Cs
3%: _,
"Jun

y,
i
awn?
9 . .9
mafia, fl

 

.t. ; v 4‘:

. V
$55,»,

.1913?
ll:
.1:

 

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

Preparing Preservice Teachers to Teach Diverse Students:
The Interaction Between Narrative Cases, Hypermedia Video-
cases, and Preservice Teacher Learning

presented by

Erica Christine Boling

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Ph.D. degree in Teacher Education

 

ah»?! W 1/ I7“; 1.x“. - / Av; 'II
' Major Professor’sSignature
(a /.l 3 / o 3

Date

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

MAY 03' 260577

 

“’5 9 MW

transit???» '9‘
,“ 0291
P 18 17

 

 

 

 

079.915

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 chlRC/DateDuepGSptS

 

PREPARING PRESERVICE TEACHERS To TEACH DIVERSE STUDENTS:
THE INTERACTION BETWEEN NARRATIVE CASES, HYPERMEDIA VIDEO-
CASES AND PRESERVICE TEACHER LEARNING
By

Erica Christine Boling

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Teacher Education

2003

ABSTRACT
PREPARING PRESERVICE TEACHERS To TEACH DIVERSE STUDENTS:
THE INTERACTION BETWEEN NARRATIVE CASES, HYPERMEDIA VIDEO-
CASES AND PRESERVICE TEACHER LEARNING
By

Erica Christine Boling

One of the greatest challenges that teacher educators currently face is how to help
future teachers support the learning of a culturally and linguistically diverse student
population. Preparing teachers for diverse classrooms becomes challenging, as the
teaching force remains predominantly White and female while the k—12 student
population grows increasingly more diverse. Having limited experiences with diverse
groups of people can contribute to lowered expectations and limited views of students’
abilities. As teacher educators face the challenge of preparing-teachers, they are also
confronted with the fact that little is known about the effectiveness of pedagogical
approaches that are used in teacher education.

This study was designed to investigate the role that case methodology and
narrative approaches to teaching have in preparing future teacher to teach literacy to
diverse students. The study was designed to investigate the following: (a) how do teacher
candidates respond to the images and stories presented in written and hypermedia video
cases, (b) how do teacher candidates’ personal stories and experiences interact with their
interpretation and understanding of these cases, and (c) what do teacher candidates’
responses to written and hypermedia video cases reveal about their views of teaching

diverse learners over time.

This study followed 25 female teacher candidates in a literacy methods course.
The researcher and course instructor co-designed the course together so that teacher
candidates would have opportunities to engage in various personal writing and case
activities. The researcher attended, audio-recorded, and took notes on all class sessions.
All coursework created by students were collected, coded, and analyzed. Five focus
students were also selected from the class and participated in interviews at the middle and
end of the semester. Data collected on all teacher candidates revealed how a combination
of personal writing, course, and field activities assisted teacher candidates in developing
complex understandings of inclusion and ways to select, adapt, and modify literacy
instruction for diverse students. Data collected on some teacher candidates illustrated
how narrative served as an organizing framework and a way of making meaning from
personal writing, case, and field activities. Engaging in personal writing and case
activities assisted some teacher candidates in forming new understandings about
themselves, teaching, and learning. For others, however, these activities sometimes
reinforced prior assumptions and beliefs and contributed to misinterpretations of what it
means to create an inclusive learning community

This study advances what is currently known about the role of case methodology
and narrative in teacher education. It extends our understanding of how teacher
candidates’ conceptions of teaching diverse students can be constructed over time and the
ways personal writings and case activities can assist teacher candidates in developing the
knowledge and skills that are needed to teach literacy to diverse students. It also enhances
our understanding of pedagogical approaches that assist teacher candidates in learning

from narrative and case activities.

Copyright by
ERICA CHRISTINE BOLING
2003

To my parents

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The ideas for this Study evolved over the past four years as a number of people
inspired and supported me on the journey to become a researcher and scholar. I am
grateful to those who have had unwavering faith in my ideas and my work. You inspire
me to set goals and dreams.

I would like to first thank my committee members. This work would have not
been possibie without you. To Cheryl Rosaen and Ralph Putnam, my dissertation chairs.
for the long hours that you spent with me on this amazing journey. You helped me take
my work to new levels when I did not always know that another level existed. You also
taught me to have patience with my writing, and this is something that I will carry with
me throughout the rest of my career. Thank you Cheryl for always being there from the
moment I entered the doctoral program and for being one of my biggest supporters.
Thank you Ralph for your enthusiasm and passion for teaching and learning. It’s
contagious. I would also like to thank Doug Campbell, my doctoral advisor.
Conversations with you have been invaluable, and you always know just what to say to
make me look at my work in new ways. To Susan F lorio-Ruane, I never knew taking a
class with you would have such a profound impact on the ways that I think about
teaching, research, and learning. Thank you for leading me down a new road. To Laura
Roehler, who has been a mentor, friend, colleague, and role model. You have shared in
my struggles and successes. You inspire and give me strength. Thank you.

I am also grateful for those who have supported me from a distance. To Diane

Kern, who helped me see the light at the end of the tunnel and uplifted my Spirits when 1

vi

felt there was no end in sight. I feel lucky that our paths have crossed and look forward to
having you as a friend and colleague as we move forward into the next phase of our
academic careers. To Colin Harrison, who sent e-mails from England reminding me not
to ignore other aspects of my life while working on this dissertation. Your faith in me has
inspired me to reach for new goals.

I am forever indebted to those who allowed this research to exist and whose
stories are shared in this study. I thank all of the teacher candidates in ED 222. You
helped me become a better teacher by reminding me what it’s like to be a student. I also
want to give special thanks to Jackie. Lizz, Lydia. Mallory, and Sadie for the time they
spent with me. Thank you for opening up and sharing your lives. Thank you for your
honesty. To Ms. Pratt, who has been an avid supporter from the beginning. No words can
express how appreciative I am. I am in awe at your willingness to open up your practice
to others. Thank you for all the support. encouragement. and feedback that you have
provided.

Finally, I would like to thank my parents. You have enabled me to pursue my
dreams. You are the reason I have dreams. You are my best friends and my biggest
supporters. You have always believed in me and taught me to believe in myself. Words
can never express how grateful I am for your love and support. This dissertation is

dedicated to you.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES ....................................... xiii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 1
The Need for More Research ........................................................................ 4
The Use of Cases in Teacher Education ........................................................... 8
Traditional Teaching Cases ................................................................. 9
Literature Cases ............................................................................ 10
Hypermedia Video-Based Cases ......................................................... 14
Ways of Learning and Knowing .................................................................. 16
The Process of Conceptual Change ...................................................... 18
Cognitive Flexibility Theory .............................................................. 20
Narrative as a Way ofKnowmg22
Moving Forward .................................................................................... 25
CHAPTER 2
METHODOLOGY AND
ANALYSIS .......................................................................................... 30
Context of the Study ................................................................................ 32
The Program ................................................................................. 33
The Team .................................................................................... 34
Cultural Capital .................................................................... 35
Hidden Curriculum ............................................................... 36
Equity vs. Equality ................................................................ 37
The Literacy Instructors ................................................................... 38

viii

The Course .................................................................................. 39

Designing the Study ................................................................................. 45
Summer Planning .................................. 45
Selecting Participants ...................................................................... 50
Introduction to Focus Students....................................... .................... 54

Lydia ................................................................................ 54
Mallory .............................................................................. 54
Jackie ................................................................................ 55
Lizz ................................................................................. 56
Sadie ................................................................................. 57

The Use of Personal Writings and Cases ......................................................... 58

Reading Narrative Cases .................................................................. 59
Lourdes“ Case ................................................. ' .................... 6l
"Goodnight Moon” Case ......................................................... 63
Christine’s Case ................................................................... 65

Viewing Cases .............................................................................. 67
Mrs. Hemmeter Case ............................................................. 68
Dawn Harris Martine Case ....................................................... 69

Creating and Writing Narrative Stories ................................................. 71

Data Collection and Analysis ...................................................................... 74
Analyzing Focus Student Data ............................................................ 8]
Analyzing Class Data ...................................................................... 82

Analyzing Pre and Post Surveys ................................................ 84

ix

Reflections on analyses ........................................................... 85

CHAPTER 3
AWARENESS AND BELIEFS ................................ ' .................................. 88
Mallory’s Story ...................................................................................... 92
Developing Awareness and Understanding of Inclusion .............................. 93
Making Connections .............................................................. 94
Responding to Christine’s Case ................................................. 96
Issues From the Field ............................................................ 103
Focus Students’ Perceptions of Inclusion ............................................. 110
Lydia’s Story ....................................................................................... 113
Confronting the Dilemma of Inclusion ................................................ 1 13
Making Connections ............................................................ 114
Responding to Christine’s Case .................. ............................. 117
Issues From the Field ............................................................ 123
Reflections on Lydia’s Experiences ........................................... 127
Learning From Stories ............................................................................ 130
CHAPTER 4
MOVING FROM AWARENESS TO ACTION ........................................... 134
Reconsidering the Role of the Teacher ......................................................... 136
The Impact of Children’s Cultures ..................................................... 144
The Impact of One’s Own Culture ...................................................... 148
Developing Knowledge and Skills for Teaching Literacy .................................... 157
The Use of Video and Hypermedia Cases ............................................. 159
Teacher Candidates’ Responses to RCE Cases ....................................... 161

Scaffolding Learning for RCE Users ................................................... 171

Observations on Moving From Awareness to Action ......................................... 175

CHAPTER 5

CLASS FINDINGS .............................................................................. 178

Developing Awareness and Understanding of Inclusion ..................................... 180
Recognizing Who Is Included ........................................................... 181
Recognizing the Impact of Culture ..................................................... 186
The Teacher’s Role When Including Children ....................................... 189
End of the Semester Reflections ........................................................ 193
Relationships Between Focus Student and Class Findings .......................... 196

Developing Knowledge and Skills for Teaching Literacy .................................... 199
Creating Learning Opportunities for Readers and Writers .......................... 200
Including All Children in Instruction ................................................... 204
Responses to Pre and Post Surveys ................................ j ..................... 209
Analyzing the Detroit and ESL Scenarios ............................................. 210
Findings From the Detroit and ESL Scenarios ....................................... 213
Significance of Findings ................................................................. 216

Understanding Inclusion .......................................................................... 21 8
Defining Inclusion ........................................................................ 21 9
Pedagogical Insights ..................................................................... 2 l 9
Reflections on Focus Student and Class Data221

CHAPTER 6

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS ...................................................... 225

Defining Inclusion ................................................................................. 226

xi

fl

Revisiting the Idea of Conceptual Change ...................................................... 231

Scaffolding Learning Experiences ............................................................... 238

The Changing Roles of Narrative ............................ ‘ ................................... 246
Narrative as Inquiry ...................................................................... 246
Narrative as a Way of Making Meaning ............................................... 248
Missing Storyline ......................................................................... 253
Narrative as Pedagogy ................................................................... 259

Concluding Thoughts .............................................................................. 266 .

APPENDIX A

A List of Cases ...................................................................................... 273

APPENDIX B

Pre Survey .......................................................................................... 275

APPENDIX C

Post Survey ......................................................................................... 277

APPENDIX D

“Goodnight Moon” Case .......................................................................... 279

APPENDIX E

Instructor Interview Protocol ..................................................................... 281

APPENDIX F

Teacher Candidate Interview Protocol .......................................................... 283

REFERENCES .................................................................................... 285

xii

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 6

LIST OF FIGURES

Types of responses written about Christine 5 case prior to class
discussions ........................................................................ 1 85

Types of responses written about Christine’s case after class
Discussions ....................................................................... l 86

Proportion of “Goodnight Moon” case reflections that represented
general understandings, deepened and insightful understandings, or
changed understandings about culture ........................................ 189

Proportion of self-assessment critical incidents that were related
to field experiences, the Christine case, or other course-related

activities ........................................................................... l 95

Proportion of self-assessment responses that highlighted learning
from cases ........................................................................ 196

Types of suggestions given for teaching literacy to diverse learners
on the Detroit post survey scenario ............................................ 214

xiii

Chapter 1 Introduction

One of the greatest challenges that teacher educatOrs currently face is how to help
future teachers support the learning of a culturally and linguistically diverse student
population. As our nation’s k-l2 student population grows increasingly diverse, the
teaching population remains predominantly white, middle-class. and female (N ieto, 2002;
Villegas & Lucas, 2002). This disparity between teachers and students creates unique
challenges for teacher educators who are preparing teacher candidates to teach in diverse
classrooms. Reviews of research on learning to teach and preservice teacher beliefs
revealed that teacher candidates’ beliefs frequently differ from views that are being
promoted in teacher education courses (Borko & Putnam, 1996; Pajares, 1992;
Richardson, 1996; Wideen, Mayer-Smith, & Moon, 1998). Teacher candidates tend to
believe that teaching is simple and transmisive, children from “disadvantaged” home
environments cannot learn, and diversity is a problem to be overcome and solved
(Feiman-Nemser & Buchmann's, 1989i Feimen-Nemser, 1990; Hollingsworth, 1989;
McDiarmid & Price. 1993). As teacher educators face the challenges of trying to alter
these views, they must also confront the fact that little is known about the pedagogy of
teacher education and the impact that it has on teaching practice (American Association
of Colleges for Teacher Education [AACTE], 2002; American Educational Research
Association [AERA], 2003).

Over the past four years, I have personally experienced the challenges and
frustrations of preparing teacher candidates for teaching literacy to diverse students. I

have struggled with introducing teacher candidates to progressive, literacy teaching

approaches that sometimes differ greatly from the traditional approaches they
experienced as children. While teaching preservice teachers about learner-centered
teaching approaches, I see them continually designing and teaching literacy lessons that
are largely teacher-centered where children are given limited opportunities to offer ideas.
ask questions, and engage in discussion.

While teaching literacy methods courses, I also became frustrated with the
attitudes and beliefs that some teacher candidates held about diverse students and the
ways they approached teaching these students. Teacher candidates sometimes made
comments and designed activities that reflected low expectations for children who Speak
limited English, come from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. or are ethnically and
culturally diverse. I observed teacher candidates struggle to understand ways to make
classrooms inclusive learning environments that promote learning for all students. On
more than one occasion, I observed teacher candidates teaching lessons where English as
a Second Language (ESL) and learning disabled students sat in the comer of the
classroom, or sometimes in the hallway, filling out worksheet after worksheet while the
rest of the class participated in engaging and authentic reading and writing activities.

My research questions have evolved from my experiences working with teacher
candidates. Recently I have turned to casesI and case methodology 2 in an effort to better
prepare teacher candidates for working with diverse students. Teacher educators have
experienced some success using cases to dislodge preconceptions and motivate change in

preservice teachers (Clark & Medina, 2000; The Cognition and Technology Group at

 

' A teaching case is as a story that is “told with a definite teaching purpose in mind and that rewards careful
study and analysis" (Lynn, 1999, p. 2).

2 The case method of teaching is a set of pedagogical techniques that instructors use in classrooms to “help
learners reach specific learning objectives with the teaching case as a basis for discussion” (Lynn, I999, p.
2).

Vanderbilt [CTGV], 1990; Laframboise & Griffith, 1998). There has been increased
interest in the use of video cases of classroom teaching that are presented through
hypermedia programs (Boling, in press; Hughes, 1999; Reinking, McKenna, Labbo &
Kieffer, 1998). In my own teaching, I have used both written and hypermedia video-
based cases and have wondered how these cases support teacher candidates in learning to
teach diverse students.

I have designed three research questions in attempt to better understand how
teacher candidates respond to written and hypermedia video-based cases. I believe that
teacher educators will be able to use cases more effectively if they have a better
understanding of how teacher candidates respond to them. The research questions that
have guided this study are the following: (a) How do teacher candidates respond to the
images and stories presented in written and hypermedia video-based cases? (b) How do
teacher candidates’ personal stories and experiences interact with their interpretation and
understanding of these cases? (c) What do teacher candidates’ responses to written and
hypermedia video-based cases reveal about their views of teaching diverse learners over
time?

I have focused one of my research questions on teacher candidates’ personal
stories because I have experienced that cases by themselves are sometimes not effective. I
have experienced some success using cases in literacy methods courses (Boling, 2001;
Boling & Roehler, 2002). For example, after reading a case about an ESL student, some
of my students began to see that there were ways to include limited English speakers in
literacy classroom instruction. After viewing videos of teaching that were presented

through a hypermedia program, they also began to recognize how children’s literature

can be used to support student-centered instruction. Even though these uses of cases
worked well, I felt that teacher candidates sometimes responded to them by saying what
they thought I wanted to hear rather than what they truly felt. I still heard comments that
marginalized diverse and minority children, and I felt that teacher candidates were not
taking ownership or embracing the issues and teaching practices I introduced in class. As
I wrestled with these issues, I began to wonder what would occur if teacher candidates
made personal connections to the issues, ideas, and instructional approaches that were
being presented through written and hypermedia cases. Were some students already
making more personal connections than others? Would teacher candidates be more likely
to reflect upon and question their own assumptions and beliefs if they made personal
connections? These questions encouraged me to investigate existing research on the use
of personal narrative stories in teacher education. During this. investigation, I decided that
I wanted to examine these personal connections more closely in this study.

In the following sections, I expand the discussion on why this study is important
and why further research needs to be conducted on preparing teachers to teach diverse
students. I then describe some of the ways that cases have already been used in teacher
preparation. Finally, I introduce some of the theories and perspectives that guided the

design of this study.

The Need for More Research
Recently, a consensus panel on teacher education met at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association (AERA, 2003) to discuss the research that

exists on teacher preparation. After conducting a review of the literature on teacher

education, the panel concluded that research on the pedagogy of teacher education is
limited. Most of the studies that exist are self-studies conducted by teacher educators on
their own practice. According to the consensus panel. these studies reveal that some of
the common pedagogies used in teacher preparation include micro-teaching, written
cases. hypermedia cases, and action research. However, insufficient numbers of studies
have been conducted to understand the effectiveness of these approaches, the processes
through which teacher candidates learn from them, and the impact of these pedagogical
approaches on teaching practice. In addition, there has been a lack of theory on the
pedagogy of teacher education. This study is significant because it investigates the use of
cases in a teacher education course and how teacher candidates respond to cases as they
learn to teach literacy to diverse students. This is a timely study because of the current
mismatch between teachers and students and the limited studies that exist on preparing
teacher candidates for working with students who are “increasingly different from them
racially, linguistically, and socioeconomically” (Villegas & Lucas. 2002. p. 18). I
designed this study to investigate the use of cases in the context of a teacher education
course where students were being prepared to teach literacy to diverse students.

Villegas and Lucas (2002) stated that differences between teachers and students
create challenges for teachers when they know little about their students’ experiences and
perspectives. The authors stated that this mismatch makes it difficult for teachers to

select materials that are relevant to the students’ experiences, to use

pertinent examples or analogies drawn from the students’ daily lives to

introduce or clarify new concepts, to manage the classroom in ways that

take into account cultural differences in interactions styles, and to use

evaluation strategies that maximize students’ opportunities to display what
they actually know in ways that are familiar to them. (p. 18)

A review of studies conducted by the Teacher Education and Learning to Teach
(TELT) research program revealed that preservice teachers often claimed differences
among students, such as race, social class and gender, did not matter in teaching. What
did matter, however, were individual differences such as personality characteristics
(Feiman-Nemser, 1990; National Center for Research on Teacher Education, 1988, I991;
Wideen, Smith-Mayer, & Moon, 1998). Such thinking contributes to the belief that
teachers do not have an influence over learners’ difficulties and that specialists are
needed to deal with the “problems” of minority students and students of color (Ladson-
Billings, 1999; Nieto, 2002). Such thinking can also lead preservice and practicing
teacher to make pedagogical decisions that lead to.unequal learning opportunities for
diverse groups of students (N ieto, 2002). In order to better prepare teacher candidates for
teaching diverse students, we need to understand how to support them in developing both
the knowledge and beliefs that promote learning for all students.

McDiarmid and Price (1993) conducted a study that revealed that many teachers
“segregate students from one another during opportunities to learn” when faced with
learners who bring “diverse interests, backgrounds, and capacities” to the classroom (p.
47). The researchers claimed that for some educators, it appeared that the answer to
diversity was individualization. When teachers view difference as a deficit, they can form
limited views about their students’ abilities, and this can result in different learning
opportunities for those students who they believe are low achievers and at risk students
(Anyon, 1981; McDiarmid & Price, 1993; Richardson, Casanova, Placier, & Guilfoyle,
1989). Limited views about students’ abilities can result in instruction that focuses on

remediation, simplification, and basic drills, skills, and worksheets rather than higher

order thinking activities (Anyon, 1981; McDiarmid & Price, 1993). Even though these
studies were conducted on practicing teachers rather than teacher candidates, their
findings are significant for those who prepare teacher candidates for working with diverse
students. These studies reveal how a lack of understanding and negative view of diverse
learners can result in lowered academic expectations. A teacher’s attitude and beliefs
towards diverse students can impact the instructional choices and learning opportunities
that are provided in the classroom. By designing a study that investigates the use of cases
in a literacy methods course, I have created an opportunity to investigating the kinds of
knowledge and beliefs that emerge as teacher candidates engage in various case-based
activities.

