals fit with what I learned about the internship context (community, neighborhood, families, school district, school, classroom) during Inquiry One? How do they relate to my students’ lives? What is the range of prior knowledge, skills and experiences that my students bring to this unit that I can build upon? What do I want students to be able to know and/or do by the end of the unit and what will they need to know/learn to accomplish that? How will I know what students learn from the unit? What activities and resources are available to support my students’ learning? How will I make my expectations clear and scaffold my students’ learning? 315 • • • • • What will I need to do to facilitate learning and manage the various activities? How can I provide guided practice and independent practice prior to assessing students’ learning? What classroom norms are in place that will help my students participate and learn? What supports do individuals in my class need to participate fully and maximize their learning? How can I differentiate the content, process, products and/or learning environment to make accommodations for diverse learners? While a large part of planning will include both individual thinking and talking with your CT about questions such as those listed above, teachers also need to develop written plans that outline the instructional decisions they make. This process helps them articulate and refine their thinking, share ideas with colleagues for feedback, revise their plans, and increase coherence. The written requirements for this inquiry are organized into three parts: • Part A: Teaching Overview • Part B: Daily Lesson Plans • Part C: Unit Assessment Plan All three parts are due electronically at least one week prior to beginning your unit teaching in October/November. Revisions for your 3 daily lesson plans (based on feedback and ideas regarding what you would change about the plan in the future and why) are due prior to class on Week 8. Part A: Design a Teaching Overview Design an overview for your unit that illustrates the big picture of your unit and sketches out the broad details in a sequence of lessons. Include the following information in your Teaching Overview chart (see p. 7 below): • Determine your broad goals for the unit by identifying which Grade Level Content Expectations (GLCEs) you will work toward. Keep in mind that these will represent the domain you are working toward (reading, writing, 316 speaking, listening or viewing) and the level of proficiency you are working toward across the school year at your grade level. • Provide a rationale for your unit goals. Explain how the goals are targeted toward your students’ learning needs and interests, why the content and/or skills to be learned are worthwhile and important, and how they are relevant to what you learned from Inquiry One about your students’ lives in and out of school. • Identify your intentions for student learning in your unit by developing a small, well chosen set of objectives. Be realistic—these objectives should be attainable by the end of a 10-lesson sequence. For each objective, provide a rationale for why this content and/or skill is important and worthwhile, and how it is relevant to your students’ lives. Your objectives should address the following characteristics and be numbered so you can easily list them in your summary: o Performance: States what a learner is expected to be able to do o Conditions: Describes the conditions under which a student is able to do or perform the task o Criterion: If possible, clarifies how well the student must perform the task in order for the performance to be acceptable Be sure to indicate the range of performances that are acceptable for your group of students, and describe what you will do to extend the learning for some students and re-teach as needed for others. Note whether students will demonstrate their learning in oral, manipulative, or written/pictorial form. Sample Objectives: o Students will make personal connections to a story by writing and telling about a time when they experienced a similar situation or emotion as one of the characters, using details that explain the situation. o When reading [text selection] students will draw conclusions and make inferences based on explicit and implied information and explain their reasoning to peers, o Students will identify compound words, accurately combine different nouns to form 10 compound words, and create advertisements that depict their understanding of the new compound words. 317 • Provide a summary of a two-week (or 10 day) lesson sequence that will help your students meet your objectives for the unit. For each lesson on your chart, include the following information: o Date o Lesson Objective # o Instructional Format (e.g., a mini-lesson followed by small group activity; writing conference; guided reading group) o Ongoing assessment (What will you look for as you teach, and how will you use that information to plan your next lesson?) o Teaching Notes (jot down topics, resources or tasks you want to make sure you incorporate into your lesson as you develop your plans such as introducing centers that day, or making sure you provide an anchor chart on predictions) • Differentiating Instruction: Teachers need to be realistic and strategic in their choices about differentiation, since all types of differentiation cannot be addressed in each lesson. o Review what you learned about the range of students’ learning needs in your classroom during Inquiry One (Part B of the Literacy Field Guide) (e.g., which students are ‘on target’ or above and below target). o Consider the lesson sequence you have outlined and consider where, when and how you could provide differentiated instruction by adjusting the content, or processes or product(s) to accommodate the learning needs of the range of learners in your classroom. o Describe what you will do to provide differentiated instruction in one area (content, processes or products), and explain how that choice appropriately meets some of your students’ learning needs. For example, you might make adjustments in the targeted content during a particular lesson, or provide a range of resources that reflect different interests or reading levels throughout your unit, or provide different assessment options. Part B: Develop Daily Lesson Plans __________________________________________________________________ You will hand in for instructor feedback (a) pre-assessment information you gathered on your students relative to your unit and (b) a set of daily lesson plans for three consecutive lessons from your unit. (You will write complete plans for ALL of your lessons, which will be reviewed by your field instructor and/or CT.) The overview and 3 daily lesson plans are due electronically at least one week prior to teaching them during October/November. Talk with your course instructor in advance if you need to follow a different time line. 318 Feedback on these drafts will be provided prior to the teaching of your lessons. It is expected that you will revise your three consecutive lessons plans based on the feedback provided by course instructors, field instructors, CTs, etc. After teaching the lessons and reflecting on how they went, you will also make notes on your plans regarding what you would do differently in the future and why you think these changes would improve learning opportunities for your students. You will turn the revised lesson plans after guided lead teaching. Include the following elements in all lesson plans (please see the attached template on p. 8 for use in your planning) and write them in OUTLINE form (bullets or numbered items) so they are easy to refer to as you are getting ready to teach and useful to you during your teaching: 1. Objective # this lesson focuses on 2. Rationale: Explain why this content and/or skill is important and worthwhile, and how you will work to make it relevant to your students’ lives. 3. Materials – both for teacher and students 4. Estimated length of lesson 5. Opening – Used to preview the lesson, activate prior knowledge, pre-assess, build common experiences, and/or motivate. 6. Procedures – Detailed outline of the steps in the main body of your lesson. Please use bullets or numbered items. Include words like instruct, model, demonstrate, scaffold, fade, practice, apply. The format should be easy to refer to as you prepare for teaching and as you teach your daily lessons, and provide a place for you to remind yourself of questions you want to ask, important information you want to be sure to emphasize, and so on. 7. Social, academic, and linguistic support – Consider all diverse learners in your classroom (ESL, special education, ADD, gifted, etc.). During TE 401/2 you worked to design specific accommodations for specific focus students. Based on the learners in your classroom, you will still need to consider which adaptations individuals need in order to successfully engage in each lesson. For example, what experiences and strengths do ELL students have that can be tapped? How can you, as an instructor, scaffold learning so they have access to the school curriculum? For information regarding a range of ways to differentiate instruction, access “Designing Lessons for Diverse Learners” on our course website and Tompkins, pp. 362-383. 8. Assessment – Make sure your assessment(s) matches both your objective(s) and the procedures. • For most daily plans you will identify “ongoing” assessments that will help you gauge the students’ learning as you implement the lesson plan and once 319 the lesson is completed. Specifically, identify what you will look for and how you will use what you are learning to inform your next steps. • You will also indicate which day(s) you will implement any assessments that will help you determine if your students meet your unit objectives. 9. Closing – Used to draw conclusions, synthesize, review, or summarize what has been learned in this lesson. Students benefit greatly from a quick focus on what they just learned at the end of each lesson and being actively involved in constructing the closing (versus the teacher telling them what was covered). 