This study has been influenced by previous work that has been conducted on the
use of cases in teacher education. However, as I began to wonder about the relationship
between case—activities and teacher candidates’ personal stories and experiences, I turned
to the literature on the use of narrative in teacher education. Researchers have argued
that the reading and writing of narrative cases can generate emotional responses from
teacher candidates, enable them to confront their own subjectivity and View themselves
as part of a culturally diverse society (F lorio-Ruane, 2001; Laframboise & Griffith,
I997). The methodologies and theoretical frameworks of narrative and case studies had
an impact on both the design and analysis of this study. In the following sections, I
describe the use of cases in more detail. I then present how ways of learning and knowing
have been described in both case and narrative studies. Finally, I revisit the purpose and

significance of this study.

The Use of Cases in Teacher Education

Cases have been used to help prepare learners for a world that "demands critical
thinking skills and the ability to create convincing arguments, often with little time and
incomplete information” (Lynn. 1999. p. 2). Case-based instruction has existed for many
years and has a tradition in fields such as law. medicine and business (Christensen. 1987:
Lynn. 1999). They have been used to teach practitioners “to think in the specific ways
that scholars believe to be productive in practice” (Lynn. 1999. p. 80). In teacher
education. cases have been around for over 50 years. and a variety of fomrats have
emerged to illustrate the problems and dilemmas of teaching and learning (McAninch.
1993). Teacher educators have used cases to confront the challenges of preparing novice
teachers for the classroom. For example, Harrington (I995) found that dilemma-based
cases could be used to foster teacher candidates’ reasoning abilities. Others have
discovered that cases can be used to help preservice teacher reflect on practice, explore
important issues of teaching. and understand issues that surround cultural conflict
(Laframboise & Griffith, I997; Moje & Wade. 1997). Sykes and Bird (1996) stated.
“What a case is, or is a case of. depends on the ideas used in constructing it and the
purposes for doing so” (p. 19). For example, a case can be used to represent an exemplar
in teaching practice, a problem Situation. or a story of one’s teaching experiences (C arter,
1999). A review of the literature on case methods in teacher education has revealed at
least three different formats. or representations, of cases used in the preparation of
preservice and novice teachers: traditional teaching cases, literature cases, and
hypermedia video-based cases. Research on literature cases has most informed this study;

however. aspects of all three cases are used in the study. In the following sections. I

briefly describe three representations ofcases that some researchers and scholars have
used to categorize cases.

Traditional teaching cases. Traditional teaching cases are usually created for a
teaching purpose and present stories written with “just the facts” in clear and unemotional
prose (Laframboise & Klesius. 1993). Traditional cases introduce characters and settings
that may or may not be taken from someone’s actual experience; however, the reader
does not get the impression “that one of the characters wants to tell his story” (Conle,
2003, p. 6). Traditional cases have been used to illustrate various educational theories so
that they can be discussed and studied by teacher candidates. The traditional approach to
using teaching cases has preservice teachers applying educational theories to classroom
situations and problems and encourages preservice teachers to look at teaching situations
through the lens of different theories (Greenwood, 1989; McAninch, 1993). An example
of such a case can be found in Case Studies: Applying Educational Psychology (Jackson
& Ormrod, 1998). In this book. a case titled, Throwing Tantrums, is introduced in the

following way:

Although Tyler Lipton is listed on the roster of Allie Schenk’s third-grade
class, he spends most of each day in Sharon Osmer’s resource room.
Concerned that Tyler is so often segregated from his classmates, Allie has
arranged a meeting with Sharon, Principal Cecilia Dawson, and Tyler’s
parents. (p. 55)
The case continues by following a conversation between characters without favoring any
one particular viewpoint. The case describes examples of Tyler throwing temper

tantrums. At the end of the case, Jackson and Ormrod (1998) listed prompts and

questions to guide case discussions. In one example, they stated. “Using concepts from

social cognitive theory. explain why Tyler begins screaming soon after he is placed in
Sharon Osmer’s classrooms” (p. 57).

Lundeberg and Sheurrnan (1997) suggested that case discussions could be used to
“generate theory which influences teachers’ epistemological perspectives and, ultimately.
their teaching practice” (p. 784). McAninch (1993) claimed that one of the advantages of
such a use of cases is the fit between case analysis and the acquisition of theoretical
understanding. Talking about cases with classmates can broaden students’ own
perspectives on classroom occurrences and teaching, and group discussions on cases can
prove to be effective in helping students in drawing out, confronting and discussing both
misconceptions and ineffective strategies (Laframboise & Griffith, 1997: Moje & Wade;
Tippins, Nichols, & Dana, 1999). Case discussions can also enable more flexibility in
students’ thinking as they identify issues in a problem, share ideas with their peers. and
hear alternative views and perspectives that they might not have originally considered.

Literature cases. Literature cases can be used like traditional teaching cases;
however, they usually present “rich description of characters’ backgrounds. personalities.
and problems” (Laframboise & Griffith, 1997, p. 371 .) Literature cases, however, are
unlike traditional teaching cases because they “engage the emotions of the reader through
the development of character and plot” (Laframboise & Griffith, 1997. p. 371).
Laframboise and Griffith ((1997) argued that through the development of character and
plot. literature cases could provide a “richer description of characters’ backgrounds.
personalities, and problems” in ways appropriate for use with “preservice teachers who
lack the back-ground for understanding contexts and problems presented in traditional

cases” (Laframboise & Griffith. 1997, p. 371).

10

Literature cases follow a narrative storyline that involves “an Agent who Acts to
achieve a Goal in a recognizable Setting by the use ofcertain Means” (Bruner. 1996. p.
94). In these narrative stories, characters usually follow a sequence of events that present
a problem to be resolved. Literature cases have been used “to enable students to view
themselves as part of a culturally diverse society, confront their own subjectivity. and to
examine critical issues related to children and schooling” (Laframboise & Griffith, 1997,
p. 369). Laframboise and Griffith (1997) claimed that the narrative stories told through
literature cases are more effective with novice teachers than traditional teaching cases.
They argued that the rich descriptions in narrative cases provide additional scaffolding or
support for preservice teachers who lack the “experiential bases for understanding
complex school-based contexts and problems” (Laframboise & Griffith, 1997, p. 371).
Sykes and Bird (1992) also described the advantages of using literature cases written in
narrative form, stating that narratives can provide “powerful advantages in simulating and
representing complex, multidimensional realities” (pg. 15).

F lorio-Ruane (2001) used literature cases in the form of autobiographies. In her
study, she invited student teachers to participate in the Future Teachers’ Autobiography
Club. Over a period of 6 months, teacher candidates and Dr. F lorio-Ruane came together
to read and discuss autobiographies that presented stories of culture through the life
stories of different people. In one autobiography, Jill Ker Conway (1989) described her
life in Australia before immigrating to the United States “seeking and finding (although
not without cost) security, education and economic opportunity” (Florio Ruane, 2001, p.
56). I present an excerpt from this story to illustrate how the personal and descriptive

prose of literature cases differs from traditional teaching cases. In this example. the

11

author described a school experience after moving from the Australian bush to the city of

Sydney.

When the bell rang for recess or lunch, my heart sank because I knew no

one and had no subject of conversation remotely like the cheerful chatter

which swirled around about weekend activities. Queenwood was a day

school and there were no other girls from the bush there. It was painful

when others talked happily about their fathers or boasted about the family

fortunes. (Conway, 1989, p. 88)

As student teachers in the Future Teachers’ Autobiography Club read and
discussed culturally rich autobiographical stories, they explored culture as a “complex
and lived process” (Florio-Ruane, 2001 , p. 139). They began to draw comparisons and
contrasts between their cultures and others, finding it easier to “examine the historical,
social, and political dimensions of oppression in distant societies” than in familiar ones
like their own (Florio-Ruane. 2001, p. 138). During the 6 months of the study, Florio-
Ruane discovered that student teachers began to construct new understandings of culture
and themselves as they engaged in discussions around autobiographies of immigrant
experiences. F lorio-Ruane’s work illustrates how teacher candidates can learn and
construct new understandings of themselves and others by reading literature and making
personal connections to the lives of others.

The use of narrative cases in teacher education reflects teacher educators’ and
educational researchers’ growing interest in narrative. Teacher educators have argued for
the importance of personal narrative and its various forms (biography, autobiography,

etc.) in teaching and in teacher education because from a critical perspective, personal

narratives have been seen as “powerful instruments in either maintaining or transforming

teaching practice” (Carter & Doyle. 1996, p. 129). Laframboise and Griffith (1997) and
Clark and Medina (2000) have demonstrated how narrative and case methodology can
work together in teacher preparation. In a study conducted by Laframboise and Griffith
(1997), researchers demonstrated how undergraduate students made meaning from
instances of cultural conflict that were introduced through juvenile novels. As teacher
candidates read narrative stories and shared their own stories. they were able “to view
themselves as part of a culturally diverse society, confront their own subjectivity, and to
examine critical issues related to children and schooling” (p. 369). In the same study.
however, the researchers also presented examples of students making meaning from text
in counterproductive ways. In one example, students were “either unable to identify the
source ofcultural discontinuity or made interpretations not substantiated by the text” (p.
380). In another example. some students interpreted episodes of cultural conflict using
unexamined values and through a lens of an “American” way of doing things (p. 381 ).
These studies Show the promise of narrative cases for assisting teacher candidates
in confronting their views and assumptions about diverse learners; however, there are
instances where ineffective uses of such cases need to be further investigated. Also. the
majority of these studies have focused only on teacher candidates’ attitudes and beliefs.
not the knowledge and skills needed to teach diverse students. The study that I conducted
expands our understanding of the use of cases by investigating how they were used in a
literacy methods'course and looking at the ways teacher candidates responded to them.
Designing a study around a methods course focused on preparing teacher candidates to
teach diverse students presented a context where both the knowledge and beliefs of

teacher candidates could be further explored.

l3

Hypermedia video-based cases. Recently teacher educators have expanded the use
of written cases and have turned to hypermedia video-based cases in order to help teacher
candidates better understand the complexities of teaching. An example of a program that
uses hypermedia video cases is the Reading Classroom Explorer (RCE). (See Appendix
A for more information about RCE and cases used in this study.) RCE is a web-based
hypermedia environment consisting of full-length videos and segments of videos of
various elementary classrooms. The program provides teacher candidate with
opportunities to view actual literacy instruction occurring in real classrooms. Currently.
the program consists of video footage taped in 10 different schools and allows teacher
candidates to search and View entire videos or clips of videos online. Users can search
video clips by schools. themes. and keywords. post papers online. and participate in on-
line discussion forums (Boling, in press).

Hypermedia video-based cases are believed by some to have an additional value
over literature cases because they can present “vivid. concrete images of desirable
instructional practices” that might help change the minds of novice teachers (Sykes.
1989). Merseth (1993) argued that hypermedia could serve as a “potent tool in dislodging
preconceptions and in motivating change” (p. 294). Hughes. Packard, and Pearson (1999)
suggested that there is an added value to being able to see and hear ambitious. refonn-
oriented teaching rather than just reading and discussing about it in the university
classroom. In one study, for example, a teacher candidate was critical of using
cooperative learning groups because her own experiences working in groups were
negative (Boling. 2001). This teacher candidate believed that when students worked in

groups, either groups were not productive or one person did all of the work. When

14

viewing productive cooperative learning approaches on RCE. however. she began to
question her original views of group work and saw that there were indeed times when it
was useful.

The random access capabilities of hypermedia video cases allow preservice
teachers to quickly access and revisit multiple representations of teaching in ways not
possible through traditional teaching cases and narrative literature cases. Research has
shown that learning is enhanced when instruction involves multiple examples and
encourages learners to reflect on the potential for transfer (Perkins. 1991). Spiro,
Coulson, F eltovich, and Anderson (1988) argued that multiple representations of cases
that allow for multiple dimensions of analysis could enhance a student’s ability to apply
new knowledge flexibly to other contexts.

Previous research on cases in teacher education has focused primarily on the
influence of case-based instruction on reflective decision-making (Kagan & Tippins,
I992; Kleinfeld, 1992; Richardson, 1992; Sykes and Bird, 1992; Tippins et al., 1999).
Within the past 10 years, however, a number of studies in the science and mathematics
content areas have also examined the pedagogical knowledge that is acquired when case
methods are used in teacher education (Lampert & Ball 1998; Tippins, Nichols, & Dana
1999). This study extends the research on written and hypermedia video cases by
exploring how they are used to support teacher candidates who are learning to teach
literacy. When describing cases. I depict them in ways that go beyond traditional
teaching, literacy, and hypermedia cases. In the following chapters, I illustrate how cases
are defined and described not only by the ways that they are represented to students but

by the ways instructors and students interact with and use them. In addition to presenting

15

a more complex View of cases, this study extends our understanding of the different
theories and perspectives on learning that support the use of cases in teacher education;
the following section will present perspectives that were most relevant to the design of

the study.

Ways of Learning and Knowing

Different perspectives on the ways people come to learn and know have
influenced how I’ve conceptualized, designed, and analyzed this study. I was first
introduced to the majority of these perspectives as I read literature reviews and research
studies on learning to teach, teacher beliefs, and the use of cases in teacher education.
When describing the education of teacher candidates, researchers have demonstrated the
need for both changing and building upon teacher candidates’. prior knowledge and
beliefs. For example, Villegas and Lucas (2002) described the need to challenge and
change teacher candidate’s deficit views of children who are different from them racially,
socially, and linguistically. In the introduction of the book Educating Culturally

Responsive Teachers, they stated,

We see learning to teach as a process of conceptual change. To induce
change in prospective teachers’ thinking, teacher educators must first help
them become aware of their own beliefs about the role of schools, the

value of cultural diversity, and the nature of knowledge, teaching. and
learning. (p. xix)

Villegas and Lucas (2002) emphasized the need to change teacher candidates’

knowledge and beliefs while also confronting the knowledge and beliefs that teacher

candidates already hold. However, there are others who describe the process of teacher

16

candidate learning by focusing less on the process of change and more upon the process
of building upon prior knowledge and beliefs. For example, F lorio-Ruane (2001)
described how teacher candidates can transform their attitudesgand beliefs about diverse
groups of people by accessing their own ethnic identify. experiencing a process of self-
discovery, and crafting new understandings of culture and diversity by studying “their
own and other’s life narratives” (p. 11). When F lorio-Ruane described how teacher
candidates formed new understandings of culture, she focused more on the discovery and
construction of self rather than on change. Indeed, preparing teacher candidates for
teaching diverse students can involve building upon knowledge, constructing new
knowledge, and changing knowledge and beliefs. However. I find it helpful to consider
and revisit these two views because I have fallen victim to forming a deficit view of
teacher candidates when I think of learning to teach as a process of conceptual change.
By considering both perspectives, I have formed a more balanced perspective on learning
to teach which has led me to consider alternative ways for describing how teacher
candidates develop the knowledge. skills, and beliefs that are needed to support the
teaching of diverse students.

Three perspectives on how people come to learn and know have guided this study
and have helped me consider how new knowledge and beliefs are constructed, built upon,
or changed. These perspectives are based on the process of conceptual change (Posner,
Strike, Hewson, & Gertzog, 1982), cognitive flexibility theory (Spiro, Coulson,

F eltovich, & Anderson, 1988), and narrative ways of knowing (Bruner, 1996).
Underlying these three perspectives is a constructivist view of learning that emphasizes

that we construct knowledge from our experiences. mental structures. and beliefs

17

(Jonassen, 1991). According to Harrington (1995), the case method is based on the
constructivist conception that knowledge is “constructed, built on prior knowledge,
coupled with experiences, transformable, evolving, and consequential and, thereby.
provides students with insights into alternative solutions rather than ‘correct’ answers” (p.
203). In the final section of this chapter, I briefly describe the three perspectives and
illustrate how they have guided and supported this study.

The process of conceptual change. The theory of conceptual change considers
learning to be aprocess through which students’ conceptions change under the impact of
new ideas and new evidence (Posner et al., 1982). It also regards learning as a kind of
inquiry, with students making judgments on the basis of available evidence. According to
conceptual change theory. if we want students to modify their strongly held beliefs, we
must introduce new concepts and ideas in ways that create cognitive dissonance and are
discrepant to the images and beliefs that novices already hold. They would also have to
view their own existing conceptions with some dissatisfaction before seriously
considering a new one (Posner et al., 1982). The theory of conceptual change has been
identified primarily with studies that describe how children come to understand science
concepts; however, I find it helpful to think about this process of conceptual change when
thinking about the preparation of teachers.

Researchers have discussed and investigated learning to teach as a process of
conceptual change (Cochran-Smith, 1995; Feiman-Nemser & Remillard, 1996; Villegas
& Lucas, 2002). In one study, a group of teacher educators and researchers “jointly
developed a conceptual change program in which student teachers were stimulated to

explicate their beliefs, search for new knowledge, and enact what had been learned in

18

their practice teaching” (Tillema & Knol, 1997, p. 579). This conceptual change approach
was then compared with a direct instructional approach that consisted of a presentation
on the theories of teaching models followed by “the instructional steps involved in
teaching according to each model” (p. 582). Instructors then gave assignments to match
the instructional models that were covered in class. While conducting this Study, Tillema
and Knol (1997) discovered that contrary to what was expected, “the Conceptual change
program did not result in higher levels of reflectivity” (p. 579). The researchers
concluded that the conceptual change program can improve performance, but stated that
“this will be only a superficial change as long as no concurrent belief change is reached”
(p. 579).

A review of the literature on learning to teach indicated that teachers’ “existing
knowledge and beliefs are critical in shaping what and how they learn from teacher
education experiences” (Borko & Putnam, 1996, p. 674). The Study conducted by
Tillema and Knol (1997) revealed how difficult it can be to change teacher candidates’
prior beliefs and illustrated that one particular conceptual change program was incapable
of producing such change. However, I still find that it is helpful to consider the process of
conceptual change when thinking about the process of preparing teacher candidates to
teach diverse learners. Studies have shown that reading literature cases, viewing
hypermedia cases, and reflecting upon one’s experiences as a cultural being have shown
some success in helping teacher candidates recognize and question some of their prior
assumptions and beliefs about culture, teaching, and learning (Boling, 2001; F lorio-
Ruane. 2001; Laframboise & Griffith, 1997.) These studies indicate that reading and

responding to literature cases could serve as a stimulus for conceptual change.

19

When considering the process of conceptual change, I see potential in using cases
to present images of teaching and learning that contrast with the images that teacher
candidates already hold. There is the possibility that when teacher candidates are
confronted with alternative images of teaching and learning, they might begin to question
and see weaknesses in their own ways of thinking. When selecting the kinds of cases to
be used in this study, I considered the process of conceptual change. For example, since
research has shown that teacher candidate’s often view teaching as simple and
transmissive, I selected hypermedia video cases that countered this View, presenting
progressive, leamer—centered teaching approaches (Feiman-Nemser & Buchmann, 1989;
Feimen-Nemser, 1990; Hollingsworth, 1998). I also considered the process of conceptual
change as I analyzed my data. For example, I paid close attention to instances when case
activities seemed to produce tension and dissonance in the class. I also closely observed
when teacher candidates began to recognize, question. and find fault in the ways that they
viewed teaching, learning, or learners.

Cognitive flexibility theory. While conducting research on the education of
medical students, Spiro Coulson, Feltovich, and Anderson (1988) used hypermedia video
cases and developed a theory of cognitive flexibility that describes how people acquire
the advanced knowledge needed when dealing with complex conceptual materials in ill-
structured domains. According to this theory, learning to teach would be an example of
an ill-structured domain because there are multiple ways to look at teaching children, and
there are many different perspectives and approaches to dealing with dilemmas in the
classroom. Spiro and his colleagues (1988) argued that advanced knowledge acquisition

is “different in many important ways from introductory learning” and that the

20

characteristics of advanced learning “are often at odds with the goals and tactics of
introductory instruction” (p. 375). They stated that the methods of education in
introductory learning could lead to the “passive transmission of knowledge” and “rigid
compartmentalization of knowledge components” (p. 377). They claimed that during the
learning process. novices frequently make oversimplifications and develop an
“overreliance on ‘top down’ processing” (p. 376).

Cognitive flexibility theory claims that if people are going to overcome the
difficulties of acquiring the cognitive processes necessary for transferring knowledge
flexibly in diverse contexts, instruction needs to help learners avoid oversimplification,
provide multiple representations, and cover content material in different ways and at
different times (Spiro et al., 1988). Spiro and his colleagues argued that hypermedia
video-based cases have the potential to assist novices in acquiring this cognitive
flexibility. They claimed that multiple representations of cases that allow for multiple
dimensions of analysis could enhance a student’s ability to apply new knowledge
flexibly. The technology of hypermedia cases allows preservice teachers to easily search,
find. and revisit video clips of classroom instruction and allows them to quickly access
multiple cases and multiple perspectives in order to make cross-case comparisons
(Hughes et al., 1999). According to the theory of cognitive flexibility, novices “must
attain a deeper understanding of content material. reason with it, and apply it flexibly in
diverse contexts” if they are going to develop an advanced stage of learning (Spiro et al.,
l988,p.375)

The theory of cognitive flexibility has informed this study in a number of ways.

First, it supported my decision to bring hypermedia Video cases into the study. Second, it

21

made me consider how to design a study so that teacher candidates could most effectively
use the cases. Third, it supported the analysis of the study when teacher candidates did
not respond to hypermedia cases in ways that I had anticipated. For example, I designed
the study so that teacher candidates would have opportunities to view and revisit
hypermedia cases. I tried to select cases to present a variety of images of teaching and
allow teacher candidates to make comparisons across cases. My intention was to help
teacher candidates consider alternative ways of teaching that they might not have
previously considered. When teacher candidates seemed to make inaccurate
generalizations from the cases. I wondered if they had been given enough opportunities to
view and revisit cases that presented multiple representations of teaching instruction.
Turning to cognitive flexibility theory during this study has been helpful because little
research has actually been conducted on using hypermedia cases to prepare teacher
candidates for teaching diverse students. As I learned about the theory, I better
understood some of the challenges that novices might face when engaged in hypermedia
video case activities. Through this study I was able to gain insight into how hypermedia
cases can be used to prepare teacher candidates to teach literacy to diverse students.
Narrative as a way of knowing. Educational scholars have written quite broadly
about narrative, from its uses as a method of learning to its uses as a method of research.
Narrative has been defined as both phenomenon and method and has been described as
both a research methodology and a research methodological device (Carter & Doyle,
1996; Connelly & Clandinin, 1990). Narrative has also been described as a way of
knowing. Bruner (1996) described narrative as a “mode of thinking, as a structure for

organizing our knowledge, and as a vehicle in the process of education” (p. 19). It is this

aspect of narrative as a way of knowing and mode of thought that has influenced the
design of this study. Research has indicated that by having students read, write, view, and
discuss various images of teaching through narratives, teacher. educators can help
preservice teachers surface and challenge the assumptions of teaching and learning they
bring to their classrooms (Clark & Medina, 2000; Olson, 2000). For example, Clark and
Medina (2000) discovered that reading and writing narratives could be “powerful tools
fostering multicultural understanding and a more complex conception of literacy among
preservice teachers” (p. 72). They stated, “Constructing narratives of past literacy events
made them visible and available for examination and critical reflection” (p. 69). In their
study, the researchers provided examples of how reading. writing, and responding to
narrative stories “enabled preservice teachers to make connections between their personal
narratives and other people’s narrative,” and helped disrupt their “stereotyped
conceptions of others” (p. 73). Even though findings from this study appeared significant,
Clark and Medina were tentative in making broad conclusions. They explained that their
study only examined the experiences of three students and acknowledged that there is the
potential for “literacy narratives to reify stereotyped conception of race. class. gender.
sexuality, and ethnicity” (p. 73).

The rapidly expanding interest of educational researchers in narrative as forms of
both inquiry and pedagogy has been directed especially to questions of how teachers
understand and know their worlds (Carter & Doyle, 1996). Connelly and Clandinin
(1990) stated that the study of narrative “is the study of the ways humans experience the
world” (p. 2). Bruner (1996) has argued that humans organize and manage their

knowledge of the world in two ways: a logical-scientific way of thinking and a narrative

23

way of thinking. According to Bruner, people frame their accounts of their cultural
origins and their most cherished beliefs in story form, and it is through these narratives
that we represent our lives to ourselves and to others. One of our principle means for
understanding, interpreting, and contextualizing “essentially contestable, incompletely
verifiable propositions in a disciplined way” is through narrative (Bruner, 1996. p. 90).

Bruner (1996) also claimed that in order to understand something well, people
require “some awareness of the alternative meanings that can be attached to the matter
under scrutiny, whether one aggress with them or not.” (p. 13). By reading and hearing
others’ stories from alternative points of view, people can begin to “question and
complicate their taken-for-granted beliefs and values” (Florio-Ruane, 2001, p. 77). For
example. when members of the Future Teachers’ Autobiography Club read Hunger of
Memory (1982), they learned about the life experiences of Richard Rodriguez. They read
his criticisms of “the liberal educational establishment and its solutions to educational
inequality” (Florio-Ruane, 2001, p. 76). Rodriguez’s educational experiences as a non-
middle class, bilingual, male student differed greatly from club members who were
reading his book. In Teacher Education and the Cultural Imagination, F lorio-Ruane
(2001) wrote that responding to Rodriguez’s book required members of the
autobiography club to examine both Rodriguez’s and their own personal narratives about
“going to school, learning language, and crafting a social identity” (p. 76). She explained
that confronting difference in this way led the group to question and complicate “taken-
for-granted beliefs and values” (p. 77).

Research has shown that the power of narrative goes beyond simply reading and

responding to literature cases. The self-awareness and transformational experiences

24

described in F lorio—Ruane’s (2001) work made me consider how writing and reflecting
about one’s own life experiences can play a role in preparing teacher candidates for
teaching diverse students. Reading about Bruner’s (1996) Views on narrative and learning
about the experiences of members of the Future Teachers’ Autobiography Club helped
me think about the use of cases in “new ways. I felt that perhaps cases could be used in
more powerful ways if teacher candidates wrote about personal experiences and were
encouraged to make connections between themselves and the cases that they were
reading or viewing. My decision to use narrative cases in this study and my decision to
investigate how teacher candidates’ personal stories and experiences interact with their
interpretation of cases has been largely influenced by work that supports narrative ways

of knowing.

Moving Forward

Even though a number of studies have been conducted on the use of written cases
in teacher preparation, most of these studies have “focused on the reasoning process
rather than the pedagogical knowledge gained from case discussion” (Lundeberg &
Sheunnan. 1997, p. 784). Tippins. Nichols. and Dana (1999) have reported that the
influence of case-based instruction on teacher education research has focused more on the
process of “reflective decision-making” rather than on other areas of learning (p. 331).
Recently there has been a focus on the use of hypermedia video cases in teacher
preparation; however, none of these studies have focused on how hypermedia can be used
to assist teacher candidates in acquiring or developing the knowledge and beliefs that

support the teaching of diverse students. This study is Si gnificant because it combines

25

both written and hypermedia cases and investigates how cases can be used in preparing
teacher candidates to teach literacy. This study is unique because it looks at how cases are
used to prepare teacher candidates for working with diverse learners and investigates the
ways in which teacher candidates respond to these cases.

This study reflects the difficulties and challenges of trying to integrate issues of
diversity and inclusion into an introductory literacy methods course. It reflects the
complexities of using cases to prepare teacher candidates to teach diverse students by
mirroring the different shifts of focus that occurred during activities and discussions for
the instructor and teacher candidates throughout the semester. For example, sometimes
during the semester, class sessions focused on subject matter and instructional approaches
for teaching literacy. Other times, class sessions and conversations focused on issues of
diversity or inclusion, and the teaching of literacy did not always enter these
conversations.

Even though this study was originally designed to investigate how teacher
candidates responded to case activities, I present the following chapters in ways that
reveal the changing shifts of focus that occurred throughout the semester. In order to
understand how teacher candidates learned from cases, one must consider the various
ways in which teacher candidates made meaning from and connections to different types
of learning experiences. In order to follow the complex relationships among these
learning experiences, the following chapters sometimes focus on issues of inclusion,
diversity, and literacy instruction while the topic of cases remains in the background.
However, in the final chapter, I revisit the relationship among these experiences and

explain how investigating their role in preparing teacher candidates to teach diverse

26

students provides a better understanding of how cases can be used to support preservice
teacher learning.

In addition to expanding upon case methodology, this study provides an
opportunity to learn more about the role of narrative in teacher preparation. We know that
reading, writing. and responding to narrative stories can encourage teacher candidates to
reflect upon and challenge their own assumptions and beliefs (Clark & Medina. 2000:
Florio-Ruane. 2001; Laframboise & Griffith. 1997: Olson. 2000). However, using
narrative Stories in teacher preparation

can confuse and frustrate novices. who lack the Situated frames within

which such stories are interpretable at all. who often presuppose that one

learns best from clear and direct statements that are true, and who

normally have well-developed conception of what it means to teach.

conceptions that may or may not match the view represented in a

particular story. (Carter, 1993, p. 10)

Carter (1993) and Connelly and C landinin ( 1990) argued that there is still much that we
do not know about the curricular issues that surround the use of narrative in teacher
education. This study begins to investigate more closely the role that narrative has in
teacher preparation and explores relationship between teacher candidates’ personal.
narrative stories and case activities.

What is missing from the literature is a deeper understanding of the variety of
ways in which people respond to narrative and case activities and why they respond in
the ways that they do. Much research Still needs to be conducted on the ways that
narrative and case activities can be used as a pedagogical approach for preparing literacy
teachers. This study was designed to further our understanding of the ways in which

teacher candidates respond to written and hypermedia cases in a literacy methods course.

It investigates how narrative and case-based activities are used to prepare preservice

teachers for teaching literacy to diverse students. It also explores the ways in which
teacher candidates’ personal stories and experiences interact with both written and
hypermedia cases.

The following chapters describe in detail how I designed and conducted research
to investigate the ways in which teacher candidates responded to personal writing and
case-based activities in a literacy methods course. These chapters illustrate various
tensions that emerged when cases were used in the course. They also reflect how the
focus of these tensions shifted across time. In Chapter 2, I introduce the context of the
study and the methods used. I describe the research participants and how I designed
opportunities to explore the ways in which they responded to narrative and case-based
activities. In this chapter, I introduce how a team of teacher educators confronted the
challenges of teaching content-based courses while also developing teacher candidates’
awareness of what it means to teach diverse learners in inclusive learning communities.
In this chapter, I also introduce how I analyzed data that were collected on teacher
candidates in the course.

The findings of the study are covered in three different chapters. Chapters 3 and 4
present the findings that emerged from data that were collected from a group of five
focus students in the literacy methods course. These chapters illustrate the tensions that
emerged as the instructor of the course attempted to create a balanced curriculum that
reflected both the teaching of subject matter knowledge and a program’s commitment to
developing students’ awareness of issues related to diversity and inclusion. These

chapters also reflect the tensions that emerged when teacher candidates’ need for subject

28

matter knowledge conflicted with the instructional approaches that were introduced in the
course and the course’s focus on building inclusive learning communities.

In Chapter 5, I present findings from data that were collected on the entire class
and compare these findings to what was learned from focus students. This chapter revisits
some of the tensions that are introduced in Chapters 3 and 4 and illustrates how teacher
candidates’ responses shifted when cases were presented either visually or in writing.
Finally, I end with Chapter 6 and enter a discussion about the significance of the study

and the implications that it has on both research and teaching.

29

Chapter 2 Methodology and Analysis

This study was designed around a literacy methods course that was offered for
teacher candidates at a public university in the Midwest. The design of the study was an
ongoing process that began in summer 2002 and continued throughout fall 2002. For six
months. I worked closely with the instructor of the course, Ms. Pratt3, as she planned for
the semester, taught classes, and made adjustments to instruction. Ms. Pratt and I met
three times before the semester began so that we could discuss her goals for the course,
create a tentative syllabus. and begin thinking of ways to integrate personal writing and
case activities into her lessons. I wanted activities to support Ms. Pratt’s goals for the
course while also providing opportunities to collect data to understand the ways in which
teacher candidates responded to written and hypermedia case activities. Ms. Pratt’s
course provided an ideal setting for investigating my research questions. She regularly
used personal writing activities and written cases in her classes, and her course was
designed 'to prepare teacher candidates for teaching literacy to diverse students. Ms. Pratt
was interested in learning more about hypermedia video cases and was eager to use them
in her class. She was also willing to try new things in her course and was enthusiastic
about the study.

The design of the study is closely aligned with the structure and content of Ms.
Pratt’s course. Ms Pratt had a good idea of how she wanted to teach the course at the
beginning of the semester; however, the specific details of how she taught lessons and

conducted activities evolved over time. Throughout the semester, Ms. Pratt continually

 

3 Pseudonyms have been used for all participants in the study and for the university where the study was
conducted.

30

assessed how students responded to activities and sometimes made adjustments in how
she used personal writing and case activities. These adjustments impacted the design of
the study and sometimes changed over time. Ms. Pratt taught the course and was a
participant in the study. My role throughout the semester was as a researcher and
participant observer. In addition to assisting Ms. Pratt in planning the course, I attended
all class sessions, made observations, and sometimes engaged in conversations with the
students when classes were taught. During the semester, Ms. Pratt and I met weekly to
continue planning for the course. I used these planning sessions to collect data as she
reflected upon how she was using cases and how students were responding to them.

In the following sections, I describe in detail the context and design of the study. I
then introduce how I collected and analyzed the data from students who participated in
Ms. Pratt’s literacy methods course. It is important to understand the context of the
teacher preparation program where Ms. Pratt worked because the program influenced my
research questions and the content of the literacy course. Ms. Pratt and I were both
doctoral students and worked collaboratively with a group of instructors who Shared the
common goal of integrating issues of diversity into our courses. We worked with a group
of instructors and developed a team approach for preparing teacher candidates for
working with diverse students. Prior to conducting this study, MS. Pratt and I had worked
together as colleagues and had taught the same methods courses. Understanding the
context of the study and the goals of our literacy group helps to illustrate why Ms. Pratt’s
class was an ideal place for investigating my research questions. Understanding this
context also illustrates why preparing teachers to teach diverse students is emphasized in

ED 222 and in my research study. I have dedicated an entire section to describing the

31

context of the study because it influenced what was taught in ED 222 and what was
learned from the study.

When describing the design of the study, I explain how participants were selected
and describe the selection and use of personal writing and case activities. In the data
collection and analysis section, I describe how I collected data on all of the teacher
candidates in Ms. Pratt’s class while also closely following the experiences of 5 teacher
candidates. Data collected on the entire class consisted of field notes, students’ written
reflections, pre and post surveys, and self-assessments. For the 5 teacher candidates who I
followed more closely, I also collected data from student interviews, dialogue journal
entries. audio-recorded class discussions, philosophy statements, and student created
lesson plans. I introduce how I collected and analyzed data in this chapter while
providing more details in following chapters. I do this because data collection and
analysis were ongoing and evolved throughout the semester and because focus student
and class data were analyzed in different ways. A large part of the focus student data is in
the form of narratives, and so I describe and analyze these narratives in more detail in

Chapters 3 and 4. In Chapter 5. I present data that were collected and analyzed on the

entire class.

Context of the Study
In the following sections, I situate this study within the context of a teacher
preparation program. I also describe the context of the course in which the study was
designed. Understanding how this research fits within the broader picture of a teacher

preparation program is important because the use of cases and the emphasis on preparing

32

preservice teachers for teaching diverse students emerged from work that had already
been taking place with a team of teacher educators with whom I worked. In this section. I
describe what was already taking place within the teacher preparation program and
explain how a team of course instructors came to share a common goal throughout their
courses. I then describe how Ms. Pratt worked within a smaller group of literacy
instructors and introduce the literacy course that was used for the study. Following this
section, I explain the design of the course and introduce how data were collected and

analyzed.

The Program

This study was designed to follow a group of preservice teachers who were
enrolled in a 5-year teacher preparation program at Midwestern University (MWU). In
this program, prospective teachers complete their bachelor’s degree and much of their
professional course work before participating in a yearlong internship working with a
collaborating teacher (CT) in a public school classroom. Prospective teachers begin
taking required courses for the program in their freshman year; however, they are not
officially accepted into the program until the end of their sophomore year.

Prior to their acceptance into the program, prospective teachers at MWU take two
education courses “that explore issues of diversity in relation to learners and to school as
institutions” (Pardo, Rosaen, & Lantz, 2002). Upon acceptance into the program, they are
required to take a course called Learners and Learning in Context. This course introduces
students to their first field-based experiences where they spend at least two hours per

week in a local elementary classroom. These classrooms are generally in schools that are

33

“urban, multi-racial and multi-ethnic, and lower socioeconomic status” (Pardo et al..
2002). In their senior year, teacher candidates begin taking content-specific methods
courses that include a field placement component for each of the subject areas: literacy.
math, science, and social studies. During their fifth year in the program, teacher
candidates are placed in a classroom for the entire year and are mentored by their CT and
university faculty. One day a week, except for the weeks when they are doing “solo”
teaching, teacher candidates attend courses at the university. Even though their
undergraduate coursework is completed during their senior year, teacher candidates in
their internship year continue taking courses to receive graduate credit. This study
followed students who were in their senior year as they were taking their first literacy

methods course.

The Team

The teacher preparation program at MWU comprises of three elementary teams
and one secondary team, each with faculty, graduate students, and collaborating teachers
in partnership schools (Pardo et al., 2002). Upon entrance into the program in their
sophomore year, teacher candidates are assigned to a team and usually remain with this
team throughout the entire program. This allows students to progress through the
program with a cohort or peers. Participants in this study were members of one of three
elementary teams comprised of approximately 100 juniors. 100 seniors, and 90 interns.

Under the guidance of their team leader Dr. McMahon, the team associated with
this study had been particularly dedicated to addressing issues of diversity throughout its

teacher preparation courses. This focus was largely instigated by Dr. McMahon and her

34

team of instructors, including myself, as we recognized that interns’ prior coursework
related to issues of diversity and social justice were not necessarily adding up
cumulatively and supporting their learning to become knowledgeable and skillful
teachers who are prepared for working with diverse groups of students (Rosaen,-in press).
In an effort to weave issues of diversity and social justice more explicitly throughout our
courses, our team investigated related issues and themes that had already been introduced
to teacher candidates prior to entering the program. In the end. we identified and agreed
upon three key concepts that would be integrated into each of our courses. These
concepts were cultural capital, the hidden curriculum, and equity vs. equality.

Cultural capital. Schools have been known to reflect primarily the values of
economically and culturally dominant groups in a society, supporting what Bourdieu
(197 7) has called “the cultural capital that students from such groups bring from home”
(N ieto, 2002, p.60). Cultural capital is evident in such things as one’s values, tastes.
behaviors, and also in aspects of one’s social background, language, dialect, and ethnicity
(Bourdieu, 1977; Delpit, 1995; Nieto, 2002). Nieto (2002) described how experiences of
children with culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds and those raised in
poverty “tend to be quite different from the experiences of more economically and
socially advantaged students,” and these differences “become evident when these
children go to school” (pg. 8). Nieto (2002) stated that because our “predominantly white,
female, monolingual teacher candidates” frequently have limited experiences with people
from diverse backgrounds, teacher candidates frequently View diversity and difference
“as a problem rather than an asset” (p.215). Research studies support this View, revealing

that many teacher candidates view diversity as a deficit and develop low expectations for

35

minority students, students of color, and students who come from ethnically.
linguistically, and socially diverse backgrounds (Gomez, 1996; Richardson et al., 1989).
Even though teacher candidates have been shown to have a deficit View of
minority students and students of color (Gomez. 1996; Richardson et al., 1989), research
has revealed how using children’s “cultures, languages, and experiences in their
education can lead to academic success” (N ieto, 2002. p. 60). Studies conducted both in
the United States and overseas support these findings (Ladson-Billings, 1994; Moorfield,
1987; Nieto, 1996; Skutnabb-Kangas, 1988). One of the goals of our team has been to
assist prospective teachers in viewing difference as “natural cultural and linguistic
variability” rather than as a deficiency (Pardo et al., 2002). Another goal has been to
provide prospective teachers with what Nieto (2002) described as “instructional and
curricular strategies that encourage learning among a wide variety of students” (p. 42).
Hidden curriculum. Jackson (1990) stated that “in order to make their way
satisfactorily through school, both teachers and students need to master two curriculums”
(p. 34). The official curriculum, according to Jackson, is that which teachers
“traditionally have paid the most attention” (p. 34). The hidden curriculum, however. is
the unintended curriculum that emerges as a result of the ways schools operate and are
organized. Hollins ( l 996) wrote about the hidden curriculum and defined it as “the
subliminal transmission of the values, practices, and perceptions of the dominant culture
that determine acceptable modes of communication, social interaction, ways of thinking
and knowing, and ways of distributing power, status and resources” (p.85). These values,
strategies, beliefs, and behaviors typically go untaught in schools; however, according to

Jackson and others, they need to be mastered and internalized if students are going to

36

progress towards academic success (Jackson. 1990: Delpit, 1995). Our team of literacy
instructors recognizes that if prospective teachers are going to support those students who
do not have the cultural capital that is typically privileged in schools, teacher educators
will have to help them in recognizing and understanding how the hidden curriculum
operates in schooling.

Equity vs. equality. Much has been written about the inequality of the American
school system and institutional discrimination (Delpit, 1995; Kozol, I991; Viellegas &
Lucas. 2002;). Inequities exist at various levels, from the funding that schools receive to
the instructional approaches that are favored within classrooms (Delpit, 1995; Kozol,
1991). Nieto (2002) stated that knowledge is “neither neutral or apolitical, yet it is
generally treated by teachers and schools as if it were” (p. 43). Every decision made at
any level reflects a “particular View of learners and education” (N ieto, 2002, p. 43). Nieto
(2002) stated that “traditional teacher-centered transmission models can limit the
potential for critical thinking on the part of both teachers and students, but especially for
students from dominated communities whose cultures and languages have been devalued
by the dominant canon” (Nieto, 2002, p. 123). If teacher preparation programs are going
to be successful at preparing prospective teachers for diverse classrooms, then they will
have to discover ways to promote change in how many prospective teachers think and
believe what students are capable of doing. They will also have to teach prospective
teachers how to “select appropriate ways to make accommodations and adaptations for
diverse learners that enhance, rather than diminish, the quality of their education”

(Rosaen, in press).