10. Reflection—After teaching each lesson, take notes on the following: • What students learned and which students struggled with the lesson. • What are alternate reads of your students’ performance or products? • What did you learn about your students’ literacy practices that extend beyond your objectives? • When and how will you re-teach the material to students who need additional support? • If you were to teach this same lesson again, what would you do differently and how do you think the changes would improve students’ learning? This information will need to be included in Inquiry Three. Part C: Make a Unit Assessment Plan: Whole Class __________________________________________________________________ All through your unit, you will be formally and informally assessing students’ learning, but you also need some key assessments to showcase what students learned overall from your unit. Decide which of the approaches discussed below would help you learn about your students in relation to your target area for Guided Lead Teaching. Write a 2-paragraph description of how you will assess your unit in relation to your objectives and append it to your lesson plans. Talk to your CT about ways to assess what your whole class learns from your unit. We will also make time in class to discuss and share ways to assess students’ learning relative to goals and objectives. Consider the assessment information provided in the articles we have been reading for class such as: • assessments in general (Boyd-Batsone, 2004; Book Club Plus) • assessments in writing (Anderson, 2005; Shapiro, 2004; Spence, 2010) • assessments in reading comprehension (Duke, Pressley & Hilden, 2004; Feine & McMahon, 2007; Mesmer & Mesmer, 2008; Walpole & McKenna, 2006; Mosaic of Thought), • fluency assessment (Deeney, 2010; Rasinski, 2006) Tompkins’ Chapter 3 on Assessment is another resource available, along with the assessment materials on our course website. As you consider your options for 320 assessment, think about whether it would be appropriate to differentiate the assessments you use for the range of learners in your classroom. The following are additional resources to consider: • See the ASSIST website designed for beginning teachers, particularly the sections on: • Knowing Students as Readers and Writers: http://assist.educ.msu.edu/ASSIST/classroom/teaches_content/ES_lang _arts/knowstudrewr.html • additional information about assessments: http://assist.educ.msu.edu/ASSIST/classroom/assesses_learning/index. htm • Consider additional ways to collect data, including the following, • Formal and informal assessments such as running records and other tools available through the Michigan Literacy Progress Profile (MLPP) and school resources • Work samples and classroom artifacts • Writing and/or reading conferences • Field notes from observations of children • Note-taking • Drawing classroom diagrams • Interviews • Surveys • Sociograms • Audiotape/videotape • Other data sources that relate to your target area Remember to collect and save your work and the work of your students for use in Inquiry Three! DUE DATES: The Teaching Overview, 3 daily lesson plans and assessment plan are due electronically at least one week prior to teaching them during October/November. Talk with your course instructor in advance if you need to follow a different time line. Please include any instructional or assessment materials necessary to support my understanding of the plan (i.e. sample worksheets, assessments, artifacts, adaptations, re-teaching). Revisions for your 3 daily lesson plans (based on feedback and ideas regarding what you would change about the plan in the future and why) are due prior to class on Week 8. 321 Table 21. Teaching Overview Teaching Overview Name: ____________________________________ Grade Level: _________________ School: ____________________________________ CT: ________________________ Describe your target area for guided lead teaching: List the main Grade Level Content Expectation(s) (GLCEs) that this unit will work toward: (e.g., R.WS.01.04: use structural cues to recognize onesyllable words, blends, and consonant digraphs). List a small set of well chosen objectives for the unit. Label each objective with a number so you can easily list the objective(s) for each day in the table below (e.g., Within their guided reading group, students will use “sl” sounds to read words such as slow, slope) Provide a rationale for why your overall goals and your specific objectives are important and worthwhile content or skills to learn, and how they are relevant to your students’ lives. List the main assessment(s) you will use to determine if your students meet your unit objectives for the unit 322 Table 21 (cont’d) Mon. 10/25/10 Tues. 10/26/10 • Objective # • Instructiona • Obj # l Format • Instr. (e.g., miniFormat lesson • Ongoing followed by Assessmen small group t activity) • Teaching • Ongoing Notes Assessment (What will you look for as you teach and how will you use that information to plan your next lesson?) • Teaching Notes Mon. 11/1/10 Tues. 11/2/10 • • • • Obj # Instr. Format Ongoing Assessmen t Teaching Notes • • • • Obj # Instr. Format Ongoing Assessmen t Teaching Notes Wed. 10/27/10 Thurs. 10/28/10 • Obj # • Obj # • Instr. Format • Instr. Format • Ongoing Assessmen • Ongoing t Assessmen t • Teaching Notes • Teaching Notes Fri. 10/29/10 Wed. 11/3/10 Fri. 11/5/10 • • • • Obj # Instr. Format Ongoing Assessmen t Teaching Notes 323 Thurs. 11/4/10 • • • • • • • • • • Obj # Instr. Format • Ongoing Assessmen t • Teaching Notes Obj # Instr. Format Ongoing Assessmen t Teaching Notes Obj # Instr. Format Ongoing Assessmen t Teaching Notes Table 22. Outline for a Daily Lesson Plan Outline for a Daily Lesson Plan Date: Objective(s) for today’s lesson: Rationale (Explain why this content and/or skill is important and worthwhile, and how you will work to make it relevant to your students’ lives): Materials & supplies needed: Procedures and approximate time allocated for Academic, Social each event and Linguistic Support during each • Introduction to the lesson (What will I say to event help children understand the purpose of the lesson? How will I help them make connections to prior lessons or experiences in and out of school? How will I motivate them to become engaged in the lesson and understand its real world purpose?) (_ minutes) • OUTLINE of key events during the lesson (Include specific details about how I will begin and end activities; what discussion questions I will use; how I will help children understand behavior expectations during the lesson; when/how I will distribute supplies and materials) (___ minutes) • Closing summary for the lesson (How will I bring closure to the lesson and actively involve children in reflecting on their experiences? How will I help them make connections to prior lessons or prepare for future experiences? What kind of feedback do I want from them at this time?) (___ minutes) 324 Table 22 (cont’d) Assessment (How will I gauge the students’ learning as I implement the lesson plan and once the lesson is completed? Specifically, what will I look for? How will I use what I am learning to inform my next steps?) Academic, Social, and Linguistic Support during assessment Reflection (What did students learn? What did I (Which students learn about teaching literacy? What went well? What struggled with the would I do differently next time?) material? How will I reteach these students) 325 Format (1 points) • • • • • GLCEs are aligned with the unit goals Rationale provided Assessment for unit objectives is listed Chart illustrates 2 weeks (or 10 days) of a sequence of lessons Each lesson on the overview includes the following: • Date • Lesson Objective • Rationale • Instructional Format • Ongoing Assessment • Teaching Notes Yes/No 326 Below Expecte d Quality Range Good Quality Range Range Teaching Overview 10 points Outstan ding Exempl ary High Range Quality Table 23. Inquiry Two Rubric Designing for Learning (40 points) Comments Table 23 (cont’d) Lesson Objectives (3 points) • Aligned with GLCEs and attainable within scope of unit • Each objective states what students will learn and be able to do in relation to the GLCEs (not the activity the students will be doing as part of the lesson) • Rationale explains why content and/or skill is important and worthwhile and relevant to students’ lives • Each objective matches instructional needs as determined by pre-assessments Sequence (3 points) Individual lessons are organized to build toward students achieving the unit objectives. Ongoing Assessment(s) (3 points) • • Designed to gauge student learning as lesson is implemented and completed Useful for informing next steps as you are teaching 327 Table 23 (cont’d) Lesson Plans 30 points Format & Due Dates (2 points) Lesson plans contain all of the required elements as described on the assignment sheet • Three consecutive plans are submitted on time (electronically, one week before teaching) Content (draft plans) (10 points) • Content of lesson plans are “well developed drafts” that reflect thorough attention to the required elements • Professional voice; correct spelling and grammar are used Rethinking the Plan (revised plans) (10 points) • Plans are thoughtfully revised based on feedback • Notes are made regarding what you would do differently in the future and why you think these changes would improve learning • Yes/No 328 Table 23 (cont’d) Assessment Plan (8 points) • Is aligned with unit goals and objectives • Provides information about each students’ learning in relation to the unit objective(s) 329 Inquiry Three: Going Public Through Professional Writing The life force of teaching practice is thinking and wondering. We carry home those moments of the day that touch us, and we question decisions made. During these times of reflection, we realize when something needs to change. The ordinary experiences of our teaching days are the essence of our practice. Using a guide to reflect on these experiences—either individually or with colleagues—is an entry to improving our teaching. Hole & McEntee, 1999, p. 34 Overview __________________________________________________________________ Professional organizations such as the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE), the International Reading Association (IRA), and the Michigan Council of Teachers of English (MCTE) provide many types of support for educators, such as professional conferences, teaching resources, research updates, professional development opportunities, professional networking, and more. These groups also rely on educators who represent all career stages and who participate in a variety of educational roles to participate actively in the profession. One way to contribute to the profession and promote your own learning at the same time is to “go public” with your work. Just as we want students in elementary and middle school classrooms to have ample opportunities to write to learn, writing about your teaching experience can become a powerful way to reflect on and learn from your practice. This final inquiry is an opportunity for you to analyze data, reflect on your practice, draw on the professional literature to write about your practice in a form suitable for a professional audience. It is also an opportunity to learn from engaging in the writing process by getting feedback from your colleagues on your ideas and how you express them. This inquiry into your teaching experience will be guided by four questions. Hole & McEntee (1999) argue that reflective teachers ask these questions regularly to make sense of their practice and figure out next steps to further their own and their students’ learning: • • What happened? Why did it happen? 