37

The Literacy Instructors

Although our team instructors have been engaged in conversations about how to
integrate concepts of cultural capital. hidden curriculum, and‘equity vs. equality into our
courses, we have worked especially hard for the past two years sharing ideas on how to
connect these issues with the content of our courses. One of the ways that our team has
I approached integrating these issues is by having students read and discuss written cases.
Since I have been a member of this literacy team for over three years, I have engaged in
these conversations and know how challenging it can be to integrate ideas of cultural
capital, the hidden curriculum, and equity vs. equality into an already packed literacy
methods course. My early attempts to use written cases in my literacy methods courses
prompted questions about the effective uses of case-based activities in teacher education
courses. These questions evolved into the ones that guided this study and were shared
with Ms. Pratt and other literacy instructors.

I Even though my research questions emerged from struggles I experienced in my
own teaching, other instructors on my team were facing similar challenges. Since a
number of us taught the same literacy methods course, I decided to approach another
literacy instructor, Ms. Pratt, to see if she were interested in participating in my study. In
the past, I had attempted to do research on my own teaching and found it to be
challenging. I was constantly torn between the teacher and researcher roles, and felt that I
could not put forth all of my effort into one or the other. I struggled with these two roles
while teaching and felt that I could better investigate and be more dedicated to my
research if I designed my study to take place in another instructor’s class. Following

students in another class would allow me to get to know students, observe class sessions,

38

conduct interviews, and collect data, which might not have been possible if I were
teaching the same students and responsible for assigning their grades. When I shared my
research questions with Ms. Pratt, she volunteered to participate in the study and was
excited to work with me while planning her course.

Ms. Pratt has taught extensively at the elementary school level. She is also a
published scholar who has experience teaching and mentoring students in MWU’s
teacher preparation program. Both Ms. Pratt and I had experience teaching the same
literacy methods course, ED 222. Ms. Pratt had taught the course one time, whereas I had
taught it three. Ms. Pratt and I agreed that we could both benefit from designing a study
around her course. She would benefit from my prior experiences teaching ED 222, and
planning together would assist her in developing new ideas for the course. She would
also benefit because she was interested in learning about a hypermedia program that I had
used in ED 222 classes. I, on the other hand, would benefit from working with Ms. Pratt
because I could investigate my research questions in ways that might not have been
possible if I were studying my own practice. We would be able to plan ways to integrate
personal writing and case-based activities into her course so that I could collect data that
answered my research questions and ultimately provide information to Ms. Pratt that

would support her own teaching practice.

The Course
ED 222, Teaching Literacy to Diverse Learners, is the first of two required literacy
methods courses for undergraduate students in MWU’S teacher preparation program.

Typically, prospective teachers take ED 222 in the fall of their senior year and their

39

 

second literacy course in the Spring of their internship year. ED 222 provides prospective
teachers with the fundamental knowledge, skills, strategies. and dispositions necessary to
become a language arts teacher within an inclusive learning community. Since ED 222
provides students with their first exposure to teaching literacy in elementary schools. it’s
designed as a survey course to introduce students to a variety of literacy concepts and
instructional strategies and to introduce students to literacy issues that will be covered in
more depth during their internship year of teaching. During one of our interviews, Ms.
Pratt described her course as an “overview of general literacy topics.” In ED 222, teacher
candidates are introduced to a balanced approach to teaching literacy that includes both
skills-based and holistic, literature-based approaches. Spiegel (1998) explained that a
balanced approach “is built on research, views the teacher as an informed decision maker
who develops a flexible program, and is constructed around acomprehensive view of
literacy” (p. 117).

When this study was conducted, our team offered four sections of ED 222, with
instructors in each section using the same textbook and covering the same core concepts.
However, each instructor had her own individual approaches to introducing literacy
topics and integrating issues of cultural capital, hidden curriculum, and equity vs.
equality throughout their class. Before planning the course, Ms. Pratt and I discussed
what she had done with it the previous year. She explained that she had used written case
but not hypermedia video cases with her students. She had also covered the concepts of
cultural capital, hidden curriculum, and equity vs. equality in the course, but felt that she
had taught in a way in which students learned the definitions of the concepts without

grasping their true meanings. During her participation in this study, Ms. Pratt decided that

40

she wanted to approach these issues differently and weave them better into the course
throughout the entire semester without necessarily defining and labeling them.

In order to better integrate the concepts of cultural capital, the hidden curriculum. and
equity vs. equality into their courses, Ms. Pratt and the team of literacy instructors
developed an overarching theme for ED 222 that focused on what it means to build an
inclusive learning community. Even though many educators use the term inclusion to
“describe the education of students with disabilities in general education setting”
(Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2000), Ms. Pratt and the other literacy instructors defined the
term more broadly. Ms. Pratt used the term in her course to discuss the inclusive
education of all students, “including those at the margins. who are at risk of school
failure” (Wade, 2000, p.32). She designed her course around the theme of building
inclusive learning communities because she wanted students to develop an awareness of
the different ways children can be marginalized or excluded from learning opportunities.
She hoped that teacher candidates would develop a more critical view towards their
teaching practices and instructional choices if they developed such awareness. In the ED
222 syllabus, Ms. Pratt wrote that she wanted students to develop an understanding where
difference is treated not as a deficiency, but as a “natural cultural, linguistic,
socioeconomic and racial variability and as the inevitable range of abilities that one
expects in today’s classrooms.” This focus, along with the emphasis placed on inclusive
learning communities, supported the team’s goals for integrating issues of cultural
capital, the hidden curriculum, and equity vs. equality in courses and for creating

culturally responsive teachers“.

 

4 Culturally responsive teachers. as defined by Villegas and Lucas (2002), have “sociocultural
consciousness,” “affirming views of students from diverse backgrounds,” and a “sense that they are both

41

When Ms. Pratt shared a draft of her syllabus with me. I asked her to tell me more
about what she meant by developing an inclusive community and how she would
approach this topic with her students. She explained that shewanted to help her students
examine what it meant to develop an inclusive learning community. She wanted to help
them think about how to create such communities by having them examine themselves as
learners, teachers, and as a literate and cultural beings. During a conversation before the
semester began, she explained that she believed students should come to terms with who
they are as a literate person before teaching. She explained, “Who they are as a literate
person influences who they are going to be as a teacher, and the stance they take will
undoubtedly be related to the experiences that they’ve had.” Ms. Pratt wanted to help her
students develop their own stance towards literacy instruction and to examine themselves.
understanding what drives their instructional decisions in literacy classrooms. In order to
support these goals for her class, she decided to structure her course strategically so that
students would spend the first three weeks reflecting on what it meant to be a literate
person, writing and discussing their beliefs about literacy instruction, and attempting to
identify how their personal experiences impacted their beliefs about teaching and
learning. Ms. Pratt wanted students to understand how personal experiences could impact
who they are as teachers while also developing a stance towards literacy that is grounded
in one or more theories of learning.

Ms. Pratt hoped that by spending time at the beginning of the semester talking

about students’ conceptualizations of literacy and discussing how one’s personal

 

responsible for and capable of brining about educational change that will make schooling more responsive
to students from diverse backgrounds.” They also “embrace constructivist views of teaching and learning.”
“are familiar with their students’ prior knowledge and beliefs,” and design instruction “that builds on what
students already know while stretching them beyond their limits” (p.xiv).

42

experiences and beliefs impact these conceptualizations, teacher candidates would use
these understandings as a lens to examine and critique the various literacy practices that
they were going to be studying throughout the semester. Ms. Pratt planned to Spend the
first two weeks of the course on these issues before introducing students to more content-
based literacy issues. All of the instructors teaching ED 222 also covered the following:
emergent literacy practices, the teaching of reading comprehension strategies, and ways
to organize literacy instruction. Students enrolled in ED 222 met for three hours once a
week on campus while spending an addition four hours in local elementary classrooms.
Two of these hours were dedicated Specifically to literacy-related observations and
activities. Teacher candidates in Ms. Pratt’s class were also expected to plan and teach at
least one literacy lesson to students in their field classrooms.

Before Ms. Pratt and I met to decide upon the personal writing and case-based
activities that she would integrate into her course, Ms. Pratt had already planned course
assignments that were consistent with those traditionally covered in ED 222. All teacher
candidates, in each section of ED 222, used the textbook Literacy for the 21" Century
(Tompkins, 2003) and participated in book clubs5 using Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry, a
young adult novel written by Mildred Taylor (1991). Teacher candidates in Ms. Pratt’s
class were also expected to develop and create a philosophy statement by the end of the
semester. For their philosophy statement, students were expected to develop and write
their personal philosophy of how teachers can support children in learning to read and

write. Ms. Pratt had her students work on the statement in and out of class. both

 

5 The Book Club program is an instructional program based on sociocultural theory that “guides
thematically organized literature-based instruction in reading, writing. and oral language” (McMahon, et
al., 1997. p.5). In Ms. Pratt’s class, students read Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry over a number of weeks,
engaged in various written activities around the book, and met in small groups to discuss their responses to
the reading.

43

individually and with their peers. She also designed a portfolio project where students
collected and reflected upon their work throughout the semester. This portfolio
assignment was based on a notebook project that Ms. Pratt had used with previous ED
222 students; however, she made some minor modifications to the assignment after I
shared how I had used portfolios in my own teaching.

In addition to these course—related assignments, Ms. Pratt designed a project that
was centered on teacher candidates’ field placements. This case study assignment had
also been used in her previous ED 222 course. The purpose of this assignment was to
encourage teacher candidates to take a close look at one elementary student’s literacy
development over time. Teacher candidates selected a student in their field placement
classrooms and closely observed how this child engaged in learning to read and write.
Teacher candidates were expected to be involved with their case student in a variety of
ways in the classroom, document their involvement with the child, andpresent what they
learned about their case student by writing a paper and giving a class presentation at the
end of the semester.

Much of what MS. Pratt planned to do in her course corresponded with what she
had taught and learned from her previous year teaching ED 222. However, my own
teaching experiences and the design of the research study influenced her use of personal
writing activities, written cases, and hypermedia video-based cases. In the following
section, I introduce the design of the study and explain how Ms. Pratt and I developed
activities that allowed me to investigate teacher candidates’ responses to written and

hypermedia cases.

44

Designing the Study

I describe the design of the study by beginning with the summer planning sessions
that occurred before the semester began. Next, I explain how I selected 5 focus students
for the study and briefly introduce them. Finally, I end this section by explaining how
Ms. Pratt and I selected cases and designed activities so that I could collect data as
teacher candidates read, viewed, and responded to written and hypermedia cases. I begin
with our summer planning sessions because this was the time when I developed the
overall framework for the study. By talking with Ms. Pratt about her goals and plans for
the class, I saw how I could collect data from the natural artifacts that were produced in
class. Before speaking with Ms. Pratt, I knew that I wanted opportunities to capture
teacher candidates’ thoughts before, during, and after case activities. However, I did not
know what exactly this data would be. Meeting with Ms. Pratt before the semester
influenced how I designed the study because I saw how her regular class assignments and
activities could serve as data sources. During summer planning, Ms. Pratt and I discussed
the kinds of cases that she would use with her students; however, specific cases were not
decided upon until later in the semester. I separate the section on summer planning from
the section that describes the personal writing and case activities because the ways in
which cases were used for the study were influenced by summer planning sessions but

did not become finalized until after the semester had already begun.
Summer Planning

Ms. Pratt and I met three times over the summer as She planned ED 222. Since

she had previously taught the course, she had some definite ideas about what worked

45

well, what would remain the same, and what she wanted to change. Since I was designing
my study around her course, it was important to learn about the kinds of things that She
would be doing with her students. The kinds of assignments and activities that she used in
her class would determine how I would gain access to information that would answer my
research questions. I accomplished a number of things by meeting with Ms. Pratt over the
summer. F irst, I interviewed her so that I could understand her overall goals for the
course and learn about the kinds of activities that she planned to use throughout the
semester. Second, I learned how she had previously used written cases in her course,
discovered that she thought she could have done a better job using written cases, and
suggested ways for using cases while participating in the study. Third, I introduced Ms.
Pratt to the hypermedia video-based program Reading Classroom Explorer (RCE) 6 and
shared ideas for how it might be used in her class. Fourth, I assisted Ms. Pratt as she
began designing the course so that her course activities would allow me to collect various
data on students as they engaged in personal writing and case activities. Ms. Pratt and I
designed a couple of personal writing assignments, or narrative writings, at the beginning
of the semester so that teacher candidates could reflect upon their literate lives, begin to
express their stance towards literacy instruction, and describe the kinds of schools where
they envisioned themselves teaching. Ms. Pratt and I decided that the remaining personal
writing activities would be connected more directly to case-based activities.

In our first planning session, Ms. Pratt and I spoke at length about the ways she
had used written cases in her previous ED 222 course. We revisited some of the cases she
had used and decided to search for more cases before making a final decision on which

ones to use. We agreed that we wanted cases that could contribute to discussions on

 

° See Chapter I and Appendix A for further information on RCE.

46

building inclusive learning communities in elementary classrooms. We also wanted cases
that would support discussions about diverse learners and the pedagogical approaches
that promote inclusive learning environments. We had an idea about what kinds of cases
we wanted but struggled to find ones that seemed to be a perfect match for the content
and goals of her course. In the end, we did not decide upon the Specific cases that would
be used until after the semester had already begun.

Ms. Pratt and I agreed that she would offer students a variety of ways to respond
to cases so that I could try to capture their thoughts and reactions to various case
activities. We decided that students would have opportunities to respond in writing,
through small and large group conversations, and through Internet conversations. We also
decided that if students wrote to each other using dialogue journals, we might be able to
capture thoughts and feelings that they were hesitant to share with the entire class.
Dialogue journals are conversations carried out by two people where one partner initiates
a journal conversation and the other partner responds. In Ms. Pratt’s class, dialogue
journals allowed students an open space to discuss issues on literacy instruction. I
explained to Ms. Pratt that when I used dialogue journals in previous courses, students
would keep the same journal partner throughout the semester. This allowed fi'iendships to
form and sometimes prompted open and honest dialogues.

During summer planning sessions, Ms. Pratt and I discussed some of the projects
that might be required for ED 222 students. Ms. Pratt decided to have students create a
portfolio where they would collect and organize all the ED 222 work that they felt was
important to their learning. During the middle and end of the semester, students would

revisit the work in their portfolios, reflect upon its contents, think about their growth and

47

learning. and write a self-assessment on their learning. This portfolio assignment and
self-assessment activity provided another space where teacher candidates could respond
to written and hypermedia case activities.

Ms. Pratt and I also discussed how RC E might be used in her course. Six out of
10 videos shown on RCE come from a video series that were created by the Center for
the Study of Reading. MS. Pratt was familiar with these 6 videos; however, she was not
familiar with other aspects of the RCE program and how it divided videos into shorter
clips. Because Ms. Pratt needed time to become familiar with the program and its
contents, we did not decide upon how it would be used until later in the semester. I did.
however, provide Ms. Pratt with examples of how] had used RCE in my own courses. I
explained that I felt it would be beneficial if students were introduced to RCE by viewing
one of its 40-minute video cases in its entirety. Based on previous work that I had done
with RCE and on comments that my own students had made about using the program. I
found that showing an entire video could give students more of a context for viewing
individual clips and would provide structure for them as they began learning how to use
the various search firnctions (Boling & Roehler, 2002).

I explained to Ms. Pratt that sometimes my students felt overwhelmed with the
search functions and clips when they had no prior knowledge of the videos that were
available through the RCE program. Having background knowledge of one or two videos
seemed to alleviate some of these feelings. This knowledge also helped RCE users have a
better idea of what is available through the program. After telling Ms. Pratt about my
RCE experiences, I suggested that she consider showing two particular videos, one

filmed in Harlem and one in San Antonio. I suggested that these videos supported both

48

my research questions and her goals for the course because they featured African
American and Hispanic children excelling in an academic environment. I explained that
these videos might counter the views that some teacher candidates might have of
minority students.

Ms. Pratt did not want to finalize any of the course assignments and activities
until after meeting her students and seeing what their needs and interests were. During
the summer, we designed a survey7 that students would take at the beginning of the
semester so Ms. Pratt and I would have an idea of the knowledge and beliefs that they
already held about teaching diverse learners. (See Appendix B for an example of the pre
survey.) We also designed some open-ended questions in the survey so that I could use
the information to help select focus students for my study. We decided that we would
give the students a post survey at the end of the semester to see how their responses did
or did not change after 15 weeks of classes. (See Appendix C for an example of the post
survey.) Ms. Pratt used the surveys to informally assess students. and I used them as data
sources for my study.

Pre and post surveys were designed to collect information about teacher
candidates’ prior experiences with diverse populations, their general expectations for
diverse students, their knowledge and beliefs about creating an inclusive learning
community, and their ability to plan literacy instruction for diverse groups of students. As
we designed survey questions. Ms. Pratt and I considered the stance that she wanted
teacher candidates to have in relation to issues of cultural capital. the hidden curriculum,

and equity vs. equality. We designed the questions to discover such things as whether

 

7 A few of the statements in the survey were modified from a survey that appeared in an American
Educational Research Journal article titled, “Measuring Educators ' Beliefs About Diversity in Personal and
Professional Contexts " (Pohan & Aguilar, 200 l ).

49

teacher candidates valued the languages that ESL students bring to classrooms and if they
felt it was important for ESL children to maintain their first language. On the survey,
teacher candidates described experiences they had with diverse groups of people and
working with or teaching children. They also wrote responses to classroom scenarios that

asked how they would provide literacy instruction to diverse groups of children.

Selecting Participants

During the first couple weeks of ED 222, I made general observations of the class
and took notes during Ms. Pratt’s lessons. I wanted to eventually select a small group of
students to follow throughout the semester so that I could closely observe and document
their experiences engaging in case activities. I wanted this to be a diverse group of
students, so in the early weeks of the semester I paid close attention to students who
spoke frequently, never spoke, seemed confused, or asked thoughtful and reflective
questions. I tried to get a sense of the dynamics in the classroom and noticed who
appeared to be friends with whom. I observed Ms. Pratt’s instruction and the ways she
interacted with students. I wanted to document these early interactions because I
wondered if they might vary when Ms. Pratt used cases in the class.

During the fourth week of class, I provided students with information about the
study and passed out consent forms. Ms. Pratt left the room at this time so that she would
not know who agreed to participate and so that students would feel more comfortable
expressing their level of interest and involvement in the study. Students were able to
decide upon three levels of involvement. First, teacher candidates could choose to be

most involved in the study by allowing me to observe and audio-record their interactions

50

in class, take written notes on these observations, and collect, photocopy, and analyze all
of their coursework. Students who agreed to this level of participation would also take
part in one to three interviews throughout the semester. Second. teacher candidates could
give consent to participate in the same ways as the first group but choose to not
participate in any interviews. Third, teacher candidates could decline to participate in the
study. My intention was to gather data on as many students as possible and then select a
small group of focus students to study more closely throughout the semester.

Ms. Pratt’s class consisted of 25 teacher candidates who were enrolled in MWU’S
special education, elementary education, and child development programs. Even though
our team consisted of those who were enrolled in the elementary education and child
development programs, special education students could also take Ms. Pratt’s course. All
25 teacher candidates gave consent to participate in the study and 15 out of 25 agreed to
participate in interviews. All of the students were female. Twenty-four of the students
were Caucasian, and one was African American. The African American student did not
give consent to be interviewed.

Since I wanted the group of focus students to reflect the kinds of students that
would best represent those found in elementary preservice teacher education programs. I
chose to interview and select focus students who were elementary and child development
majors and not special education majors. Since I wanted to follow focus students more
closely throughout the semester, it was important that they agreed to participate in
interviews. I decided to interview as many elementary and child development students as
I could before deciding upon a smaller group that would be followed more closely and

interviewed a second time. Three of the students who agreed to be interviewed were

51

special education majors, so I immediately eliminated them from my set of interviews.
That left me with 12 students. I contacted these 12 by e-mail requesting interviews.
Eleven responded to my request and were interviewed during the fifth and sixth week of
the semester.

In order to better understand the different ways that teacher candidates might
respond to written and hypermedia-based cases. I wanted to select focus students who
had a range of experiences with people who were different from themselves and who
represented a range of viewpoints about diverse learners. For example, I wanted focus
students who both did and did not have a range of experiences with diverse groups of
people. I also wanted focus students who varied in personality and academic ability. I
wanted my focus group of students to include both academically strong and weak
students and students who were outgoing and actively engaged in class and who appeared
to be less outspoken and less engaged.

During the fifth and sixth weeks ofclass, I carefully reviewed all of the
information that I had acquired on those students who participated in the first set of
interviews. At the end of week 6, I used the information that I had obtained through class
observations, student work, pre-survey responses, interviews, and Ms. Pratt’s comments
to decide upon 5 focus students. Some of the focus students were outspoken in class
while others were more reserved and quiet. Some appeared to put forth a lot of thought
and effort into their work while others turned in work that lacked detail and descriptions.
One focus student had traveled overseas and had a diverse range of international
experiences. Others had traveled throughout the United States or had little contact with

people from diverse cultures and backgrounds. Overall, the students in the class were

52

from the Midwest and had limited experiences with people from diverse backgrounds.
When asked how this group compared to other ED 222 classes, Ms. Pratt said that they
were not as strong as the class from the previous year.

Ms. Pratt introduced book clubs to her students after I had selected focus students.
While working in book clubs, teacher candidates would do various activities in fixed
groups throughout the semester. Ms. Pratt and I met to discuss who we thought should or
should not work together because we wanted groups to represent diverse perspectives.
After our conversation, Ms. Pratt let me form the groups. I grouped students in different
ways, sharing the makeup of the groups with Ms. Pratt so that I could see what she
thought about the groupings. In the end, I used her feedback to form book club groups
while still keeping the 5 focus Students together. Forming the groups in this way allowed
me put all of the focus students in the same groups without Ms. Pratt knowing whom I
was following. All class sessions were tape-recorded. However, once book club groups
were started, I began using multiple tape-recorders throughout the classroom. This made
it possible to record small groups without drawing attention to the focus students. Even
though I moved around the room during my observations, I made a point to be near focus
students when they engaged in activities that were related to reading, viewing, and
responding to cases. This allowed me to not only hear what they were saying about the
cases but also observe their actions and facial gestures as they engaged in discussion. I
made notes any time their expressions and body gestures seemed to conflict with their
comments. I continued to collect data on all the students throughout the semester but
gave more focused attention to the data that were collected on the 5 focus students. This

allowed me to get to know these students better than others in the class.

53

Introduction to Focus Students

In this section, I briefly introduce each of the 5 focus students based on
information that I gained during the first few weeks of the semester. These students will
be described in much more detail in following chapters. Chapters 3 and 4 present the
findings of my focus student data and illustrate how some of my initial thoughts about
these students began to change. Chapter 5 presents the findings of the data that was
collected on the entire ED 222 class.

Lydia. I knew very quickly that I wanted Lydia to be one of my focus students.
Lydia was one of those students you can’t ignore. In class she was always full of
personality, quick thinking and witty. She was one who always spoke her mind and never
seemed afraid to share her opinions, even if nobody else agreed with her. Many of
Lydia’s comments and questions in class were thoughtful and insightful. She appeared
outgoing, knowledgeable, thoughtful. and reflective. As an elementary student, she had
been exposed to both traditional and progressive literacy instructional approaches.
Because of this, Lydia began the semester having more knowledge than most about what
it means to have a balanced approach to literacy instruction. She had also done some
extensive traveling throughout the United States and had experienced working diverse
groups of people in a factory. In one of her assignments, Lydia wrote that diversity was
important to her. She wrote that she wanted to work in a midsized community that had a
variety of socioeconomic levels and mixed ethnicities. She also stated that she was not
interested in working in the inner city or in a very small town.

Mallory. Mallory was another student I knew I wanted to follow. Mallory, like

Lydia, had an outgoing personality and was always actively engaged in class discussions.

54

She stood out from the others, however, because She had spent time abroad in both Spain
and Italy. Mallory had a minor in Spanish and said that she wanted to teach in a bilingual
school in a big city. Even though Mallory had a variety of experiences with diverse
groups of people, however, she alluded to biases towards difference that were not as
apparent with other students. For example, during our first interview, Mallory spoke
about friends and acquaintances who came from working class families. She described at
length about how she had changed her negative views about these people after getting to
know them. She described how she now respected them and didn’t judge them like she
had in the past. During our interview. however, I was not convinced that Mallory had
completely changed her views. Her facial expressions. rolling of the eyes. tone of voice.
and body gestures seemed to counter some of the things She was saying. At other times
throughout the semester, Mallory seemed to contradict herself, making me want to better
understand what was really going on in her mind. I was also interested in Mallory
because she spoke frequently about her preference for phonics-based literacy instruction.
appearing less knowledgeable of progressive literacy instruction than Lydia. By selecting
Mallory and Lydia, I had 2 focus students who seemed to favor different instructional
approaches and had different background knowledge about literacy instruction.

Jackie. During the first few weeks of classes, Jackie, unlike Lydia and Mallory,
did not stand out in class. Jackie was quiet, rarely shared during whole group discussions.
and her written work appeared to be average. Her initial journal entries, however.
revealed that she was actively engaged with the issues being presented in class. For
example, in one of the first classes. Ms. Pratt had discussed how the instructional

decisions a teacher makes could have both a positive and negative impact on students.

55

She gave various examples to Show how teachers might unknowingly marginalize
individuals in class when they make instructional decisions. She then gave teacher
candidates an article that described the practice of an elementary teacher and asked the
class who gained and who lost from the instructional choices that the teacher made.
Jackie extended the conversation of who gains and who loses into her dialogue journal
throughout the next couple of weeks. writing about how she had never previously asked
herself these questions prior to ED 222. Jackie initiated a written dialogue with her
partner on this topic, and her journal entries revealed a thoughtfulness and reflectiveness
that were not usually shared during whole class discussions. Jackie, like most of the
students in the class. had limited experiences with people from different backgrounds and
cultures. She grew up in a small Michigan town that consisted of mostly white, middle
class families. When Jackie described her k-12 schooling experiences, she described
teaching approaches that seemed progressive and that did not follow the traditional,
teacher-led models. As she began to describe her involvement in her school’s talented
and gifted programs, I began to think that she was an academically stronger student than I
had originally thought.

Lizz. As I began thinking about the selection of focus students during the third and
fourth weeks of class. I realized that the more vocal, outgoing, and academically stronger
students were getting more of my attention than the quieter, less academically strong
students. During the next two class sessions, I made a point to sit next to and get to know
some of the students with whom I was less familiar. It was during this time that I started
to notice Lizz. Lizz shared ideas in class, but was not as vocal as Mallory or Lydia. On

her pre-survey, she explained that coming to MSU provided the most experience that she

56

had with diverse groups of people. In an interview, she told me that for most of her life
she had grown up with people who were like herself. When describing her ideal
classroom, Lizz said she wanted a “mix of gender and leaming abilities.” However, she
did not mention any other kinds of diversity. Much of Lizz’s written work in class was
less detailed than work produced by Lydia and Mallory. and her dialogue journal didn’t
reveal the same kind of wrestling with issues that Jackie had shared. During our first
interview, Lizz seemed to be struggling with the instructional approaches that were being
introduced in ED 222 and explained how they were totally different from what she had
experienced as an elementary student. She commented that learning about these new
approaches was hard. Even though Lizz always appeared to be attentive in class, did her
work, and seemed thoughtful about the issues that were being introduced, she admitted
that she was struggling a bit with the literacy concepts that were being introduced to her
for the first time.

’ Sadie. By the fourth week of class, I was pretty sure that Sadie would not be one
of my focus students. Since I wanted to understand how teacher candidates responded to
written and hypermedia cases, I felt they had to be engaged in the activities. Early in the
semester, I had not considered that non-engagement could represent a form of
engagement. Even though she shared comments and ideas in class, Sadie gave me the
impression that she was not putting forth effort. Because of this, I was quick to exclude
her from the study. For example, in one assignment students were asked to reflect upon
their literate experiences growing up and write about these experiences. Sadie’s response
was five sentences long. Her first sentence stated, “I don’t remember how I learned to

read and write.” The rest of her sentences did not reveal much more about her prior

57

experiences. Sadie’s other work in the course seemed to follow the same pattern. Her
written work was usually Short. lacking detail and explanation. and appeared to have been
written in a matter of minutes.

It was hard to determine how knowledgeable Sadie was about literacy instruction
because her work did not reveal much. Sadie’s interview, however. was quite revealing.
She explained how she grew up with an unpleasant childhood and did not like to think
about it. She said that she grew up in an environment where family and friends were not
expected to go to college. She admitted that she got “mixed up” with the wrong group of
kids while in school, but she began heading in a new direction when she realized that she
wanted to be a teacher. Sadie’s interview comments made me think about her short
reflective writing assignments in a new way. I began to question some of the earlier
assumptions that I had made about her and her lack of effort. I wasn’t sure how much I
would learn from her as a focus student and continued to wonder how invested she was in
the course. However, she seemed to come from a different background from most in the
class, and her coursework revealed that there was room for her to grow in a number of

ways.

The Use of Personal Writings and Cases
Some have argued that teacher candidates need to be exposed to a variety of
perspectives and ways of thinking in order to help them become more critical of their
own knowledge and beliefs (Clark & Medina, 2000; Laframboise & Griffith, 1997).
Studies have shown that teacher educators can help create opportunities for this kind of

self-critique by having students become involved in reading. writing. and sharing

58

narrative stories (Clark & Medina, 2000; Olson, 2000). Some studies have combined the
telling and sharing of narrative stories with the reading of narrative literature cases (Clark
& Medina, 2000; Laframboise & Griffith, 1997;). Other studies have shown how videos
and hypermedia video cases can similarly challenge preservice teachers’ knowledge and
beliefs about teaching and learning (Boling. 2001: Boling & Roehler, 2002; CTGV,
1990; Hughes, 1999). This study was designed so that the teacher candidates in ED 222
would have opportunities to read, view, and respond to written and hypermedia video-
cases and to write about personal experiences. In this section, I introduce the personal
writing assignments and case-based activities that Ms. Pratt used throughout the
semester. After the semester began, Ms. Pratt and I continued our weekly planning
sessions to reflect on how classes were going and to plan activities around the reading
and viewing of cases. In the following section, I will describe the specific data sources
that were collected throughout the semester and introduce how data were analyzed. Since
data on focus students and the class were analyzed a variety of ways, I’ll provide more

information on the analysis in the chapters that present focus student and class findings.

Reading Narrative Cases

In previous semesters, both Ms. Pratt and I had used written cases in our literacy
methods courses to promote discussions on inclusive learning communities and teaching
diverse students. Ms. Pratt felt that case-based activities had been helpful for her students.
but she also believed that she could do a better job of integrating them into her course and
revisiting them throughout the semester. In her previous ED 222, she described how

students read and discussed a number of cases, but cases started to blur together, making

59

it difficult to remember what was discussed with each one. Ms. Pratt felt that it would be
better to cover fewer cases while doing more with them.

I had used written cases in my classes in hope they would help students recognize
how important it is to think about issues that surround the teaching of diverse students. I
struggled with case-based activities because it seemed that teacher candidates were
giving socially acceptable responses to each case without necessarily owning and
embracing the ideas themselves. My frustrations with students’ “generic” responses
encouraged me to think about how instructors might encourage students to make personal
connections to the issues and stories that are presented in written cases. I felt that having
students tell, reflect upon, and make connections between their own personal experiences
and the cases that they were reading might help more students take ownership for the
issues at hand. Studies that have focused on the use of narratives and literature cases have
revealed how the reading and writing of narratives can encourage teacher candidates to
make personal and emotional connections to written stories (F lorio-Ruane, 2001;
Laframboise & Griffith, 1997). I felt that helping teacher candidates make these personal
connections might help them take ownership and develop a proactive and passionate
stance towards the teaching of diverse students. Before Ms. Pratt and I could even begin
to discuss the role that personal narrative stories might have in ED 222, however, we felt
that we first needed to decide upon the written cases that students would be reading. In
the end, we decided upon three cases, two that Ms. Pratt had used the previous year and
one that I discovered in a book titled Educating for Democracy: Case-Method Teaching
and Learning (McNergney, Ducharme. & Ducharme. 1999). (See Appendix A for more

information on these cases.)

60

In the article, What is a Case? What is Not a Case ?, Carter (1999) described four
categories of cases that have been used in teacher education: (a) case as exemplar, (b)
case as problem situation, (c) case as story, and (d) case as narrative. Carter stated that
each of the meanings for these categories highlights a “different aspect of professional
preparation and, thus, a different facet of the case idea” (p. 166). Carter stated that since
the same case might be used in a variety of ways. it might fall under more than one
category. Even though Ms. Pratt and I did not consciously select cases so that they would
fit the various meanings that Carter described, the cases that Ms. Pratt used in ED 222 did
fit under some categories more than others. In an effort to help illustrate how the cases
were used in ED 222, I will introduce them in relation to these four categories and will
describe how they were used in class.

Lourdes ' case. The first written case that Ms. Pratt introduced to her students,
Peace Takes Practice, described a kindergarten teacher, Lourdes, and her struggles to
teach a diverse group of children. Lourdes’ case, as teacher candidates called it, can be
described as a case as story. A case presented as a story can be used as a way to grasp the
“richness and indeterminancy of our experiences as teachers and the complexity of our
understanding of what teaching is” (Carter, 1999, p. 171). Such cases can be used to help
one understand how others can be prepared to engage in the teaching profession. At a
basic level, cases as stories have “events, characters, and settings arranged in temporal
sequence implying both causality and significance” (Carter, 1999. p. 170). These cases
carry information about how things work and what meaning events have (Carter, 1999).
Peace Takes Practice described the teaching challenges that Lourdes faced while

teaching a group of children that came from mostly low-income Haitian and African

61

families. The case described how many of the students in Lourdes’ class had started
school “having already learned that the world is an uncertain and often hostile place”
(Teaching Tolerance Project [TTP], 1997, p.144). When children encountered
disagreements in Lourdes’ class. they frequently resorted to violence to settle their
disputes. The case described a tturring point in Lourdes’ teaching when she realized that
if she kept getting upset, focusing on the negative in the class, then students’ behavior
wasn’t going to get any better. The case described how Lourdes began forming new ideas
about teaching and her role in the classroom after enrolling in a three-day training
sessions offered by the Peace Education Foundation (PEF) program. The majority of the
case illustrated how Lourdes continued to face a number of challenges in her classroom.
but managed to turn hostile and negative experiences into ones that focused on
maintaining peace and respect in the classroom.

Ms. Pratt introduced her class to Lourdes’ case during the second week of ED
222. One of Ms. Pratt’s goals for this class was to help teacher candidates begin thinking
about how teachers’ conceptualizations of teaching impact the decisions they make in
their classrooms. During the first weeks of the semester, MS. Pratt wanted her students to
begin thinking about their conceptualization of literacy so that they could begin drafting
and forming ideas that would ultimately become a philosophy statement on literacy
education. Ms. Pratt introduced Lourdes’ case as an example of one teacher working on a
conceptualization of literacy that had a community focus. She asked her students to read
the case at home so that they could discuss it in their third class session. In week three,
Ms. Pratt used the case to engage students in a discussion on how classroom learning

communities can both support and hinder student learning. Ms. Pratt used Lourdes’ story

62

to help teacher candidates think about who gains and loses when one makes particular
decisions in his or her classroom. She asked students to discuss the case with a partner
and answer the following questions: What does Lourdes value? What does she believe
about literacy? What influences her decisions? Who gains? Who loses? Teacher
candidates discussed the case but did not respond to it in writing. The issue of who gains
and who loses, however, reappeared in class conversations and some students’ dialogue
journal entries throughout the semester.

“Goodnight Moon " case. “Goodnight Moon” represents a case as problem
situation. Cases presented as a problem situation are used for analysis, inquiry, and
problem-solving (Carter, 1999). The purpose of such cases is to prepare teacher
candidates “for the exacting processes of interpretation and decision-making in teaching”
(Carter, 1999, p. 167). They are also used “to examine and clarify the complexities and
connections in teaching practice” (Carter, 1999, p.167). “Goodnight Moon” is a two-page
case and was written by a doctoral student at MWU. The first page introduces the case
and provides questions for the reader. The second page provides more background on the
case and lists further questions for readers to discuss. The “Goodnight Moon” case
described a real-life incident that occurred to Mary, an early childhood consultant, when
she observed a young Alaskan teacher teaching children in the Alaskan Bush. Prior to
being observed, Mary suggested that the teacher create a lesson around the book
Goodnight Moon (Brown, 1991). She thought the book would be a nice one to use
because it was considered to be a well-known and beloved book used in early education
settings. Mary felt that recommending this book to the young teacher would help set her

up for a successful lesson. In the end, however, the soothing bedtime story became

63

frightening to the children, and they began to cry when their teacher asked them
questions about the story. (See Appendix D for the Goodnight Moon case.)

Ms. Pratt introduced this case to her class during the fifth week of class. Before
passing out the case, she asked teacher candidates to write about a situation where
somebody acted out of the ordinary and his or her actions were easily misunderstood. She
asked teacher candidates to respond to the question. “How do people usually react when
somebody acts out of the norm for their culture?” Before writing their responses, students
heard Ms. Pratt give a personal example where she had negatively reacted to the actions
of her daughter’s friends. but then later realized she had misinterpreted the situation.
After sharing her own experience and having students write about theirs, MS. Pratt
introduced and read the book Goodnight Moon (Brown, 1991) to her class. She explained
that she was going to read the book because she wanted teacher candidates to have a
better understanding for the context of the case, and she had correctly predicted that a
number of her students were not familiar with the book. After reading the book, Ms. Pratt
passed out the “Goodnight Moon” case and had students read and discuss it with a
partner. Students discussed questions that were listed at the bottom of the page that asked
them to describe their initial feelings to the case and asked why they thought the children
in the story reacted negatively to the book Goodnight Moon.

Teacher candidates participated in a whole group discussion about the case after
sharing ideas with a partner. After they shared various ideas, Ms. Pratt passed out a
second page that described why the kindergarten children might have responded in such a
negative way. It described how the children were used to sleeping in family beds where

they enjoyed the comfort of being able to reach out and touch a family member at all

64

times. These children did not sleep alone nor were left alone in the dark. The second page
of the case pointed out and reminded teacher candidates that comfort and discomfort can
be culturally influenced. After discussing the case with a partner and with the entire class.
students took the last few minutes in class to individually write a response to the
following questions: Are there any connections between this story and the quick-write
you did earlier? Explain. Does this story make you think differently about teaching
diverse learners and creating an inclusive learning community? Explain.

Christine 's case. Christine’s case was written in the first person narrative form
and tells a story from the point of view of Christine. a teacher candidate. Christine’s case
could be described as a case as narrative; however, it can also be used similarly to Peace
Takes Practice to illustrate case as story. Christine’s case is different from Lourdes’ case.
however, because it’s told from the first person point of view. This supports how Carter
(1999) described the ways in which cases can be used as narratives placing “special
emphasis on the view that we live storied lives” (pg. 171). Carter explained that narrative
has taken on a somewhat distinct meaning showing concern for biography and
autobiography and focusing primarily on “lived experiences or personal life stories” (pg.

171). Carter (1999) stated.

Rather than seeing teaching ‘out there’ as something happening to an
anonymous someone, we can imagine a case as a personal account and
construct an image of who the person in the case is. Such a frame connects
the reader to a person who teaches in important ways. (p. 173)

Christine’s case is a chapter found in the book Educating for Democracy: C ase-

Method Teaching and Learning (McNergney et al., 1999). The chapter is titled A Case of

65

Freedom to Learn: Balancing the Needs and Rights ofAll Children, and is told through
the eyes of Christine after she views a video in one of her teacher education courses. The
video presented the story of a child with special needs being mainstreamed into a general
education classroom. In the case, Christine wrote about her thoughts and reactions when
her classmates begin discussing the video, describing the advantages and disadvantages
of including special needs students in the general education classroom. The case
illustrated how Christine faced complex thoughts and reactions to the class discussion
because her own sister has Down Syndrome. The case described how Christine faced
“serious personal and professional questions about who wins and who loses when
children with special needs are excluded (and included) in general education classrooms”
(Peacock, Keller, & Rallis, 1999, p.159).

Prior to reading Christine’s case, Ms. Pratt asked students to write about issues of
inclusion that could be connected to the observations that they were making in their field
placements. Students were asked to write these reflections at home prior to reading the
case. After reflecting upon their field experiences, students were to read the case and
write an immediate reaction to it. MS. Pratt asked students to complete both of these
writing activities at home so that they could discuss the case during their tenth week of
class. In class ten, students shared their responses to the case in small groups and wrote a
final reflection on the case for homework. For this writing assignment, Ms. Pratt asked
students to write about what personal “Aha” moments they now had about working with
special needs students and inclusive learning communities. In class eleven, the following

week, Ms. Pratt had students share their responses using a fishbowl8 format.

 

8 In a fishbowl discussion. a small group of students form circle with their chairs in the middle of the room
and engage in a conversation. The rest of the class forms an outer circle, surrounding the inner circle, so

66

Viewing Cases

Ms. Pratt introduced her students to hypermedia video-cases using RCE. Ms. Pratt
and I decided that we wanted to have teacher candidates View two of the full-length
videos in addition to clips of classroom teaching. MS. Pratt chose to use the two videos
that I had recommended, one that was filmed in a kindergarten classroom in San Antonio.
Texas, and another that was filmed in a second grade classroom in Harlem. These
classrooms showed children who are typically labeled “at risk” excelling in classrooms
that used many of the literacy instructional approaches that were being introduced in ED
222. The video cases introduced two classroom teachers, Mrs. Hemmeter and Dawn
Harris Martine. Mrs. Hemmeter taught the kindergarten class, which consisted mostly of
native Spanish speakers, and Dawn Harris Martine taught the a second grade class where
the majority of the students were African American and came from low income families.
Ms. Pratt decided to Show the kindergarten classroom during the sixth week of the
semester when teacher candidates were learning about emergent literacy practices. The
second grade classroom video was introduced towards the end of the semester when
teacher candidates were learning how to teach reading comprehension strategies to
elementary students.