330 • • What might it mean? What are the implications for my teaching practice? The requirements for the inquiry are organized into three parts: Part A: Interpreting Evidence and Making Claims Part B: The Teacher Narrative Part C: The Roundtable Discussion Part A: Interpreting Evidence and Making Claims: What Did My Students Learn? What Did I Learn? Interns are not expected to have a fully developed and refined practice as literacy teachers, particularly in the middle of their intern year. As reflected in MSU’s Teacher Preparation Program Standard 8, interns are expected to demonstrate their ability to reflect on and improve their teaching to show that they are making steady progress toward refining a practice that engages students in meaningful learning. Part A of this Inquiry is designed to engage you in four ways to reflect on and analyze your experiences, as outlined in the steps discussed below: STEP 1: Throughout Guided Lead Teaching, you gathered information (from formal, standardized and informal assessments, conversations with students, work samples and anecdotal observations). The next step is to reflect on practice, interpret assessment information and summarize what you know about students as literacy learners relative to your unit. To begin this part of your inquiry, analyze the assessments you collected on your whole class. Write 2-3 paragraphs in which you summarize ‘what happened’ in relation to your target area for Guided Lead Teaching, GLCEs, and the objectives you worked toward. What can the learners in your class do now as readers, writers, speakers, listeners and viewers that they were not able to do before? Also consider the range of learners in your classroom and discuss what you will need to keep in mind as you plan for literacy instruction for the whole class across the remainder of the school year. 331 Be sure to include examples of information collected from your pre- and post-assessments to support your claims. Cite examples of assessment artifacts on which the conclusions were based and provide concrete examples (e.g., quotes, percentages of scores). If it is helpful to you, complete the Assessment Analysis to help you craft your paragraphs (you may access this form on the sidebar of our class website). Table 24. Assessment Analysis Assessment Analysis Your Name: _________________________ Grade Level: ________________________ School: _____________________________ List the GLCEs that represent your broad goals for your unit: What did you learn from your preassessments about what your students knew and were able to do in relation to your target area prior to your unit? What range of knowledge or skills did your group represent? Describe the progress the students made toward the GLCEs and the data that supports your claims. Provide examples for students who are “on track,” those who exceeded what you expect at your grade level, and those who need support in getting “on track.” List the unit objectives for your unit, describe the progress made, and evidence that supports your claims for the students who are “on track,” those who exceeded what you expect at your grade level, and those who need support in getting “on track” (e.g., ongoing assessment, summative assessment): Additional observations about these students relevant to literacy learning: 332 Table 24 (cont’d) Given the evidence of student learning, what recommendations do you have regarding instructional adaptations or differentiation of instruction to help students in your class progress? On what evidence do you base these recommendations? What recommendations do you have for next steps in literacy learning for the students in your class? What do you need to keep in mind for future planning to ensure continued growth for all learners? STEP 2: Next, consider ‘what else happened’ during your unit and develop some hunches as to ‘why it happened.’ Write 2-3 paragraphs in which you describe and explain what you learned about your students’ literacy practices that were not in your objectives. What are alternative ways to read (interpret) one or more of your students’ learning processes and products. (For example, consider Spence’s (2010) discussion of alternative ways to read students’ writing that we read during week 5.) How do you explain this learning? Consider how the learning that took place might relate to what you taught, or what learners taught each other, or to the resources used, or learners’ prior knowledge and experiences, or other factors you discovered as you engaged in Inquiry One to learn about your internship context. ! Please bring relevant information to class so you can start writing your paragraphs in class on November 18. Finish your paragraphs by December 2. STEP 3: Finally, consider ‘what these events might mean’ and ‘implications for your practice.’ Think about the instructional context in which you are learning to teach literacy and how that may have influenced your teaching experiences and opportunities for professional learning during Guided Lead Teaching. Jot down notes about the following: • Review your notes from Inquiry One regarding the literacy resources and programs available to you, and think about what part of your curriculum your literacy unit fit within (e.g., guided reading program, daily five, writing workshop, book club). o To what extent were you were expected to follow a scripted curriculum, or add your own ideas to a curriculum that already exists, or create a unit that is entirely new? o What was unproblematic and/or challenging about planning a unit in this context? o What obstacles did you face? How did you overcome them? o What enabled you to be successful? 333 • Also review the ideas you discussed in your reflections on your three lessons for Inquiry Two (what your students learned, what you learned, what you would do differently), and think about your unit as a whole. o Did the unit proceed as you expected? Why or why not? o What surprises or “aha moments” did you experience? o What do you still need to learn about teaching in this target area and about teaching literacy in general? ! Please be prepared to share notes about these reflections with colleagues during our online class on December 2. Part B: The Teacher Narrative Moving from Interpretation to Insights __________________________________________________________________________ Select an aspect of your teaching and learning that you want to further reflect on and analyze, and write a 3-5-page compelling narrative that provides an account of the events and insights you have about them. Address the 3 main questions listed below in any order that makes for a coherent, cohesive narrative that is convincing, has a clear focus and is grounded in evidence. ! Please have your draft narrative ready for peer review during our online class on December 2. 1. What is a ‘big idea’ about literacy or a literacy topic/issue that is important to you, and why is it significant? 2. What professional literature (readings from TE 802 or prior literacy courses such as TE 301 or TE 401/2) is relevant to your ‘big idea’ or literacy topic/issue? Explain how this literature elaborates or provides a rationale for the perspective you want to take in your narrative. Explain how it helps you interpret evidence of student engagement and/or learning. 3. How does the story you tell about your teaching illustrate, exemplify, make problematic, complicate, or provide insight into the ‘big idea’ or literacy topic/issue? Keep in mind that ‘going public’ about your teaching does not mean you have to present yourself as a master teacher or hero! Some of the most interesting pieces about teaching feature issues, problems or challenges that teachers face, how they are attempting to address them, and new insights gained from their reflections. 