The RCE hypermedia video-cases illustrate what Carter (1999) described as cases
as exemplars. Such cases are used “to illustrate a general category or to exemplify a
practice” (pg. 166). A case as exemplar is commonly used in teacher preparation “to
depict vividly such matters as the complexity of teaching environments, the way in which

a method is actually carried out in a classroom” or the complicated ways “a general

 

that they can observe and hear the small group conversation. Students are encouraged to enter and leave the
circle at will. When Ms. Pratt used the fishbowl, she asked for volunteers to sit in the inner circle and
placed herself in one of the outer circle chairs.

67

proposition about learning or development might manifest itself in concrete situations”
(Carter, 1999, p.166). Teacher candidates have spoken highly of RCE cases because they
visually provide examples of the instructional practices that are introduced in many
literacy methods course (Boling. in press; Boling & Roehler, 2002). For some teacher
candidates, viewing videos and clips through RCE provides their first introduction to
many of the literacy instructional approaches that are being promoted in today’s teacher
education programs.

Mrs. Hemmeter case. Mrs. Hemmeter is an experienced kindergarten teacher in San
Antonio, Texas. Mrs. Hemmeter modeled many of the practices that students in ED 222
had been reading about in their methods textbook. Prior to coming to class and viewing
the case, Ms. Pratt wanted teacher candidates to reflect upon their k-12 experiences as a
student and write a response to the following prompt: Did you have students in your
school who were handicapped or disabled in some way, were non-English speakers, were
fromlow SES, had very high or very low academic abilities, or were from another
country? What do you think about when you think about these students? Where do you
think these ideas come from?

The following week. the sixth week of the semester, teacher candidates viewed the
entire Mrs. Hemmeter video in class and engaged in conversations about emergent
literacy practices. Before viewing the video, students were placed into groups and each
group was assigned a different emergent literacy “lens” for viewing the case. For
example, one group was asked to look for emergent literacy practices that support reading
and writing fluency. Another group was asked to note how reading and writing were

taught together. After viewing the video, groups shared their thoughts and observations

68

about the case and discussed which practices seemed to support an inclusive learning
community. At the end of class, Ms. Pratt asked students to look at their homework
writing, think about their participation in class, and describe their own personal “aha”
moment for the day. She also asked students, “What is it that you are not thinking
differently about?”

In the next two class sessions, sessions 8 and 9. teacher candidates worked in groups
in the computer lab and used the RCE program to search for and view various video
clips. In addition to the clips that were filmed in Mrs. Hemmeter’s classroom, students
were able to view footage from nine other elementary classrooms. The first day in the lab
was designed so that students could become familiar with functions and content of the
RCE program. They were asked to search for clips that would support them as they
designed literacy lessons that would be taught in the field. In the following class, students
read an article on teaching reading comprehension strategies and were told to search for
clips that would support the big ideas in the article. Students viewed clips that were
filmed in Mrs. Hemmeter’s and other classrooms. By the end of class, students selected
their best clip and posted a message on the discussion forum that described why they
selected it. Students ended their message with a question so that teacher candidates in
another ED 222 class could respond to their messages. In class 10, Ms. Pratt had groups
share their selected clip, discuss why they selected them, and then asked the class to think
about how some students might gain or lose from literacy practices shown in the clips.

Dawn Harris Martine case. This case was originally selected so that it would
support teacher candidates’ discussion on inclusive learning communities. This case

introduced Dawn Harris Martine and her second grade students in Harlem. By the time

69

Ms. Pratt showed this case, she had overheard some students making comments about the
writing assignments that they had been doing in class and felt that some resistance was
developing towards the activities that asked students to think about inclusive learning
communities. For example. in a previous class when students were asked to reflect and
write about their thoughts on building inclusive learning classrooms, Ms. Pratt overhead a
student comment to another, “We just wrote about this.” Ms. Pratt and I originally
planned to have students view the case and discuss issues related to inclusion; however,
Ms. Pratt felt that it might be best if she gave the inclusive learning topic a rest and
returned to more literacy-specific content.

Even though MS. Pratt and I felt that issues of inclusion and instruction were
closely woven together, we found that students frequently separated the two. For
example, a number of times when Ms. Pratt asked students to. engage in conversations
about instruction and inclusion, they would have content-specific conversations that did
not cover any of the issues that had been discussed on how instruction was or was not
including all students. We constantly struggled to find ways to integrate issues of
inclusion and literacy instruction so that students could see how connected and
interwoven they really were. Since students had already engaged in a number of
conversations about inclusion, Ms. Pratt wanted to use the Dawn Harris Martine case
specifically for content-based discussions. The semester was also coming to an end, and
there were a lot of literacy topics that Ms. Pratt Still needed to cover. In the end. she
decided to have her students view the case in its entirety noting the kinds of
comprehension‘strategies and assessment practices that Ms. Martine used. After viewing

the case, students discussed the comprehension strategies and assessment practices that

70

they saw. Ms. Pratt did not give the students a follow-up writing assignment after

viewing the case.

Creating and Writing Narrative Stories

Clark and Medina (2000) claimed that the concrete act of writing a literacy
narrative can help students look critically “at their knowledge and the places/locations
where that knowledge was constructed” (p. 68). As teacher candidates share their
personal stories with one another. there is the possibility that they will begin to see
contrasting views and relate experiences to one another. Conle (2003) described one facet
of narrative as “the oral or written discourse that undertakes to tell of an event or a series
of events” (p. 5). When MS. Pratt and I designed writing prompts for narrative, personal
writing activities, I had expected students to write about personal experiences as if they
were telling a story. I had also expected them to describe events and feelings in these
stories. However, students did not always respond to these prompts in the ways that I had
predicted. Usually this was because a prompt was poorly designed and did not illicit
narrative storytelling. There were also times when students had limited time to write in
class and wrote such short responses that a narrative storyline never appeared.

When I originally designed this study, I wanted teacher candidates to write about
personal experiences related to issues of diversity and inclusion prior to reading and
viewing cases. Then, I planned to have students make connections between what they had
written and what they were reading or viewing. Setting this up to occur in the classroom.
however, turned out to be much harder than I had anticipated. First, Ms. Pratt and I

struggled to create prompts that would encourage thoughtful reflection on one’s personal

71

experiences while at the same time making connections to a case that was going to be
read or viewed for class. Second, even when students did write about rich, descriptive.
personal experiences. it was difficult to find the time to share them in class. Because Ms.
Pratt always felt pressured for time and struggled to cover all of the literacy content that
needed to be introduced in the course. taking the time to have students write and discuss
their personal stories sometimes became secondary to other issues. Third, when students
responded to some of the prompts that Ms. Pratt and I created. they sometimes did not
respond in the ways that we had anticipated.

In one example, Ms. Pratt and I designed a personal writing assignment where
students were asked to pretend they were interviewing for a job and describe to the
principal the kind of place where they would like to work. As it turned out, students
responded to the prompt by giving a list of statements rather than by telling a story. I had
hoped that students would respond by writing as if they were talking to the principal,
providing a rationale for why they were responding in a particular way. After reading
students’ responses, I realized the prompt did not encourage them to respond in this way.
In the end, almost every single student listed what they wanted in paragraph form, and
their responses did not expand upon a particular event nor include any reflections on
personal experiences. Examples of comments that they wrote were, “I don’t have a
preference for a specific kind of school.” “I want to work in a school that has a

99

welcoming feel.” “I want to teach students of mixed abilities. “I want to teach in a
school that has a lot of parental involvement.” The information that students provided
was useful. but it did not provide the kind of narrative data that I originally wanted for the

study.

Some of the writing prompts did encourage students to retell personal experiences
in a story-like manner. For example. the prompt that was given before students read
Christine’s case and the prompt that was given before students viewed Mrs. Hemmeter’s
case produced narrative stories from students. Prior to reading the Christine case, students
were asked to write about experiences that they were having in their field placements that
could be connected to issues of inclusion. Prior to viewing the case of Mrs. Hemmeter.
students were asked to write about experiences that they had with diverse groups of
people during their own k-l 2 education. In these responses. students were also asked to
describe how they felt about these experiences.

In addition to the writing assignments that were planned as components for the
study, unexpected opportunities arose where students wrote and shared personal narrative
stories. These richly described personal experiences usually occurred as a natural part of
the course and provided me with further opportunities to study how teacher candidates
were making connections between their personal lives and the content and issues that
were being introduced in ED 222. One example occurred during the first two weeks of
class when Ms. Pratt asked students to write about what it meant being literate and
growing up in their families. After having them write their responses at home, Ms. Pratt
asked students to bring their writings to class so that they could analyze their own stories.
Ms. Pratt modeled this activity by doing the same assignment that she had asked her
students to do. She then shared the writing that she had produced at home which
described how growing up in a very verbal family impacted the kinds of activities that
she favored as a teacher. Ms. Pratt explained how her love for story telling extended into

her own teaching as she engaged her students in book club. After sharing her own

73

experience. MS. Pratt had students use highlighters and side notes, marking on their
papers, to answer the question, “How do you think these experiences might influence
your teaching?” This activity was designed to get studentsthinking about their
conceptualization of literacy and how a person’s experiences and beliefs impact the
conceptualization that they hold. Periodically throughout the semester, Ms. Pratt asked
her students to revisit other personal writings and consider how their personal
experiences might impact who they are as future teachers. Such writing activities

produced the kinds of narrative stories that turned into rich data sources for the study.

Data Collection and Analysis

Data collection began in the summer when Ms. Pratt and I began planning the
course and continued throughout fall semester. All planning sessions were audio-
recorded and transcribed. Summary notes were also written after each planning session,
highlighting key issues that were discussed. I attended all ED 222 classes and audio-
recorded and transcribed each session. Once focus students were selected and put into
groups, I placed multiple tape recorders around the room so that Ms. Pratt didn’t know
which students I was following. During these weeks, only audiotapes that recorded focus
students’ conversations were transcribed. During class sessions, I also took field notes on
how focus students responded to activities in class and noted how they interacted with
others in the class. During class discussions, I noted the ways students responded to
written cases and the comments that they made about teaching literacy and building

inclusive learning communities. Notes were written in a notebook during class, and I

74

summarized these notes once I came home, saving them as a Word document on my
computer.

Even though Ms. Pratt and I informally met every week to plan the course, I
conducted a more formal interview with her at the beginning and end of the semester.
(See Appendix E for instructor interview protocol.) These interviews were audio recorded
and transcribed. At the beginning of the semester, I asked her to describe the goals that
she had for the course and the kinds of assignments and activities that she wanted
students to do. I asked how she had used cases and personal writings in her previous ED
222 class and how she had integrated the use of technology into her teaching. In the
second interview, I revisited many of the comments that she made during the summer and
asked whether or not she felt she had achieved the goals that she had for her class. I also
asked her to reflect and comment upon the various ways she had used cases and personal
writing activities in her class and whether or not she felt these activities were successful.
(See Appendix E for instructor interview protocol.)

During the fifth and sixth week of class I interviewed eleven students. I selected
five of these students as my focus students and interviewed them again at the end of the
semester. (See Appendix F for teacher candidate interview protocol.) Initial student
interviews were used to gather information that would help in the selection of focus
students. During the first set of interviews, I asked students to tell about themselves,
where they grew up, and the kinds of early literacy experiences that they had in school. I
asked how things were going in ED 222 and had them Comment on some of the activities
that they had already done in class. If they did not say anything about activities that were

based on written or hypermedia cases, I would then explicitly ask them about the activity

75

and what they thought about it. I also brought some of students’ class work to the
interview so that I could ask them about things that they had written, pushing for more
detail and clarification. I frequently chose to have them reflect on pieces of writing where
they expressed a change in knowledge or beliefs about teaching diverse students, asking
them to expand and explain how their current thinking compared to how they felt in the
past. I also had them talk about what they thought had prompted change. I brought copies
of some of the assignments where students wrote reflections after reading or viewing
cases. I again did this so that I could ask them to “say more” about what they had written.

During the second set of interviews with focus students, I again asked questions
about some of the work that they produced in class and brought pieces of their work to
the interview. These conversations were similar to ones that took place during the first
interviews; however, there were usually more assignments for us to discuss. I also asked
focus students to describe what made the largest impact on their learning during this
semester, where they experienced their greatest growth. and where they experienced their
greatest change. I acknowledged that students might answer these questions in similar
ways and told them that it was fine if they thought their greatest growth and greatest
change were related to the same thing. I asked all focus students questions that were on
the interview protocol but also allowed conversations to go in other directions. This
usually happened when I asked questions about class work and course assignments
because students responded to assignments in different ways. All instructor and student
interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed.

In addition to field notes, planning session notes, interview summaries, and audio-

recorded transcriptions, I collected all of the documents that Ms. Pratt created for her

76

class. This included such things as the course syllabus, lesson plans, handouts, and
overhead transparencies. I also collected all documents that students created for course
assignments and activities. Sometimes these documents were photocopied, and other
times I had students e-mail them to me as attachments. These documents included such
things as in-class written reflections. dialogue journal entries, pre and post assessments.
self-assessments, philosophy statements, and lesson plans. Data that were collected on all
25 students were kept in individual student folders. When I analyzed data on the whole
class, however, I regrouped student work in a variety of different ways. For example. one
time I put all students’ pre and post surveys together so that I could compare responses
with one another. Another time I pulled together all students’ responses to a particular
case, making it easier to look across responses and compare findings.

Both top down (deductive) and bottom up (inductive) analyses were used for the
study following grounded theory and constant comparative methods (Glaser & Strauss.
1965; LeCompte & Schensul, 1999). Glaser and Strauss (1965) first used and described
the constant comparative method of data analysis in their book Awareness of Dying. The
constant comparative method is a method of theory development where researchers
gather new data and continually compare them with previously collected data in order to
develop categories. According to Glaser and Strauss (1967),

The constant comparing of many groups draws the sociologist’s attention

to their many similarities and differences. Considering these leads him to

generate abstract categories and their properties, which. since they emerge

from the data, will clearly be important to a theory explaining the kind of

behavior under observation. (p. 36)

Glaser and Strauss stated that the comparison of differences and similarities among

groups “not only generates categories, but also rather speedily generates generalized

77

relations among them” (p. 39). In this way, multiple hypotheses can be pursued
simultaneously.

Data analysis was ongoing as I collected documents, took notes, wrote
summaries, and created research memos throughout the semester. At the end of the
semester, I revisited and reanalyzed data in multiple ways, looking for new topics,
patterns, and themes. Because the analysis was extensive and ongoing, I will highlight the
major components of the analysis in this section and provide more detail in subsequent
chapters. In the remaining sections of this chapter, I illustrate how I used a constant
comparative method to analyze both focus student and general class data.

When I collected and coded data, I created initial codes that were based on my
research questions. For example, 1 highlighted and noted any time explicit reference was
made to case activities, diverse learners, or personal experiences that reflected students’
attitudes and beliefs about diverse groups of people. I also highlighted and labeled any
data source that reflected students’ knowledge about teaching literacy. Whenever I
thought a data source related to my research questions, I highlighted it and labeled it so
that I could return to it for future reference. For example, because I wanted to know how
teacher candidates responded to written and hypermedia cases, I collected data on what
they said and wrote about cases and coded case-related comments in a number of ways. I
wrote whether the comment was made in class. to the whole group, to a small group, or in
writing. I coded whether it was made before, during. or after reading, viewing, or
discussing a case. I coded the key ideas that appeared in the response and also noted, if
possible, its tone. For example, sometimes students explicitly said or wrote that

something was “helpful.” “confusing,” or “interesting.” Sometimes students explicitly

78

stated whether something in the case “upset” them, made them “angry,” or made them
“want to cry.” When the entire class engaged in case discussions, I recorded and
transcribed comments, indicating which case was being discussed, the key ideas that were
being expressed, and how responsive the class seemed to be when answering Ms. Pratt’s
questions or engaged in discussions.

In order to determine how teacher candidates’ personal stories and experiences
interacted with their interpretation of cases, I noted what issues and themes appeared in
personal writing activities and in cases. I then compared to see if there were any
connections between the two. For example, if Students wrote about having an experience
where they felt uncomfortable being around a particular group of people, I looked for
indications of discomfort in students’ responses to cases. I then compared to see how the
uncomfortable feelings in the case and in the personal writings were Similar or different. I
also noted key ideas that appeared in case data and personal stories then analyzed data to
see if and how these ideas reappeared throughout the semester. I looked to see if there
were any kinds of relationships between the two. For example, one student commented
that she liked a particular instructional approach while viewing a clip on RCE because
both teacher and students were involved in creating a story together. After obtaining this
information, I searched through all of the previous data that I had collected on this
student to see if any other references were made to instructional approaches. I found that
in one of her first personal writing activities, she had written that her own elementary
school experiences had been traditional and teacher-centered. I then realized that this
particular student was drawn to an RCE clip that represented a kind of literacy instruction

that was different from what she had experienced as a child.

79

For my third research question, I wanted to understand what teacher candidates’
responses to written and hypermedia cases revealed about their views of teaching diverse
learners over time. In order to do this, I collected and coded their responses to cases and
organized responses chronologically. Periodically throughout the semester I read through
data in the order that it had been created. I also read through it backwards, starting first
with the most recent data that had been collected. By analyzing data chronologically in
this way, I was able to note patterns in how teacher candidates were thinking about the
teaching of diverse learners, see whether or not ideas and issues appeared more than
once, and compare responses to how they did or did not change over time.

Even though I considered my research questions while coding data, I also noted
patterns that arose even if I did not always see significance in the patterns. Sometimes I
did not recognize the significance of the data until later in the semester. For example, I
noticed that the same students were always in control of the mouse and keyboard when
using the computer to view RCE clips. I did not realize the significance of who was “in
charge” of the computer until the end of the semester when students were asked to
comment on the usefulness of RCE. When reviewing responses. I realized that students
who always had control of the mouse reported that posting messages on the RCE
discussion forum was helpful. However, those who never had control of the mouse
tended to write that the discussion forum was not very helpful. I did not realize that
students’ experiences with RCE might be related to how they engaged with the program
until after I made the connection between responses and who did or did not post

messages.

80

While noting such patterns and consistencies. I also coded data that appeared to
be inconsistent with one another. For example. in one observation I had written that
Mallory seemed resistant to accept other people’s opinions. I wrote in my field notes that
she was holding on to her initial beliefs regardless of the different perspectives that She
heard in class. However, Mallory wrote in one of her quick-writes that her classmates had
made her begin to think of perspectives she had not previously considered. When I coded
her written comments. I wrote “considering other’s perspectives.” I also wrote that
Mallory’s quick-write contradicted what I had originally written in my field notes. In my
field note summary for that day, I wrote that I had to be more careful about making

assumptions based solely on what students did or did not say in class.

Analyzing Focus Student Data

Every two or three weeks, as I collected data during the semester, I read
chronologically through the artifacts that I had collected in order to find threads of topics
and themes. For example, in one class Ms. Pratt asked students to consider who gains and
loses when teachers make instructional decisions. In the dialogue journals that were
written the following week, I saw that Jackie wrote to her partner that she had never
asked herself who gains and who loses in classrooms. This comment prompted a response
from Jackie’s journal partner, and then a conversational thread of who gains and loses
continued in their journal entries through the next couple of weeks.

Once I identified my focus students at the middle of the semester, I revisited all of
the work that I had collected on them, double-checking the patterns that seemed to be

emerging. I then began to periodically read backwards through focus students’ folders,

81

starting from the most recently collected artifact reading back to the first piece of data
that I had collected on them. I also did the same thing with my field notes. This allowed
me occasionally to recognize and retrace backward threads of ideas that I might have
originally missed. For example, I did not realize that Lizz was struggling with the kinds
of instructional practices that were being introduced through RCE until after I had the
chance to interview her. Once I realized that all of her prior exposure to literacy
instruction had been based on traditional approaches. I revisited her folder of work and
began to realize that some of her short responses to content-related questions might have
been due to a lack of knowledge and not necessarily to a lack of effort. Because some of
her written work lacked explanation and detail, I had wondered if she was being very
thoughtful and reflective about her work. With the new information that I received in her
interview, I saw Lizz in a new light. Based on her interview comments, I realized that she
had been thoughtfully considering the literacy practices that were being discussed in class
but was struggling with whether or not she agreed with them. I

Once I identified focus students, analyzed the documents that had been placed in
their folders, and began noting threads of ideas emerging for each student, I then revisited
the data looking for patterns and themes that were common across all five students. This
allowed me to understand the data in ways that were not possible when only focusing on
one student at a time. Making comparisons across students helped me see how they made
different connections to narrative and case-based activities in different kinds of ways. For
example, I began to see that those who actually typed comments on the RCE discussion

forum spoke more favorably of the discussion forum than those who sat in the group but

82

never got to type in a message. This made me think about the sense of ownership that one

might have when typing and receiving messages on the forum.

Analyzing Class Data

I manipulated and analyzed my data differently when looking for common themes
and patterns across the entire class rather than within the focus student group. The main
reason for working with these data differently was because of the amount of data that I
had collected. In order to identify common responses to personal writing and case-based
activities, I relied on my field notes and summaries of audio-recorded class sessions.
When I was able to collect student work that was related to case-based activities, I
summarized comments and put them in charts so that I could easily look across
responses. By visually presenting all responses using a chart. I then looked for patterns in
responses and created codes based on these patterns. For example, after students
discussed the “Goodnight Moon” case in class, they were asked to do a quick-write in
class and comment on how they were now thinking about the teaching of emergent
literacy in inclusive learning communities. Responses were usually a paragraph long, so I
summarized the key ideas in these responses and displayed them in a chart so that I could
analyze across the entire class. For the Christine case, I collected reflections that were
written immediately after students read the case and collected a new set of reflections
after they discussed the case with their peers. When I created a chart for these responses,
I set it up so that I could compare individual responses with one another. I also set it up
so that I could compare responses that were written before and after case discussions. I

did similar analyses with students’ self-assessments and pre and post surveys.

83

Analyzing pre and post surveys. When analyzing data on the entire class, I
realized that the pre and post surveys were not as helpful as I had originally expected.
The surveys were created for two reasons: (a) to help identify a diverse group of focus
students and (b) to identify change in students’ knowledge and beliefs from the beginning
of the semester to the end. The pre-survey did help in the selection of focus students
because I was able to learn what kinds of experiences teacher candidates had with diverse
groups of people. This was useful because I wanted the group of focus students to
represent a range of experiences. The surveys were less helpful. however, when I
attempted to analyze how teacher candidates’ knowledge and beliefs had changed
throughout the semester. It was difficult to determine from the responses on the surveys
what teacher candidates’ knew and believed. For example. for open-ended responses
students sometimes wrote short and general comments both at the beginning and the end
of the semester. I could not assume that this reflected a lack of knowledge, because some
students might have just rushed through the survey. Also, there were parts of the survey
that covered content that was not a focus of ED 222. I was not surprised, therefore, when
pre and post responses looked verysimilar and when some students wrote that they did
not know how to respond.

Other survey questions were not helpful because they did not reveal differences in
responses or were interpreted differently by students. For example, one section of the
survey asked students to rank their level of agreement with 7 statements and write a
comment or two about their rankings. When comparing rankings on pre and post surveys,
I found no significant pattern or tendency towards agree or disagree. I also found that

students’ comments were not always consistent with their ranking. For example, when

84

ranking their level of agreement to the statement, “Generally, teachers should group by
ability level,” some students indicated, “disagree.” Then in their comments, some of the
students who disagreed wrote that teachers should group students in various ways,
sometimes using ability level and sometimes not using ability level. In another question.
students were asked to rate their level of agreement with the statement, “Historically.
literacy instruction has been monocultural, reflecting only one reality and has been biased
toward the dominant (European) group.” Regardless of how students rated this statement,
their written comments reflected that their response was based on what’s happening now
in classrooms. For example, some students indicated that they disagreed with the
statement and then wrote that many multicultural books are used in today’s classrooms.
Some did not seem to take into account the word historically when responding to the
statement.

Even though some of the survey data were useful, overall, I feel that I could have
done a better job constructing questions that would have better supported my research
questions. I found that having students respond to open-ended questions and scenarios
revealed more about their knowledge and beliefs than the section that asked them to rank
their level of agreement. However, even with the open-ended questions, it was still
difficult to assess what students did or did not know. It was also difficult to know how
honestly students responded when they were asked to talk about their beliefs. There is
always the possibility that they were writing what they thought the teacher wanted to hear
or what they thought was the socially acceptable answer.

Reflections on analyses. After the semester ended in December, I kept in contact

with focus students. I told them that once I had my initial findings for the study, I would

85

be willing to meet with them individually to share what I had found. All of the focus
students expressed an interest in my findings, and I knew from our conversations that
they were curious to see what I was learning. I wanted toshare my findings with them
and was curious to see if they agreed with the ways in which I was making sense from the
data that was collected throughout the semester. I also wanted to make sure that I didn’t
misrepresent students in ways that might offend them. In the end, I met with all of the
focus students except Sadie. When I met individually with students, I summarized the
kinds of things that I had learned from them and explicitly told them to let me know if I
had misinterpreted something that they had written or said. As I shared my findings,
sometimes students provided more details but never indicated that I had misinterpreted or
inaccurately represented the data. There is the possibility that even if they had disagreed,
they might not have told me. Even though sharing my findings with these students did not
guarantee that my representations were accurate, I felt confident that I made every effort
to represent them as accurately and honestly as possible. i

The purpose of this study was to investigate how teacher candidates responded to
written and hypermedia cases and how their personal stories and experiences interacted
with their interpretation of the cases. The purpose of this study was also to explore what
teacher candidates’ responses revealed about their views of teaching diverse students
over time. In the following 3 chapters, I present the findings of the study. Two chapters
are dedicated to focus student findings, and one chapter is dedicated to general class
findings. I begin with the findings that emerged from focus student data since I collected
more data on these students, analyzed the data differently from the class data, and

developed a better understanding of how they responded to personal writing and case-

86

based activities. Focus student findings are divided into two different chapters because
distinct themes emerged when I analyzed their responses to written and hypermedia
cases. In Chapter 3, I illustrate how focus students began to develop awareness and
beliefs about what it means to create an inclusive learning community, what their stance
was towards inclusion. and who is included in these communities. In the Chapter 4, I
illustrate how focus students began to learn how one acts upon awareness and beliefs to
create learning opportunities for students in inclusive classrooms. Teacher candidates
began to understand the role of the teacher in the classroom and how the teacher designs
and modifies literacy instruction to meet the needs of diverse learners. Chapter 5 presents
the class findings in relation to what was learned from focus student data. I’ve included
this chapter to give a broader picture of how others responded to written and hypermedia
cases and to ground focus student findings with the entire class. Chapter 6 will explore

the significance and implications of both focus student and general class findings.

87

Chapter 3 Awareness and Beliefs

Working closely with focus students provided an understanding of how reading
cases, viewing cases. and sharing personal stories impacted teacher candidates throughout
the semester. Because I was able to follow focus students closely in class and conduct
follow-up interviews, I gained insight into the processes that supported their learning in
the course. Data coming from a variety of sources reveal students experienced unique
journeys as they began to come to terms with their understanding of what it means to
have an inclusive learning community and who should or should not be included in these
communities. Even though each student came to unique understandings about teaching
diverse students, the paths that led to their understandings did have similarities. When
interviewing focus students, I noticed that rich stories emerged as they described their
experiences in the course and explained how they were gaining new insights about
teaching, learning, and themselves. I developed a deeper understanding of how students
were making sense of varied course activities as I saw emerging stories become
intertwined with classroom discussions, written comments, and conversations. In the end,
analyzing the personal experiences and stories that focus students shared revealed
important insights about the ways in which students engaged in and learned from
personal writing and case-based activities.

Lundeberg (1999) developed a model that outlines what cases can contribute to
preservice teachers’ discoveries about teaching and learning. She grouped these
discoveries, which “are not exclusive and overlap to some degree,” into five categories:

(a) theoretical and practical understanding, (b) reasoning, (c) metacognition, ((1) social,

88

ethical, and epistemological growth. and (e) beliefs (Lundeberg. 1999, p.5). Even though
I do not categorize findings into five distinct categories, I did find thinking about
Lundeberg’s categories was helpful when considering the findings of this study. Teacher
candidates’ responses to personal writing and case activities revealed that they gained a
number of new insights. A single case discussion could prompt new understandings that
ranged from redefining the meaning of inclusion to knowing how to implement a specific
reading comprehension strategy in the classroom. Lundeberg’s categories helped me
consider how teacher candidates’ responses could be categorized. For example, many
responses to written cases revealed that teacher candidates were developing general
understandings and forming new beliefs about inclusion. In their responses to hypermedia
cases, however, they spoke and wrote more about how to teach literacy and how to create
an inclusive learning environment. Some responses reflected teacher candidates’ general
awareness and beliefs while others revealed how teacher candidates learned how to act
upon these beliefs. By using Lundeberg’s categories to help definemy findings, I was
able to see more distinction between responses and better understand how responses
differed from one another. As I organized and categorized findings. I decided to present
and discuss them using two categories: developing awareness and understanding and
moving fiom awareness to beliefs.

The two categories that I use to present focus Students findings are, like
Lundeberg’s (1999) categories, not mutually exclusive. There is evidence that teacher
candidates developed awareness and beliefs as they learned to act upon new
understandings. For example, Lizz developed practical understandings about how to

implement literacy lessons while watching RCE video clips. These practical

89

understandings assisted her as she designed and implemented a literacy lesson for
students in her field placement. Learning strategies from RCE helped Lizz move from
awareness of teaching reading to actually being able to design and teach a literacy lesson.
However, these same RCE experiences also supported Lizz in becoming megacognitively
aware of the ways current. progressive teaching practices differed from the literacy
practices she had experienced as a child. In this example, developing awareness of
instruction and gaining knowledge to act upon this awareness occurred through the same
RCE activity. Even though Lundeberg’s categories were helpful, I found that trying to
use her categories to describe findings like those from Lizz became problematic. So. I
turned to Villegas and Lucas’ (2002) curriculum framework for preparing culturally
responsive teachers for support.

Villegas and Lucas (2002) developed and described six strands, or organizing
constructs, that should be included when developing a curriculum for preparing culturally
responsive teachers. They described the curriculum as a “series of Strands that constantly
intersect and that depend on one another to form a cohesive whole - strands that blend
dispositions, knowledge, and skills” (p. 26). Villegas and Lucas organized the six strands
into two different categories: fundamental orientations for teaching a changing student
population and the practice of culturally responsive teaching. Considering these two
categories helped me conceptualize and organize my findings in ways that Lundeberg’s
categories could not. Villegas and Lucas described the fundamental orientations for
teaching as (a) gaining sociocultural consciousness, (b) developing an affirming attitude
toward students from culturally diverse backgrounds, and (c) developing the commitment

and skills to act as agents of change. They described the practice of culturally responsive

9O

teaching as (a) understanding the constructivist foundations ofculturally responsive
teaching, (b) learning about students and their communities, and (c) cultivating culturally
responsive teaching practices. These categories have similarities with Lundeberg’s
categories, however, I found the two organizing categories created by Villegas and Lucas
better illustrated what I learned from this study.

This chapter presents how personal writing and case activities supported focus
students in developing the awareness and beliefs that will eventually support them in
creating inclusive literacy environments. These awareness and beliefs can be considered
similar to the fundamental orientations that Villegas and Lucas (2002) described,
orientations that support teacher candidates in being able to implement a culturally
responsive curriculum. Chapter 4 presents how personal writing and case activities
supported focus students in moving from awareness to action as they began to develop an
understanding of the practice of culturally responsive teaching. As I describe my
findings, I will make reference to both Lundeberg’s (1999) and Villegas and Lucas’
categories to help illustrate what teacher candidates learned. However. I do not strictly
follow these categories.

I present the experiences of Mallory and Lydia in this chapter to illustrate the
ways they made meaning from their ED 222 experiences. As I describe their experiences.
I also explain the context in which responses to cases emerged. I then provide examples
of how others responded to course activities so that Mallory’s and Lydia’s experiences
can be understood in the wider context of the class. Their stories reveal how writing and
sharing personal experiences and engaging in case-based activities can impact preservice

teachers’ awareness and beliefs about teaching diverse students. These stories reveal how

91

engaging in narrative and case-based activities in a teacher education class helped teacher
candidates recognize and challenge their assumptions and beliefs about teaching diverse
students. Both stories illustrate how engaging in such activities helped teacher candidates
form new understandings about inclusion and recognize the ways in which their personal
experiences and beliefs can impact who they are as a teacher. The second story, Lydia’s
story, also reveals how one teacher candidate openly struggled with the moral and ethical
issues that surround including handicapped students in the general education classroom.
After presenting Mallory’s and Lydia’s stories, I discuss how their experiences were

similar or different from others in the class.

Mallory’s Story

Mallory grew up in what She described as a “very small, all white community”
and claimed that other than her two lesbian aunts. she had never confronted any diversity
while growing up. In one of her personal writings, Mallory explained that her elementary
school had no diversity because handicapped and disabled students were bused to other
schools. She also wrote that there were no black students and no minorities in her school.
During eighth grade, however, Mallory found herself in a different situation when her
family moved to a new town. In one of her personal writing assignments, she wrote that
she found herself “in shock” because there were black children and a number of
handicapped students in her school. She also wrote that she “felt weird” around these
students.

Even though Mallory described herself as having limited experience with people

who were different from her, one of the reasons I selected her as a focus student was

because she had more variety in her experiences than the majority of students in the class.
When Mallory was in high school. she took a summer trip to Spain and Italy. Then when
she entered the university, she participated in a study abroad trip in Spain. Mallory
openly talked about her passion for linguistics and Spanish. and in one of her writing
assignments she expressed a desire to teach in a bilingual school. When she wrote about
the kind of school where she would like to work, she wrote it would “most likely” be a
middle class school because these schools “had more electives.” She added, “I would
like to be in a community that is supportive of the school and is used to participating in
activities outside of school.” Mallory ’s vision of teaching in a bilingual school appeared
to be that of teaching Spanish class. possibly an elective course, rather than working in a
multicultural community where bilingualism is commonly seen in the general education

classroom.

Developing Awareness and Understanding of Inclusion

Through her writings, classroom comments, and interviews, Mallory gave all
indications she was an advocate for including diverse students in the general education
classroom. For example, she described her preference for having a diverse classroom and
wrote that her ideal teaching position would be in a bilingual school that had native
English and Spanish speakers. Mallory ’5 personal writings expressed understanding and
compassion for those who experienced difference, and she frequently wrote about her
lesbian aunts’ children and her desire to protect them from those who might be anti-
homosexual. At first glance, it might have appeared Mallory was comfortable about

discussing issues of difference and had a solid stance that supported inclusion: however,

93

her personal writings at the beginning of the semester revealed there were many issues
about working with those who were different from herself that still needed to be
confronted and faced.

Making connections. In one of the first personal writing assignments. students
were given a writing prompt that asked them to reflect back upon their own k-l2
experiences.

Think back over your K-l2 experiences as a student. Did you have

students in your school/classes that were handicapped or disabled in some

way, were not native English speakers, were from low socio-economic

classes, had very high or very low academic skills. or were from another

country? What do you think about when you think about these students?

Where do you think your ideas come from?

This prompt was designed to get students thinking about their own personal educational
experiences that involved interactions with diverse groups of students. Ms. Pratt hoped
that if her students could make personal connections to diversity or inclusion from their
previous k-12 experiences, then they would possibly make similar connections to the
issues of inclusion that were going to be discussed in class.

Many of the students’ writings became powerful pieces that raised issues that
some of them would return to at the end of the semester. Mallory ’5 response was one of
these. In it, she described one school experience that made her feel uncomfortable around
handicapped students and nervous about talking about them. These uncomfortable
feelings foreshadowed the ways in which Mallory struggled with issues of inclusion later
in the course.

I remember very specifically one time I was walking down the hall with

my friend and we were in our own conversation. She was saying

something was “dumb” but instead she said it was “retarded.” The special

education teacher just happened to be in the hall and he started screaming
at her and saying that he better not hear her use that word ever again or she

94

would get a detention. He was a real jerk and looking back at it now, I still
think he is a jerk. By approaching it the way he did, he scared me. I was
completely nervous around handicapped children from then on, because
what if I did something wrong by accident? Or, what if I didn’t even know
it was wrong?

f

The day that Mallory brought this writing to class. students observed an
RCE classroom video and discussed what teachers do to support emergent readers
and writers. While discussing the video of a kindergarten teacher, Mrs.

Hemmeter, only a few students mentioned issues related to inclusion. A couple of
students talked about how they might modify instruction for ESL students, but the
rest described the different instructional strategies that they saw in the video. At
the end of class, Ms. Pratt asked students to pull out their personal writings and to
think about the video they had seen. She then asked them to reflect on the day’s
activities and write about what they were now thinking about inclusive learning
communities. I was curious to see what students would write because most of the
class discussion had focused on the practicalities of teaching, like what is morning
message or word walls, rather than on issues of inclusion. Also, Ms. Pratt was
short on time and didn’t have students discuss their personal writings prior to
writing their in-class reflection. I wasn’t sure if students would have much to say
about inclusion.

Students’ in-class reflections revealed that students made more
connections to emergent literacy instruction and inclusive teaching practices than
Ms. Pratt and I had thought. They described how the teacher in the video used
various instructional approaches that accommodated the needs of diverse students.

For example, they explained how journal activities could be used for all levels of

95

writers and how teachers could use the natural classroom environment to create
opportunities for students to practice their reading skills. While discussing
students’ responses, Ms. Pratt and I realized that a number of students’ comments
related to inclusion had not come out in whole class discussions. Ms. Pratt
commented that she was concerned because she had noticed in other class
activities that students were not sharing with the class things that they wrote for
classroom assignments and were not engaging in meaningful discussion around
issues of inclusion. For example, when sharing book club responses. students
frequently read sections straight from their papers, finished reading the section.
and then had the next person Share. The next person would again read sections
from her paper, finish, and then wait for the next person read from her paper.
During these book club discussions, very little discussion actually occurred.
Responding to Christine '3 case. The next assignment that revealed some
of Mallory ’S thoughts about inclusion and that engaged students in a class
discussion on the topic occurred when students had to read a written case titled, A
Case of Freedom to Learn (Peacock et al., 1999). In this case, Christine, a teacher
education student, and her classmates Viewed a video about a child with Down
Syndrome who was mainstreamed in the general education classroom. This
documentary presented the turmoil over whether “mainstreaming students with
special needs either did or did not meet their social and educational needs, or
whether mainstreaming may deprive other ‘typical’ students of appropriate
education” (Peacock et al., 1999, p. 162). The case presented various sides of the

debate from teachers’, parents’, and preservice teachers’ perspectives. In the case,

96

Christine reflected upon her life with Alice, her sister who has Down Syndrome.
She struggled with whether she should share her thoughts about her sister as her
classmates viewed and discussed the video. In Ms. Pratt’s class, students began to
refer to this case as “The Christine Case.” References made to Christine’s case
reappeared throughout the semester in Mallory’s and other students’ writings.

Ms. Pratt wanted students to think about their own field placements and
issues of inclusion before they read the case. She asked students to think and write
about their field placements and describe examples of inclusion or exclusion that
they were noting in their classrooms. Ms. Pratt did not want students to use the
assignment as an opportunity to criticize and complain about their collaborating
teachers. Instead, she wanted them to be aware of the ways in which teachers
unintentionally marginalize or exclude students when structuring their classrooms
or designing instruction in a particular way. For example. teachers might
unintentionally exclude English as a Second Language (ESL) students from
instruction if they always expect students to orally Share book club responses and
don’t provide opportunities for them to express their thoughts and understandings
in other ways.

After writing about the inclusion they were seeing in the field, Ms. Pratt
asked students to read Christine’s case and immediately write a reaction to it. She
explained that when she read the case, she was touched by the story and was
emotional, feeling sympathetic for Christine’s situation. The story had many of
the characteristics of a literature case and provided a rich description of

Christine’s background, personality, and problems. Ms. Pratt’s response to the

97

case supports Laframboise and Griffith’s (1997) findings that literature cases can
engage the emotions of the reader. Because Ms. Pratt had such a response to the
case, she thought that others in the class might respond emotionally to the case.
So, she decided to have students freely respond in their reflections and did not ask
them to answer specific questions after reading the case. Ms. Pratt described how
she was afraid a structured prompt might not capture the immediate emotional
reaction that the case might generate. Students were asked to bring their written
response to class so that they could share them with their group members.

Christine’s case generated a wide range of responses and many emotions. One
student wrote that she almost cried while reading it because she felt the family’s
frustration as they fought to get Christine’s sister accepted into a general education
classroom. Another student wrote that the case was written in a way that made her feel as
if she were in Christine’s shoes. and this feeling made her feel great empathy,
compassion, and more understanding for the difficulties the family was facing. A third
student said the case reminded her of her field placement and an autistic child who was in
.her classroom. This student noted how sometimes her teacher appeared frustrated while
working with the child yet never expressed any kind of opinion that she felt the child
should not be in the class.

Other students described how they were torn between the issues of whether
Christine’s sister should attend a general education classroom instead of a special
education classroom. They stated that they understood Christine’s family’s point of view,
yet they also understood teachers’ concerns for not wanting Christine’s sister in their

classrooms because they did not feel prepared to work with a student who had

98

disabilities. For a number of teacher candidates, reading the case made them feel less
prepared and more nervous about finding themselves in a similar situation. One of the
focus students. Sadie. wrote, “When we were talking in class I had a totally different
feeling like I don’t know anything about this and I’m not learning anything... How am I
going to know how to deal with this when it comes?”

This range of responses supported Ms. Pratt’s prediction that Christine’s case
would generate emotions from the students. Most of the responses revealed that students
felt empathy for Christine and her sister and supported having Christine’s sister included
in the general education classroom. Comments about understanding Christine’s situation,
even though they didn’t have a sister with Down Syndrome, and comments that described
feeling as if they were in her shoes showed that students were thinking about the issues
from perspectives other than their own. These responses revealed how Christine’s case
supported teacher candidates in developing affirming attitudes towards diverse students
and gaining more awareness and understanding of the issues families face when children
are excluded from the general education classroom. Teacher candidates’ responses
illustrated how Christine’s case supported them in developing some of the social
understandings that are needed to become culturally responsive teachers. Developing an
affirming attitude toward diverse students and gaining sociocultural consiousness are part
of Villegas and Lucas’ (2002) fundamental orientations for teaching a changing student
population. Responses that revealed student frustration, however, indicated that not all
students developed the same kinds of understandings and awareness when reading the

case.