334 Consider the following questions and include details about the ones that are relevant to your topic, and be sure to provide concrete evidence to support any claims you make: • To what extent did you take on the role(s) you envisioned for yourself as a teacher? • Did you create the type of classroom environment you hoped to create for successful literacy learning? • Does the learning that took place during your unit match your vision of what it means to be a successful literacy learner? • What went well during your teaching and in what ways was this was connected to your planning? • What do your full-class assessments tell you about your own effectiveness as an instructor? To what extent were you able to address broad goals and your specific unit objectives? What evidence supports your claims? • What does full-class assessment data tell you about HOW you taught and WHAT methods you used? " What appeared to be effective and what did not? " What do your assessments tell you about your chosen instructional methods? " What information do you not have that you would like to have? " How well did your choice of materials support students’ learning of your stated objectives? " How well did your choice of learning activities support students’ learning of your stated objectives? " How well did you manage your teaching time? Was pacing appropriate for student learning? What classroom management lessons did you learn? " How well did your questions and facilitation of discussion encourage student participation and response? " What insights do you have about “what else happened” during your unit (that was not targeted in your objectives) that broaden your view of ‘new literacies’ or learning literacy, learning about literacy and learning through literacy? Requirements for the Narrative Your written piece will be evaluated based on whether it includes: • • a clear statement of your topic/issue and its significance a rationale for your ideas supported by professional literature 335 • • specific examples from your teaching (e.g., sample student work or other data) that provide evidence of student learning reflection and analysis go beyond simply describing what happened Writing workshop time will be allocated in class that will support you in selecting your targeted topic, and getting feedback on draft material. Part C: The Round Table Discussion Sharing insights and Learning from Colleagues Professional organizations hold conferences with sessions organized in different formats such as presentations, poster sessions, and round table discussions. This gives educators the opportunity to ‘go public’ with their experiences and learn from one another. During our last class on December 9, you will participate in a round table discussion where you will have 10 minutes to share your narrative. You will provide a one-page handout (or present a minimum of 5 Power Point slides) that summarizes key information in your narrative and/or provides information on professional resources that would be interesting to your colleagues. You will also listen to and discuss your colleagues’ narrative presentations. Based on the round table discussion, you are likely to get ideas for final revisions you wish to make to your narrative before submitting it for a grade. DUE DATES: Please be prepared to share relevant materials on the dates outlined below for our writing workshop. • • • Part A (steps 1 & 2): Please bring relevant information to class (as outlined on pp. 2-3 above) so you can start writing your paragraphs in class on November 18. Part A (step 3) and Draft writing for Part B are due in class for peer review on December 2 (online class). Part C: Be prepared to share a well-developed draft of your narrative (accompanied by a one-page handout) on December 9 at a round table discussion. Your ‘writing folder’ is due as a series of electronic attachments sent to wibbense@msu.edu. The attachments are listed below with due dates: 336 • • Draft writing for all of Part A (steps 1-3) is due to wibbense@msu.edu as an electronic attachment by 12 p.m. on December 2 Your final written piece (Part B) is due as an electronic attachment by 9 a.m. on Monday, December 13. Table 25. Inquiry Three Rubric Going Public Through Professional Writing (20 pointss Writing Process (4 points) Comments Teacher Narrative Draft material competed on time and shared with colleagues • Constructive feedback provided to peers Format • Yes/No Followed narrative requirements and format Writing Process • Draft material shared with peers for feedback • Constructive feedback provided to peers • Yes/No Yes/No 337 Below Expected Quality Range Good Quality Range High Quality Range Written Product and Round Table Event (16 points) Outstanding Exemplary Range Expectations for Quality Table 25 (cont’d) Topic/Issue Statement (3 points) • Topic/issue is clearly stated • Importance/signific ance of topic is made clear • Sufficient information about teaching context provided Rationale (3 points) • • Clear rationale for ideas is provided Appropriate and sufficient professional literature is used to explain and support ideas Evidence of Student Learning (4 points) • • • Specific examples from teaching provided Evidence of student learning is provided Reflection and analysis go beyond describing what happened 338 Table 25 (cont’d) Writing Quality (3 points) • Piece is well organized, coherent, and engaging • Professional voice used • Correct grammar use Round Table Event (3 points) • Clear presentation of narrative • Concise handout provided • Participates thoughtfully in round table discussion (e.g., volunteers information and ideas, stays focused on the topic, takes an analytic and reflective stance) • Listens to colleagues and supports their learning (e.g., asks questions, challenges others’ ideas in a constructive manner, probes for further elaboration) 339 Appendix D: Code Book Table 26. Code Book Code Code Note Example from Data Open Coding: Excerpt of codes naming and describing phenomena found in the data Making curriculum my own CT influence positive/negative Interns claim they struggle to make designated curriculum their own. They reference “inventing” curriculum or working to make curriculum fit their needs or personality CTs are referenced as largely influential as interns learn more about teaching writing and what is expected of them. Curriculum influence positive/negative Curriculum, or lack of it, influences intern decisions about lesson planning Knowing my students, student needs Interns work to meet the needs of their individual students and work to engage students through their instructional decision-making Some interns claim confidence, others lack of it Confidence as a writing teacher Pedagogical content knowledge Interns talked about developing an understanding of writing pedagogy, based on their experience as students, as beginning teachers or through observation Subject matter knowledge Some interns claim an understanding of writing as a subject matter and mention paragraph structure or writing process and convention Interns talk about themselves as writers Writing on my own Methods course Interns reference course meetings or assignments when speaking about their writing pedagogy 340 The top thing that taught me to teach writing is when I’ve taken the curriculum and rewritten it myself, to fit my needs (Dana, interview) My CT is great, we sat and thought and planned together a lot. (Blake, interview) My CT shared her materials and ideas and time with me (Renee, reflection) I felt like I was stuck with Calkins and when I wasn’t seeing my students getting a certain lesson, I had difficulty seeing how to stick with Calkins but still allow them to learn (Dana, interview). The real problem to me is that we as teachers are forced to stick to a scripted curriculum that makes us teach the lessons and not teach the students (Blake, assignment 3) I absolutely do not feel confident as a writing teacher, a lack of curriculum in my field placement. As a beginning teacher its (sic) nice to have that model to go by. So that has 100% hindered my confidence and my ability to teach writing, because I’m not sure how to (Olivia, interview) I came in thinking that it would be easy because I can write and I know how to write… and then I heard my peers talk about it and how difficult it was to teach. And then when I got up there and tried it was solidified that it is a difficult thing to teach (Olivia, interview). I know my understanding of writing is not fully developed. I remember the 5 paragraph essay and the hamburger model of paragraph writing (Dana, interview and assignment 3) I did writing. When I started with the Calkins curriculum, I made it my goal, to have my writing notebook. So before each lesson I took that lesson and wrote in that style. And, as I was writing in that style I’m like “oh, I don’t really want to do that… I want to do it this way.” So, If I could see how it was valuable to me, I felt I could share that better with the students. (Dana interview) I feel that our course encouraged me to implement a new structure within my classroom- the writing process. I remember a bit of instructor modeling you gave me the idea of having a visual for the steps of the writing process (Renee, Interview) Table 26 (cont’d) Classroom context positive/negative Discussion of classroom context, including the students, the curriculum present, grade level and school/community influences Writing instruction policy Discussion of instructional policy such as mandated curriculum, including scripts and pacing guides. Being an advocate for high quality instruction Talk about the kind of writing teacher interns “want to be.” Discussion of best practices or talk of addressing student needs in connection with instruction Where I was I really had to get creative. I learned quickly that I could not rely on one set of materials to tell me how to teach this unit. I had to pull from a number of resources and figure out what fit best in planning my unit in order for my students to reach the learning goals. (Renee, interview) I have to cover the Lucy Calkins curriculum, and supposedly the curriculum fits the third grade state writing standards. We have a curriculum map and it lists each month and the Calkins chapters or lessons (Dana, interview) I just kind of changed the path a little bit, and we wrote a different story as an anchor text for the whole thing (unit). So I felt less restricted at the end than I did planning the whole thing, for sure (Blake, interview) References to work with other interns or other teachers in and around writing instruction To me, this is the most important thing about teaching: doing your best to give your students what they need to succeed, even if you have to deviate a little from the required curriculum (Blake, narrative) We got together once a week and just talked about things, and how it was going for us, and shared ideas (Dana, interview). Work with peers/colleagues Work with other teachers (other than CT) References to work with teachers in writing, not including the assigned cooperating teacher Lesson planning Talk about the process and benefits of lesson planning for writing. Reflecting on their work as writing teachers Interns talk or reflect about their progress and or feelings about becoming a writing teacher. Reflecting can be purposeful in the course blogs or spontaneous during interviews. 341 We shared ideas in class- I learned a lot just from listening to my classmates’ experiences teaching (Blake, interview). I worked with the teacher down the hall, she gave me so many ideas. (Olivia, interview) There is a first year teacher in third grade. And he and I talked when I was planning my lessons and I didn’t get it (Dana, interview) I see the benefit of planning, I had to look at my whole unit in advance- when you see the whole end product in the first place it really helped. I’m not going to plan every lesson, 20 lessons in advance, but, I’m going to know exactly what I am working toward. The lessons I carefully planned, were the best lessons I taught. (Blake, interview) I feel bad saying this because I want to be a teacher, but literacy and writing has always been hard for me when it comes to teaching it. It’s just a lot more abstract to me so I never felt super confident in either reading or writing. (Blake, interview) Table 26 (cont’d) Axial Coding: Relating codes to one another in order to collapse thinking Relating to text Physical formal and functional, illustrate traces of activity that mark intern ideas, plans and reflections on writing instruction. Relating to context codes through inductive and deductive Good writing instruction includes many resources, models where student can work in whole class or small group settings. Students should have a grasp of what the writing process looks like, what purpose they are writing for, to what audience they are writing, what conventions must they use. I think students learn through experience and classroom community- this is how I want to plan (Renee, reflection) I had to find information to teach writing on my own because there was no curriculum. So that made it a little bit difficult. I was on the internet, and I had to make up my own activities (Olivia, interview) All things that encompass the space where an intern teaches. This includes the STUFF and the instructional methods in place in an individual classroom as well as the people that an intern comes into contact with. We use Lucy Calkins’ Units of Study (Dana, Contexts include proximal and assignment 1) distal resources. Relating to politics Any mandated influence on the I feel like with Lucy Calkins there is a teacher and/or learner. These certain expectation and so I feel like what I include curricular directives am getting judged on is getting (my such as mandated and scripted students) to be able to do what Lucy Calkins curricula and/or learning wants them to do (Blake, interview) standards that dictate teacher work with students. Selective Coding: Choosing core codes or themes in order to develop findings Text: Writing/Rewriting in order to adapt instruction (methods and materials) Creating text Text: Writing in order to facilitate emergence of writing teacher roles and responsibilities Taking control of text Context: Proximal resources to support instruction Identification of resources Reflecting on and through text Students bring text to life Adaption of instructional methods Context: Distal resources to support instruction Identifying mentors Relationships to share ideas and resources Politics: Difficulty translating/embodying scripted lessons Working to make the curriculum accessible to students. Adaptation. Working to become comfortable translating the curriculum into ideas that students can understand. 342 The top thing that taught me to teach writing is when I’ve taken the curriculum and re-written it myself. A lot of writing and re-writing to get the lessons to a place for my third graders. (Dana, interview) Well, my big thing is that I wanted to modify it (writing curriculum) for the sole reason to get the kids interested. I was trying to find ways to get the kids interested, that’s why I re-wrote that anchor text with pictures and the white water rafting (Blake, interview) I implemented two things that were new to my students: a genre study in mystery and the writing process. It was hard for my students to learn how to work independently, what to do next- how writers write (Renee, interview) She (the teacher down the hall) gives me resources and confidence and she is so passionate about what she does. I can’t help but feel like when I leave her classroom that I can do it (Olivia, interview) The biggest challenge was Lucy Calkins writing Workshop, and having to decipher the essence of each lesson. Though her lessons are literally scripted in the book, I quickly discovered how far from those narrations I had to stray to fit my students. (Dana, assignment 3) Table 26 (cont’d) Politics: Struggles to retro-fit scripted lessons Working to alter the curriculum to bring in materials that meet the instructional/developmental needs of students. 343 I encountered a major obstacle: teaching the curriculum that is required while still giving my students the instruction they need- it meant “making the lessons our own”—it meant making adjustments that allow our instruction to address issues we see with our students. (Blake, assignment 3) Appendix E: Dana’s Lesson Revision Table 27. Dana’s Lesson Revision Listening for Significant Seed Ideas Date:11/02/2010 Objective(s) for today’s lesson: Students will practice listening and sharing skills to better develop their seed ideas through partner sharing. Rationale (Explain why this content and/or skill is important and worthwhile, and how you will work to make it relevant to your students’ lives): Collaboration and feedback from peers is a lifelong task. When students learn how to better discuss each other's ideas, they help solidify those ideas. Materials & supplies needed: Raising the Quality of Narrative Writing, Lucy Calkins, Teacher writing journal, Byrd Baylor I'm in Charge of Celebrations (Once I began teaching the mini lessons I realized how long each lesson was taking me and the constraints on actual writing time for the students, I knew I had to make changes to fit my students. While the book is an interesting way to talk about different aspects of writing, it took away from the time the students had to truly listen and share with each other, so I chose not to read it.) Procedures and approximate time allocated for each event • Introduction to the lesson (What will I say to help children understand the purpose of the lesson? How will I help them make connections to prior lessons or experiences in and out of school? How will I motivate them to become engaged in the lesson and understand its real world purpose?) (3 minutes) • Students in group area Teachers find comfort in sharing writing decisions with a partner - personal story about a time I needed comfort, then a time I was able to help someone else (Cut out for time constraints and not being essential for understanding. 344 Academic, Social and Linguistic Support during each event Table 27 (cont’d) OUTLINE of key events during the lesson (Include specific details about how I will begin and end activities; what discussion questions I will use; how I will help children understand behavior expectations during the lesson; when/how I will distribute supplies and materials) ( minutes) • read Byrd Baylor I'm in Charge of Celebrations (5 minutes) • use teacher writing journal - read aloud and have students practice showing they listened to the story ◦ listeners help writers want to write ◦ what is one way you can show me you just heard my story? Another? (point out a part you like, retell the story back to me) (10 minutes) After reviewing this lesson I believed this concept of the students "showing" they heard each other's stories to be too abstract for them due to my previous writing conferences and that it would not lead to a productive lesson. One thing brought up often while conferring is the importance of adding details to stories instead of listing events, so I turned this time into peers extracting more details out of each other. They were to either read a story they were working on or share a story idea with each other. The listener had to ask four why sentences to the reader. We practiced by having me tell a story and six different students putting up their hand, and repeating my sentence they had a question with in why form. After adding more detail to my sentence thought I continued with my story. • Tell students they will share either the current story they are working on, or a seed idea of theirs they are thinking of turning into a story after some writing time • Students will write for 20 minutes I switched sharing and writing so sharing took place for the ten minutes after the mini lesson so the ideas were fresh in their heads. 345 Academic, Social and Linguistic Support during each event -use of teacher journal takes pressure off students concerning sharing their "unfinished" work -sharing my writing shows writing as a continuing process, past school -scaffold appropriate language in a large group setting so they know what to do as partners some students share better one on one, it is easier to talk to a peer Table 27 (cont’d) Closing summary for the lesson (How will I bring closure to the lesson and actively involve children in reflecting on their experiences? How will I help them make connections to prior lessons or prepare for future experiences? What kind of feedback do I want from them at this time?) (___ minutes) • students break into partners and share seed ideas, practicing listening strategies - say at least four things about each other's ideas. Write down one thing they said for their partner's story on partner sheet. (5 minutes for each partner, 10 minutes total) • Transition to next learning activity Assessment (How will I gauge the students’ learning Academic, Social, and as I implement the lesson plan and once the lesson is Linguistic Support completed? Specifically, what will I look for? How will during assessment I use what I am learning to inform my next steps?) Writing conferences- using turning points or strong feelings to focus their stories • listening in on partner sharing - partner's saying things they like about ideas, praising work • partner sheet - I did not have them fill a partner think sheet out, but instead my CT and I conferred with each group. Dana’s revised lesson is a revision of the lesson in Units of Study. She revised her lesson both as she was teaching and in hindsight. Highlighted text indicates those places where Dana made revisions. • 346 Appendix F Renee’s Original Handout Figure 6. Mystery Elements Mystery Elements 347 Appendix G Renee’s New Graphic Organizer Table 28. Renee’s New Graphic Organizer Book Title Author Mystery Element Characters MYSTERY ELEMENTS List Example. Describe it! Setting Plot Clues Distractions Structure 348 REFERENCES 349 REFERENCES Agee, J. (2004). Negotiating a teaching identity: An african american teacher's struggle to teach in test-driven contexts. Teachers College Record, 106(4), 747-774. Anderson, C. (2005). Assessing writers, Chapter 6: Linking assessment and instruction: Designing individual learning plans for students, pp. 141-163. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1991). Participatory action research and action science compared: A commentary. In W. F. White (Ed.), Participatory action research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Aukerman, M. S. (2007). When reading it wrong is getting it right: Shared evaluation pedagogy among struggling fifth grade readers. [research]. Research in the Teaching of English, 42(1). Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward a practice-based theory of professional education. In L. DarlingHammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Ball, D. L., & Forzani, F. (2009). The work of teaching and the challenge for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(5), 497-511. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall. Barty, L. (2004). Embracing ambiguity in the artifacts of the past: Teacher identity and pedagogy. Canadian Social Studies, 38(3). Batel, V. B. (2005). Merging Literacies: A Case Study. Childhood Education, 81(4). 350 Beers, S. F., & Nagy, W. E. (2011). Writing Development in Four Genres from Grades Three to seven: Syntactic Complexity and Genre Differentiation. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 24(2), 183-202. Bickmore, S., Smagorinsky, P., & O'Donnell-Allen, C. (2005). Tensions between traditions: The role of contexts in learning to teach. English Education, 38(1), 23-52. Bifulco, R., Duncombe, W., & Yinger, J. (2005). Does whole-school reform boost student performance? The case of New York City. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24(1), 47-72. Borko, H., & Putnam, R. (1996). Learning to teach. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Boushey, G., & Moser, J. (2006). The Daily Five. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers. Boyd-Batstone (2004). Focused anecdotal records assessment: A tool for standardsbased, authentic assessment. The Reading Teacher, 58(3), 230-239. Britzman, D. P. (2003). Practice makes practice: A critical study of learning to teach (2 ed.). Albany: State University of New York Press. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, S. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42. Bruner, J. (1975). The ontogenesis of speech acts. Journal of Child Language, 2, 140. Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Calkins, L. M. (1982). Lessons from a child: A case study of one child's growth in writing. 351 Calkins, L. M. (1983a). Lessons from a Child: On the Teaching and Learning of Writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational Books, Inc. Calkins, L. M. (1983b). Making the Reading-Writing Connection. Learning, 12(2), 82-86. Calkins, L. M. (1986). The Art of Teaching Writing. Portsmouth: Heinemann Educational Books, Inc. Calkins, L. M. (2006). Units of study for teaching writing: Grades 3-5: Heinemann. Cambourne, B. (1995). Toward an educationally relevant theory of literacy learning: Twenty years of inquiry. [Teacher/Researcher]. The Reading Teacher, 49(3), 182-191. Cazden, C. B. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Cazden, C. B. (1998). Students' power in classroom discourse. Linguistics and Education, 10(2 ), 139-163. CCSSO. (2010). Common Core State Standards: English Language Arts. Washington DC National Governors Association Center for Best Practices. Chapman, M. (1999). Situated, Social, Active: Rewriting Genre in the Elementary Classroom. Written Communication, 469-491. Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, M. (2004). Knowledge, narrative, and self-study. In J. Loughran, M. Hamilton, V. LaBoskey & T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (Vol. 12, pp. 575-600). New York: Springer International. Clift, R. T., & Brady, P. (2005). Research on Methods Courses and Field Experiences. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. M. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying Teacher Education: The Report of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education (pp. 309-424). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Asociates. 352 Coburn, C. E. (2001). Collective Sensemaking: How Teachers Mediate Reading Policy in Their Professional Communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(2), 145-170. Coburn, C. E. (2005a). The Role of Nonsystem Actors in the Relationship Between Policy and Practice: The Case of Reading Instruction in California. [Policy and practice study focusing on nonsystem actors. (ie.]. Educational Education and Policy Analysis, 27(1), 23 - 52. Coburn, C. E. (2005b). Shaping Teacher Sensemaking: School Leaders and the Enactment of Reading Policy. Educational Policy, 19(3), 476-509. Coburn, C. E. (2006). Framing the Problem of Reading Instruction: Using Frame Analysis to Uncover the Microprocesses of Policy Implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 43(3), 343-379. Cochran-Smith, M., Feiman-Nemser, S., McIntyre, D.J., & Demers, K.E. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring questions in changing contexts. (3rd ed). Newark: Routledge. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher learning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 24, 249305. Cochran-Smith, M., & Zeichner, K. M. (Eds.). (2005). Studying Teacher Education: The Report of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Coffey, H. (2012). Mentoring Matters: Rethinking mentor relationships. English Journal, 101(4), 94-96. Cohen, D. K., Moffitt, S. L., & Goldin, S. (2007). Policy and Practice: The Dilemma. American Journal of Education, 113, 515-548. Colby, S. A., & Stapleton, J. N. (2006). Preservice Teachers Teach Writing: Implications for Teacher Educators. [Research]. Reading Research and Instruction, 45(4), 353-380. 353 Commission on Reading, National Council of Teachers of English. Features of Literacy Programs: A Decision-Making Matrix. Retrieved August 13, 2010, www.ncte.org/library/NCTEFiles/Resources Compton-Lilly, C. (2009). Listening to families over time: Seven lessons learned about literacy in families. Language Arts, 86(6), 449-457. Corden, R. (2007). Developing reading-writing connections: The impact of explicit instruction of literacy devices on the quality of children's narrative writing. [Research]. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 21, 269-289. Culham, R. (2003). 6+ 1 traits of writing: The complete guide. Scholastic Inc.. Cutler, L., & Graham, S. (2008). Primary grade writing instruction: A national survey. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 907-919. Danielewicz, J. (2001). Teaching selves: Identity, pedagogy, and teacher education. New York: State University of New York Press. Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st Century Teacher Education. Journal of Teacher Education, 56, 300-314. Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (Eds.). (2007). Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. John Wiley & Sons. Denyer, J., & Florio-Ruane, S. (1995). Mixed messages and missed opportunities: Moments of transformation in writing conferences and teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(6), 539-551. Dewey, J. (1902). The Child and the Curriculum. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and Education. New York: Collier Books. Didion, J. (1976). Why I write, The New York Times Magazine. 354 Dinkleman, T. (2003). Self-Study in Teacher Education: A means and Ends Tool for Promoting Reflective Teaching. [research- report on self study]. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(1), 6-18. Duffy, G. (2002). Visioning and the development of outstanding teachers. Reading Research and Instruction, 41, 331-344. Duke, N. K., Purcell-Gates, V., Hall, L. A., & Tower, C. (2006/2007). Authentic literacy activities for developing coprehension and writing. [Practitioner on Authenticity]. The Reading Teacher, 60(4), 344-355. Dyson, A. H. (1990). Weaving possibilities: Rethinking metaphors for early literacy development. The Reading Teacher, 44, 202-213. Dyson, A. H. (2003a). The Brothers and Sisters Learn to Write: Popular Literacies in Childhood and School Cultures. New York: Teachers College Press. Dyson, A. H. (2003b). "Welcome to the Jam": Popular culture, school literacy, and the making of childhoods. [ethnography]. Harvard Educational Review, 73(3), 328-362. Engestrom, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engestrom, R. Miettinen & R. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19-38). New York: Cambridge University Press. Engestrom, Y., Miettinen, R., & Punamaki, R. (1999). Perspectives on activity theory. New York: Cambridge University Press. Fairbanks, C. M., Duffy, G. G., Faircloth, B. S., He, Y., Levin, B., Rohr, J., & Stein, C. (2010). Beyond Knowledge: Exploring Wy Some Teachers are More Thoughtfully Adaptive Than Others. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(161). Feiman-Nemser, S. (1998). Teachers as Teacher Educators. European Journal of Teacher Education, 21(1), 63-74. Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001a). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching. [opinion/research paper]. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 1013-1055. 355 Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001b). Helping novices learn to teach: Lessons from an exemplary support teacher. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(1), 17-30. Feinberg, B. (2007). The Lucy Calkins Project: Parsing a Self-Proclaimed Literacy Guru. Education Next, 7(3), 27-31. Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2007). Implementing a Schoolwide Literacy Framework: Improving Achievement in an Urban Elementary School. [research report]. The Reading Teacher, 61(1), 32-43. Fishman, B. J., Marx, R. W., Best, S., & Tal, R. T. (2003). Linking teacher and student learning to improve professional development in systematic reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 643-658. Fletcher, R., & Portalupi, J. (2001). Writing Workshop: The essential guide. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Floden, R., & Meniketti, M. (2005). Research on the Effects of Coursework in the Arts and Sciences and in the Foundations of Education. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. M. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying Teacher Education: The Report of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education (Vol. 1, pp. 261 - 308). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Florio-Ruane, S., & Lensmire, T. (1989). Transforming future teachers' ideas about writing instruction. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco. Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365-387. Franke, M. L., Carpenter, T., Fennema, E., Ansell, E., & Behrend, J. (1998). Understanding teachers' self-sustaining-generative change in the context of professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14(1), 67-80. Freedman, A. (1993). Show and tell? The role of explicit teaching in the learning of new genres. Research in the Teaching of English, 27(3), 222-251. 356 Gerstl-Pepin, C. I., & Woodside-Jiron, H. (2005). Tensions Between the "Science of Reading and a "love of Learning": One High-Poverty School's Sruggle with NCLB. [Qualitative case study of one elementary school Gilbert, J., & Graham, S. (2010). Teaching writing to elementary students in grades 4-6: A national survey. The Elementary School Journal, 110(4), 494-518. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. Glesne, C. (2006). Becoming Qualitative Researchers. New York: Pearson. Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2005a). Improving the Writing Performance of Young Struggling Writers: Theoretical and Programmatic Research From the Center on Accelerating Student Learning. The Journal of Special Education, 39(1), 19-33. Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2005b). Writing better: Effective strategies for teaching students with learning difficulties. Baltimore: Brookes Publishing Company. Graham, S., Harris, K. R., Fink-Chorzempa, B., & MacArthur, C. A. (2003). Primary grade teachers instructional adaptations for struggling writers: A national survey. [peer reviewed journal]. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 279-292. Graham, S., MacArthur, C. A., & Fitzgerald, J. (Eds.). (2007). Best Practices in Writing Instruction. New York: The Guilford Press. Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). Writing Next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools- A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education. Graves, D. H. (1994). A Fresh Look At Writing. Portsmouth: Heinemann. Grossman, P. (2005). Research on Pedagogical Approaches in Teacher Education. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. M. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying Teacher Education: The 357 Report of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education (pp. 425-476). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Grossman, P., Hammerness, K., McDonald, M., & Ronfeldt, M. (2008). Constructing Coherence: Structural Predictors of Coherence in NYC Teacher Education Programs. Journal of Teacher Education, 59, 273-287. Grossman, P., Smagorinsky, P., & Valencia, S. (1999). Appropriating tools for teaching English: A theoretical framework for research on learning to teach. American Journal of Education, 108, 1-29. Grossman, P., & Thompson, C. (2008). Learning from Curriculum Materials: Scaffolds for New Teachers? Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 24(8), 2014-2026. Grossman, P., Valencia, S., Evans, K., Thompson, C., Martin, S., & Place, N. (2000). Transitions into teaching: Learning to teach writing in teacher education and beyond. Journal of Literacy Research, 32, 631-662. Hachem, A., Nabhani, M., & Bahous, R. (2008). "We can write!" The writing workshop for young learners. Education, 36(4), 325-337. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1991). Language, context and text: aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hammerness, K. (2002). Learning to hope, or hoping to learn? The role of vision in the early professional lives of teachers. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Harris, K. R., Graham, S., Mason, L. H., & Saddler, B. (2002). Developing selfregulated writers. [article (explanatory)]. Theory into practice, 41(2), 110-115. Hawkins, L. K., & Razali, A. B. (2012). A Tale of 3 P's- Penmanship, Product, and Process: 100 Years of Elementary Writing Instruction. Language Arts, 89(5), 305-317. 358 He, Y., & Levin, B. (2008). Match or mismatch? How congruent are the beliefs of teacher candidates, cooperating teachers, and university-based teacher educators? Teacher Education Quarterly, 35(4), 37-55. Heath, S. B., & Street, B. V. (2008). On ethnography: Approaches to language and literacy research. New York: Teachers College Press. Herr, K., & Anderson, G. L. (2005). The action research dissertation: A guide for students and faculty. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications. Hicks, D. (1991). Kinds of narrative: Genre skills among first graders from two communities. In A. McCabe & C. Peterson (Eds.), Developing Narrative Structure. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Hillocks, G. (1986). Research on written composition: New directions for teaching. Urbana, IL: National Conference on Research in English. Hole, S., & McEntee, G. H. (1999). Reflection is at the heart of practice. [report]. Educational Leadership, 56(8), 34. Jacobs, G. M. (2004). A classroom investigateion of the growth of metacognitive awareness in kindergarten children through the writing process. [qualatative]. Early childhood education journal, 32(1), 17 - 23. Jasmine, J., & Weiner, W. (2007). The effects of writing workshop of abilities of first grade students to become confident and independent writers. Early childhood education journal, 35(2), 131-139. Kamberelis, G., & de la Luna, L. (2004). Children's writing: How textual forms, contextual froces, and textual politics co-emerge. In C. Bazerman & P. A. Prior (Eds.), What writing does and how it does it: An introduction to analyzing texts and textual practices (pp. 239-278). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Keene, E. O., & Zimmerman, S. (2007). Mosaic of thought: Teaching comprehension ina reader's workshop (2nd Edition ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. 359 Kennedy, M. M. (1998). Learning to Teach Writing: Does Teacher Education Make A Difference? New York: Teachers College Press. Kennedy, M. M. (2004a). Ed Schools and the Problem of Knowledge. In J. D. Raths & A. C. McAninch (Eds.), What counts as knowledge in teacher education? (pp. 29-45). Greenwich: Information Age Publishing. Kennedy, M. M. (2004b). Examining Teacher Quality. Paper presented at the NCTM Research Catalyst Conference, Washington DC. Kosnik, C., & Beck, C. (2009). Teacher Education for Literacy Teaching: Research at the Personal, Institutional, and Collective Levels. In D. L. Tidwell (Ed.), Research Methods for the Self-study of Practice, Self-Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices (Vol. 9, pp. 213 - 229). New York: Springer. Lamott, A. (1994). Bird by Bird: Some Instructions on Writing and Life. New York: Pantheon Books. Lampert, M. (2010). Learning teaching in, from and for Practice: What do we mean? Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1-2), 21-34. Lanier, J. E., & Little, J. W. (1986). Research on Teacher Education. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 527-569). New York: Macmillan. Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2004). A handbook for teacher research: From design to implementation. Berkshire, England: Open University Press. Lensmire, T. (1993). Following the Child, Socioanalysis, and Threats to Community: Teacher Response to Children's Texts. Curriculum Inquiry, 23(3). Little, J. (2002). Locating learning in teachers' communities of practice: Opening up problemsm of analysis in records of everyday work. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 917-946. 360 Little, J. W. (2002). Locating learning in teachers' communities of practice: Opening up problems of analysis of everyday work. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 917-946. Lortie, D. C. (1975). School Teacher (2 ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Loucks-Horsley, S., Love, N., Stiles, K. E., Mundry, S., & Hewson, P. W. (2003). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc. MacArthur, C. A., Graham, S., & Fitzgerald, J. (Eds.). (2006). Handbook of Writing Research. New York: The Guilford Press. Magrath, C. P., Ackerman, A., Branch, T., Clinton Bristow, J., Shade, L. B., Elliott, J., & Faulkner, L. R. (2003). The Neglected R: The need for a writing revolution: The National Commission on Writing in America's Schools and Colleges. McIntyre, D. J., Byrd, D., & Foxx, S. M. (1996). Field and laboratory experiences. In T. B. Sikula & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (Vol. 2, pp. 171-193). New York: Macmillan. Meyer, R. J. (2010). Official and unofficial portraits. Talking Points, 21(2), 9 – 15. Mills, H. (Ed.) (2005). Assessment as knowing and being known. School Talk, 11(1), 1 – 8. Moje, E. B., Ciechanowski, K. M., Kramer, K., Ellis, L., Carrillo, R., & Collazo, T. (2004). Working toward third space in content area literacy: An examination of everyday funds of knowledge and Discourse. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(1), 38-70. Moore, J. A., & Chae, B. (2007). Beginning Teachers' Use of Online Resources and Communities. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 16(2), 215-224. Nagin, C. (2006). Because Writing Matters: Improving Student Writing in our Schools 361 A Report by the National Writing Project. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Nardi, B. A. (1996). Studying Context: A comparison of activity theory, situated action models, and distributed cognition. NCTE. (2008). NCTE Beliefs about the Teaching of Writing: National Council of Teachers of English. NCTE, & IRA. (1996). Standards for the English Language Arts. NICHD. (2002). Report of the national Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence based assessent of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. No Child Left Behind, H.R. 1 (2001). Oakes, J., Franke, M. L., Hunter, K., Rogers, Q., & Rogers, J. (2002). Research for High-Quality Urban Teaching: Defining It, Developing It, Assessing It. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(3), 228-234. Olinghouse, N. (2008). Designing Lessons for Diverse Learners. Curriculum Instruction and Teacher Education. Michigan State. East Lansing. Ormrod, J. E. (2003). Educational Psychology: Developing Learners (4 ed.). Columbus: Merrill Prentice Hall. Pardo, L. (2006). The role of context in learning to teach writing: What teacher educators need to know to support beginning urban teachers. [research qualitative inquiry]. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(4), 378-394. Patton, M. Q. (2001). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (Vol. 3). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Incorporated. Phelps, G. (2009). Just knowing how to read isn't enough! Assessing knowledge for teaching reading. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(2), 137-154. 362 Pimentel, S. (2007). Teaching reading well: A synthesis of the international reading association's research on teacher preparation for reading instruction: International Reading Association. Pressley, M., Rankin, J., & Yokoi, L. (1996). A Survey of Instructional Practices of Primary Teachers Nominated as Effective in Promoting Literacy. The Elementary School Journal, 96(4), 363-384. Pritchard, R. J., & Honeycutt, R. L. (2006). The Process Approach to Writing Instruction: Examining its Effectiveness. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of Writing Research (pp. 275-290). New York: The Guilford Press. Pritchard, R. J., & Honeycutt, R. L. (2007). Best practices in implementing a process approach to teaching writing. In S. Graham, C. A. MacArthur & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Best Practices in Writing Instruction (pp. 28-49). New York: Guilford. Putnam, R., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4-15. Raphael, T. E., Florio-Ruane, S., George, M., Hasty, N., & Highfield, K. (2004). Book Club Plus! A literacy framework for the primary grades. Lawrence, MA: Small Planet Communications. Raths, J. D. (2004). Knowledge of subject matter. In J. D. Raths & A. C. McAninch (Eds.), What counts as knowledge in teacher education (Vol. 5, pp. 103-126). greenwich: Information Age Publishing Inc. Raths, J. D., & McAninch, A. C. (Eds.). (2004). What Counts as Knowledge in Teacher Education? (Vol. 5). Greenwich: Information Age Publishing Inc. Reinking, D., & Bradley, B. A. (2004). Connecting Research and Practice Using Formative and Design Experiments. In N. K. Duke & M. H. Mallette (Eds.), Literacy Research Methodologies (pp. 149-169). New York: The Guilford Press. 363 Resnick, L., & Tucker, M. (1999). Reading and writing grade by grade: Primary literacy standards for kindergarten through third grade New Standards. Washington, DC: National Center on Education and the Economy. Rieber, R. W., & Robinson, D. K. (Eds.). (2004). The Essential Vygotsky. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Roberts, K. L., & Wibbens, E. (2010). Writing first: Preparing the teachers of our youngest writers. In G. A. Troia, R. K. Shankland & A. Heintz (Eds.), Putting Writing Research into Practice Applications for Teacher Professional Development (pp. 179-205). New York: The Guilford Press. Roe, E. (1994). Narrative Policy Analysis: Theory and Practice. Durham: Duke University Press. Russell, D. R. (1995). Activity Theory and its Implications for Writing Instruction. In J. Petraglia (Ed.), Reconceiving Writing, Rethinking Writing Instruction (pp. 51 - 78). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Salahu-Din, D., Persky, H., & Miller, J. (2008). The Nation's Report Card: Writing 2007. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences: National Center for Education Sttistics. Samaras, A., & Freese, A. (2006). Self-study of teaching practices. New York: Peter Lang. Sawyer, R. K. (2004). Creative Teaching: Collaborative Discussion and Disciplined Improvisation. Educational Researcher, 33(2), 12-20. Searle, D. (1984). Scaffolding: Who's building whose building? Language Arts, 61, 480-483. Sexton, M. (2008). Student Teachers Negotiating Identity, Role, and Agency. Teacher Education Quarterly, 35(3), 73 - 87. Shanahan, T. (2006). Where does writing fit in reading first? In C. Cummins (Ed.), Understanding and Implementaing Reading First Initiatives: The Changing Role of Administrators (pp. 106-115): International Reading Association. 364 Shaw, D. M., Dvorak, M. J., & Bates, K. (2007). Promise and Possibility- Hope for Teacher Education: Pre-service Literacy Instruction Can Have an Impact. Reading Research and Instruction, 46(3). Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14. Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the New Reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1-22. Slavin, R. E. (2006). Shame Indeed. [Opinion, rebuttal]. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(8), 621- 623. Slavin, R. E., Lake, C., Chambers, B., Cheung, A., & Davis, S. (2009). Effective Beginning Reading Programs: A Best Evidence Synthesis. Baltimore: Center for Data Driven Reform in Education. Sloan, K. (2006). Teacher identity and agency in school worlds: Beyond the allgood/all-bad discourse on accountability explicit curriculum policies. Curriculum Inquiry, 36, 119-152. Snow, C., Griffin, P., & Burns, M. S. (Eds.). (2005). Knowledge to support the teaching of reading: Preparing teachers for a changing world. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Spillane, J. P. (1999). External Reform Initiatives and Teachers' Efforts to Reconstruct their Practice: The Mediating Role of Teachers' Zones of Enactment. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31(2). Spillane, J. P., & Callahan, K. A. (2000). Implementing state standards for science education: What disctrict policy makers make of the hoopla. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(5), 401-425. Spinelli, J. (1990). Maniac Magee. New York: Little, Brown Stahl, S. A., Pagnucco, J. R., & Suttles, C. W. (1996). First graders' reading and writing instruction in traditional and process-oriented classes. The Journal of Educational Research (Washington, D.C.), 89, 131-144. 365 Stanulis, R. N. (1995). Classroom teachers as mentors: Possibilities for participation in a professional development school context. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(4), 331-344. Stanulis, R. N., Burrill, G., & Ames, K. T. (2007). Fitting in and Learning to Teach: Tensions in developing a vision for a university-based induction program for beginning teachers. Teacher Education Quarterly, 34(3), 135-147. Stanulis, R. N., & Floden, R. (2009). Intensive Mentoring as a Way to Help Beginning Teachers Develop Balanced Instruction. [Research]. Journal of Teacher Education, 60, 112-122. Stanulis, R. N., & Russell, D. (2000). "Jumping in": trust and communication in mentoring student teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(1), 65-80. Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (Eds.). (1997). Grounded Theory in Practice. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc. The National Commission on Writing in America's Schools and Colleges. (2003). The neglected "R": The need for a writing revolution (pp. 1-40). New York: The College Board. Tabak, I. (2004). Synergy: A Complement to Emerging Patterns of Distributed Scaffolding. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 305-335. Tidwell, D. L., Heston, M. L., & Fitzgerald, L. M. (Eds.). (2009). Research methods for the self-study of practice (Vol. 9). New York: Springer. Tomlinson, C. A. (2000). Reconcilable Differences? Standards-Based Teaching and Differentiation. Educational Leadership, 58(1), 6-11. Troia, G. A., & Graham, S. (2002). The effectiveness of a highly explicit, teacherdirected strategy instruction routine: Changing the writing performance of students with learning disabilites. [Journal article/ peer reviewed/ teir one]. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(4), 290-305. 366 Troia, G. A., Harbaugh, A. G., Shankland, R. K., Wolbers, K. A., & Lawrence, A. M. (2013). Relationships between writing motivation, writing activity and writing performance: Effects of grade, sex, and ability. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 26(1), 17-44. Valencia, S., Martin, S., Place, N., & Grossman, P. (2009). Complex Interactions in Student Teaching: Lost Opportunities for Learning. [Research]. Journal of Teacher Education, 60, 304 - 324. Valencia, S., Place, N., Martin, S., & Grossman, P. (2006). Curriculum Materials for Elementary Reading: Shackles and Scaffolds for Four Beginning Teachers. Elementary School Journal, 107(1), 93-121. van Oerts, B. (2008). The transformation of learning: advances in cultural historcal activity theory. New York: Cambridge University Press. Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. (2002). Preparing culturally responsive teachers: Rethinking the curriculum. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 20-32. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and Society: The description of higher psychological processes. Caimbridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wang, J., & Odell, S. J. (2003). Learning to teach towards standards-based writing instruction: Experiences of two preservice teachers and two mentors in an urban, multicultural classroom. [Tier One Journal]. The Elementary School Journal, 104(2), 147-174. Wibbens, E. (2007). Exploring Intern Experiences with Writing Instruction. Michigan State University. East Lansing. Wibbens, E. (2010). Preservice Writing: The Development of Pedagogical Understanding. Michigan State University. East Lansing, MI. Wideen, M., Mayer-Smith, J., & Moon, B. (1998). A critical analysis of the Research on Learning to Teach: Making the case for an ecological perspective on inquiry. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 130-178. 367 Young, R. (1982). Concepts of art and the teaching of writing. In J. J. Murphy (Ed.), The rhetorical tradition and modern writing (pp. 130-141). New York: The Modern Language Association of America. Youngs, P., Jones, N., & Low, M. (2011). How beginning special and general education elementary teachers negotiate role expectations and access professional resources. Teachers College Record, 113(7), 1506-1540. Zeichner, K. (1999). The new scholarship in teacher education. Educational Researcher, 28(9), 4 - 15. 368