99

After reading the case. a number of students shared and discussed how it made
them think about issues of inclusion in new and more complex ways. One student said
that she did not know inclusion meant including all students, even special education
students, in the classroom. A second student said the case helped her think about
inclusion from another perspective, that of a Special education student. A third student
explained how She did not agree with including handicapped children in the general
education classroom until after reading Christine’s case. Mallory ’3 response, however.
indicated that reading the case only reinforced what she already felt and did not

encourage her to think about inclusion differently.

This article did not make me feel any differently about inclusion. I
strongly believe that children Should be included in the classroom... I
understand Christine’s feelings about being protective. I have experienced
a similar situation with my cousins. My aunts are lesbians, therefore my
cousins have to deal with having two moms and not a strong father figure
in their lives. -

In the same response, Mallory made connections between Christine’s case and her

cousins’ struggles, claiming they experienced similar things.

I believe it is the same struggles. We often thought, what if we get a
teacher with a strong Christian and anti-homosexual relationships? That is
much like thinking a child should not be in a class because they have
Downs Syndrome.

It’s difficult to know how Mallory is defining inclusion in this response.

However, when she discussed the case in class, she made multiple references to her

cousins, comparing their experiences to Christine’s sister’s experiences. In the case,

100

Christine described instances where people sometimes did not welcome a special needs
child in the general education classroom. The need to accept all children, regardless of
their abilities and background. appears in Mallory’s comments and in her writings.
However, the case also introduced issues of equity and equality. For example, when the
authors of the case described the video that was shown in Christine’s teacher education
course, they wrote, “The documentary presents the turmoil over whether mainstreaming
students with special needs either did or did not meet their social and educational needs,
or whether mainstreaming may deprive other ‘typical’ students of appropriate education”
(Peacock et al., 1999, p. 162). In other areas of the case, Christine wondered how
inclusion did or did not meet the educational and social needs of special education
students. The complex issues that surrounded who does or does not benefit when special
needs students are integrated into general education classrooms did not appear in
Mallory’s written response to the case. Mallory did not consider how her cousins’ needs
and the needs of special education students might differ. An initial step in becoming
socioculturally conscious, according to Villegas and Lucas (2002), is “to learn that
differences in social locations are not neutral. In all social systems, some positions are
accorded greater status than others. With this status differentiation comes differential
access to power” (p. 27). Mallory’s response to Christine’s case did not reflect an
awareness of these issues of power and status.

Ms. Pratt gave students time in class to share their written responses from
Christine’s case. Students shared their responses in small groups. When Mallory shared
her response with the other focus students, Lydia argued that Mallory could not make a I

comparison between special education students and her cousins. She stated that including

101

special education Students was different, and she gave an example to illustrate her point.
Lydia compared including an ESL student with a child who has Down Syndrome. She
explained that the biggest difference was that an ESL student could quickly improve his
or her English and soon work at the level as the rest of the students in a class. However. a
child with Down Syndrome would never be able to “catch up.” Lydia’s comments had an
impact on Mallory. Later in the semester in her writings and during her interviews.
Mallory explained that hearing Lydia’s argument made her begin to realize she was
“clumping” all of the children together and was arguing for a single case. In her second
interview, Mallory explained that Lydia’s comments impacted the way she was thinking
about inclusion. She stated, “It’s like I was looking at it [inclusion] the way I was
supposed to look at it, like every kid should be included.”

Mallory ’s in-class reflections and final self-assessment revealed hearing other
viewpoints from her classmates made her begin to see how issues of inclusion were really
much more complex than she had originally thought. She began to see that making a
blanket statement of “all students should be included” did not acknowledge the various
issues teachers, parents, and students would face when promoting inclusion for all.
Mallory explained that reading and discussing cases like that of Christine helped her
“understand what an inclusive learning community means to other people who look in.”
She explained that she liked reading cases like Christine’s because they made experiences
more realistic. During our interview at the end of the semester, Mallory explained that
she learned a lot by reading Christine’s case. I then pointed out that when she first read

the case, her written response revealed it did not make her think any differently. Mallory

then agreed discussing the issues with her classmates and hearing opposing views from
Lydia were what really challenged her thinking.

Mallory’s experiences reading and discussing Christine’s case illustrate a number
of important points. First, Mallory was not challenged to think about inclusion in new or
more complex ways after she read the case. Reading the case only confirmed what she
already thought. Second, discussing the case with others and hearing alternative
perspectives was a critical point in Mallory’s learning. Third, Mallory’s conversation
with Lydia revealed that teacher candidates were defining and thinking about inclusion in
different ways. Mallory’s experiences support what other researchers have discovered
about the use of cases in teacher education. Novices tend to overgeneralize and
oversimplify (Spiro et al., 1988): however, discussions with peers can encourage them to
look at cases more critically (Tippins et al., 1999). Mallory’s experiences extend our
understanding of the use of cases because they reveal how developing an awareness and
understanding of inclusion is complex. Teacher candidates do not always define inclusion
in the same ways. Cases can be used to assist teacher candidates in deepening their
understandings of inclusion; however, some teacher candidates might need further
scaffolding and support to move beyond basic and rudimentary understandings. Teacher
candidates like Mallory might need encouragement to consider issues of equity, equality,
status, and power when framing new definitions and understandings.

Issues from the field. Mallory ’5 ideas about inclusion and teaching diverse
learners were also challenged when she spent time in the field in a first grade classroom.
Mallory ’5 field assignment was in a school located near the university and had a diverse

student population. Many of the international graduate students who attended the

103

university sent their children to this school. Children in Mallory’s class came from
various countries and spoke a variety of languages. After one of her first visits to her field
placement, Mallory expressed in her dialogue journal her amazement at how easily the

children in her class talked about difference.

I have heard kids talk about differences, but never really be mean about it.

It seems that they are aware of their differences, but not as an inequality.

An example of when I saw this was when a white girl was talking to an

African girl and said, “Black people are from Kenya, like where you are

from,” then they went off holding hands to play.

This journal entry revealed that Mallory was surprised that children saw each
other as equals, regardless of skin color, and could talk about difference in an open way.
One of the goals that Ms. Pratt’s team had for their classes was to assist teacher
candidates in seeing difference not as a deficiency, but as a natural, inevitable variability
that should be expected in today’s classrooms. When Mallory visited students in the
classroom, she actually got to see and hear a real interaction between two children who
held these beliefs. When she saw two children acknowledging and accepting difference in
a very natural way, Mallory expressed surprise. This journal entry revealed that Mallory
was beginning to grapple with what it means to create an inclusive learning community
when differences in skin color and ethnicity are involved. Here she wrote and wondered
about issues of inequality, something that she did not acknowledge when reading and
responding to Christine’s case.

In another dialogue journal entry, Mallory again wrote about her amazement at

how easily children spoke about difference. In her journal entry to Lydia, Mallory wrote

the following:

104

I had kind of an interesting issue come up in my classroom last week.
Okay, first of all I feel like every education class I take has to do with
diversity. It drives me insane because I feel like half the stuff is common
sense stuff. So, in my classroom this little girl who is I think half black
and half white was drawing a self portrait of herself. She finished most of
the picture and then came up to me and was like, “Um. . .what color am I?”
I think my eyes must have bulged right on the spot. I was like “Hahaha. ..
(nervous laughter) Well. what color do you want to make yourself????”
(more nervous laughter) and she was like “orange.” So, I was like. “Okay
that sounds good!” (nervous laughter yet again). I felt like the teacher
might comment. . .SO I went and told my CT. He told me that was a perfect
answer and it was fine. That made me feel better but I think I was still in
shock about it. It is strange that I was surprised by it. I guess I had just
never thought about, “What color am I?” It was odd. I have come to the
obvious decision that you can never really be prepared for a question
about diversity so it is a waste of time to learn about it because I was still
not ready...

In this entry. Mallory revealed how she was surprised by the student’s question.
“What color am 1?” She was also surprised at her response to the question because She
was uncomfortable and didn’t know what to say. Mallory appeared to enter a dilemma
when she discovered answering the question didn’t seem so “common sense.” Because
she felt unprepared to answer the student, Mallory drew the conclusion that learning
about diversity in university classes has been a waste of time. Even though many of her
courses covered issues about diversity, she stated that she still did not know how to
respond.

Mallory’s belief that the university should be able to prepare her with knowing
what to do in a Situation is not unique. Some students responded with frustration to
Christine’s case because they claimed they still did not know what “to do” if a severely
handicapped child were to enter their classrooms. These tensions between having
awareness of inclusion and knowing how to act upon this awareness appeared at various

times throughout the semester and revealed how teacher candidates separated the two

concepts. These tensions also illustrated the importance that teacher candidates placed on
knowing specific strategies for dealing with issues related to diversity and inclusion in
the classroom.

Even though Mallory wrote that learning about diversity was a waste of time, in
other assignments and interviews she explained how it was important to read and discuss
cases in class. These statements contradicted what was written in her journal entry to
Lydia. In her second interview, I pointed out this discrepancy to Mallory and asked her
how she felt about the cases she had read in class. She admitted she still felt one could
never actually be fully prepared to respond to real classroom occurrences like the ones
she experienced in her field placement. She then added, “It is important for me to be
reading all the case studies and stuff because I’don’t know all about those things.” During
an interview. Mallory explained the cases were helpful because they gave her new insight
into some of these issues; however, she still believed case discussions did not actually

prepare her for knowing what to say when faced with the question, “What color am I?”

They can’t prepare you but they can help you with the information,

information like there are going to be these kinds of situations. That’s like

what I really like about reading the articles... The cases, they open your

eyes to these kinds of things but they don’t say straight out, “This is what

you should do.” The cases exposed me to what was going on, to things

that could happen.

Lundeberg (1999) argued that cases could help develop teacher candidates’
metacognition, reasoning, and beliefs about teaching and learning. She also argued that

cases could support teacher candidates in acquiring theoretical and practical

understandings. Mallory’s responses to Christine’s case and the “Goodnight Moon” case

106

revealed how case discussions supported her in a number of these areas, but she still
struggled to identify how reading and discussing cases provided practical understandings
that could be acted upon in the classroom. When considering these findings in relation to
Villegas and Lucas’ (2002) curriculum framework, there is evidence of how cases
supported Mallory in acquiring the fundamental orientations for teaching diverse
students. However, there is less evidence to support how these cases assisted her in
developing understandings about the practice of culturally responsive teaching.

In Mallory’s journal entry. she claimed she did not know how to respond to the
question, “What color am 1?” However, she was still able to give a response. One might
argue that Mallory did know what to say and responded in an appropriate manner.
However, it appeared that discussing these issues in her ED 222 did not alleviate the
frustration and confusion that arose when she was actually confronted with the question.
For her final self-assessment, Mallory was asked to revisit her personal writings. dialogue
journal entries, and assignments and look for indications of growth and change. In this
self-assessment, she wrote that revisiting her personal writings and course work made her
realize she could easily pull information that allowed her to have a “totally different view
on what it means to teach literacy to an inclusive learning community.” She realized one
of the reasons why she was continually in shock at the ease in which students in the field
spoke about difference was because the children were yelling out comments that she was
taught “were forbidden comments” when she was young. In her final self-assessment she

wrote,

I just cannot even think back to when I was a kid and ever remember
talking about different skin colors because we did not have any. When I

107

moved to middle school and there were a few black kids I would never

talk about it because I was taught it was mean and I was scared to point

out differences. Having an inclusive community like this can teach so

much about respect and answer children’s questions. It changes my own

thoughts and interactions because it shows me that it is okay for me and

children to talk about their differences. '

These comments written at the end of the semester showed Mallory was
beginning to move from an awareness of inclusion to knowing how a teacher creates
inclusive environments. Mallory saw that it was important for teachers to talk about
difference with their students and began to understand what these discussions might look
like. Looking back and revisiting her personal writings played a large role in helping
Mallory to become aware of why She felt uncomfortable about discussing difference and
why she was continually shocked at the ease in which children Spoke about difference in

the classroom. In her final self-assessment, she explained how revisiting her work helped

her better understand herself.

Writing about personal experiences was one of the main things that helped

me understand how I wanted to teach. When I was writing the responses I

gave honest answers, but was not able to immediately pull a philosophy

from them. However, at the end of the course I was able to analyze what

kind of life I have had and see what kind of teacher I want to be. My

personal writings specifically helped me understand myself and diversity.

In her self-assessment, Mallory explained that looking back upon her own
experiences helped her learn the most about why it’s important to have diversity in
classrooms and why it’s important to talk about difference. She wrote that she would not

have reached new understandings about herself if She had not been placed in a diverse

classroom. Being in a diverse classroom made her realize how important it is for children

108

to have similar opportunities to learn about themselves and others. Revisiting her writings
helped Mallory see that she had originally been thinking about diversity and inclusion in
a very narrow way. She initially wrote that she wanted a diverse classroom and wanted to
teach Spanish and English speaking children. However, when she revisited these
comments at the end of the semester, she realized she wanted to work with English and
Spanish Speakers because these were the ones with whom she felt most comfortable. In
the end, She recognized her statement was quite limiting because she had not mentioned
wanting any other kinds of diversity in the classroom. Mallory recognized and wrote
about her fears of working with students who were different from herself in her final self-
assessment. She wrote that she needed to “change that fear into something positive.”
Mallory ’s time spent in a culturally diverse classroom helped her broaden her
definition of diversity and helped her see value in having a wider range of cultural
diversity in a classroom. During our final interview, I asked Mallory if this realization of
being “scared of diversity” was something She recognized prior. to ED 222. She
responded that she had thought about it but had never seen this fear as being a problem
until taking ED 222. She explained, “It wasn’t like I was scared. I kind of like ignored it.
It’s like I was faking the diversity thing.” Mallory explained how reading cases, engaging
in conversations about difference, actually seeing children openly accept and discuss each
other’s differences, and reflecting upon her own growth throughout the course helped her
realize some of her own biases. She also began to see how these biases were impacting
how she thought about inclusion, inclusive learning communities, and the teaching of

diverse students.

109

Focus Students ’ Perceptions of Inclusion

Other students in the course described how their definition and understanding of
inclusion had changed throughout the semester. Most students had grown up in white,
middle-class midwestem towns and had limited experiences with people who had
different backgrounds from themselves. A number of students explained how writing
about their personal experiences, reading about the experiences of others, and reflecting
back upon class discussions and course assignments helped them better understand some
of the issues that surround teaching diverse learners in inclusive learning environments.
Comments made by focus students were representative of others in the class. During our
second interview, Jackie stated,

The only thing I had thought about before this class was my personal

experiences in inclusion and exclusion. Those are beneficial, but it also

helps to see how other teachers have encountered and dealt with inclusion

issues. I had thought about this issue before but not how important it is.

Jackie explained how reading cases like the Christine case and the “Goodnight Moon”
case helped her understand these issues from other perspectives.

Jackie and Lizz. like Mallory, described how case conversations within their
small group helped them see they were defining inclusion too narrowly. Jackie said she
began to see that creating an inclusive learning community involved gender, race,
language abilities, behavioral disorders, and much more. Lizz, who first thought inclusion
meant, “to just include all disabled children to the best of their ability,” also had
changing views. In her final self-assessment that was written at the end of the semester,

she defined inclusion as “giving all students a fair chance to learn, which also means

including all students from different races, ethnicities. abilities, and backgrounds.” Lizz

110

wrote that her lack of exposure to diverse groups of people had contributed to the
unrealistic belief of diversity she had at the beginning of the semester. Lizz explained
how reading the novel Roll of Thunder. Hear My Cry (Taylor, 1991) played a large role
in helping her realize she had not been including aspects of ethnicity and culture when
thinking about inclusion. Sadie also explained how course activities and case discussions
helped her think about inclusion from different people’s perspectives; however, she
explained that her opinions on having inclusive classrooms did not undergo any major
changes throughout the semester. In her final self-assessment she wrote,

I am holding my thought that I want to have inclusion in my classroom

when I become a teacher and I will welcome any student with special

needs. Just because I think that now doesn’t mean that I am not going to

be frustrated if I have a special needs child in my room.

These comments from focus students indicated that they were beginning to gain
the sociocultural consiousness of how their own “world view is not universal” but is
Shaped by their “life experiences, social class, and gender” (Villegas & Lucas, 2002, p.
27). They were starting to recognize the limitations of their own perspectives and
personal experiences with diverse groups of people and were broadening their
understandings of inclusion. For some students, this awareness brought about change in
the ways they were thinking. For others, it brought about a deepening understanding. Lizz
made a comment about “giving all students a fair chance to learn.” This comment
reflected her commitment to making a difference in the classroom and to providing
equitable learning opportunities for all students. “Developing the commitment and skills
to act as agents of change,” according to Villegas and Lucas (2002), is one of the

fundamental orientations that teacher candidates need to develop if they are going to

become culturally responsive teachers (p. 53). One of Ms. Pratt’s goals for the course was

111

to assist teacher candidates in examining themselves as learners, teachers, and cultural
beings. Another goal was to assist them in developing an awareness of ways children
could be marginalized or excluded from learning opportunities. Focus students’
comments about case discussions and experiences in the course indicated that they were
becoming metacogntiively aware of their own views and beliefs and were beginning to
change or deepen their understandings of inclusion. They were also beginning to form a
stance towards making their classrooms inclusive learning communities.

Lundeberg (1999) stated that complex cases of teaching dilemmas can provide
“rich contexts for teachers and preservice teachers to examine and reflect on their
knowledge, assumptions, and beliefs” (p.13). She also stated that case pedagogy can
enable teachers “to compare and evaluate their own and others’ perspectives, to become
more open-minded and to develop learning communities engaged in critical reflective
inquiry” (p. 5). Focus students’ responses to case activities supported these claims and
revealed how teacher candidates’ understandings of inclusion were being constructed
over time.

Even though students were introduced to the concept of inclusive learning
communities on the first day of class, their definitions of inclusion evolved, grew, and
changed through their course and field experiences. Comments made by Mallory
indicated that she began to move from a surface understanding that inclusion is accepting
all students in the classroom to thinking about issues of equality when ethnic differences
entered the classroom. For Lizz, creating an inclusive learning community also involved
developing a commitment to providing equal learning opportunities for all students. As

they developed a more complex view of inclusion, the majority of the teacher candidates

112

maintained a commitment to developing inclusive learning communities. However, one
teacher candidate responded differently to case activities and was more critical of
including all students in the general education classroom. Her story revealed how
personal writing and case activities could challenge teacher candidates to consider and

question the moral and ethical issues that surround inclusion.

Lydia’s Story

Lydia, unlike the other four focus students and the majority of the students in the
class, experienced different reactions to issues of inclusion when reading and responding
to cases. Her story is unique and needs to be shared because it illustrates another aspect
of how teacher candidates might respond and relate to personal writing and case-based
activities. Throughout the entire semester, Lydia had a personal struggle with how she
defined inclusion and whether or not she was in favor of it. Lydia’s journey is a revealing
one because she was the only student who openly challenged, doubted, and questioned
the benefits of including all students, especially severely handicapped, in the general

education classroom.

Confronting the Dilemmas of Inclusion

From the first weeks of class it was obvious Mallory and Lydia were good friends
and knew each other before the semester began. They frequently sat together and joked
with one another throughout class, but never did it in such a way that seemed to disturb
their classmates. Being dialogue journal partners, I later learned, helped the two become

closer fiiends. I was attracted to the idea of being able to closely follow two focus

113

Students who were also dialogue journal partners. and I was happy to learn that both
Mallory and Lydia were interested in being interviewed for the study. During the
beginning weeks of the semester, I paid close attention to their interactions in class.

In their first dialogue joumal exchange, both Lydia and Mallory wrote that they
wanted honesty from one another and hoped writing to each other would push them to
think in new ways. In Lydia’s first entry she told Mallory that she, too, was from “a very
small, white community and did not experience much diversity before attending MWU.”
Lydia wrote that when she was growing up, there was only one minority student in her
school. The rest of the students were White. Lydia explained there was no ethnic
diversity in her school but stated there were socioeconomic differences. When describing
her town in her first dialogue journal entry, Lydia wrote, “Trailer parks spring up right
next to mansions. This makes for tension sometimes in the community, with adults as
well as children.”

Even though Lydia and Mallory were good friends, they held different
perspectives on inclusion and the teaching of diverse students. At the end of the semester,
Lydia commented that Mallory ’3 responses to her entries often presented new insights
and perspectives that she had not previously considered. She explained how Mallory’s
responses had really surprised her because she initially thought Mallory would respond in
ways that corresponded with her own thoughts and beliefs. Lydia’s interviews. classroom
discussions, and written work revealed she was struggling with some issues that were
very different from the ones Mallory faced.

Making connections. Lydia’s first personal writing began to reveal some of her

prior educational experiences. She described how her first grade teacher put students into

114

reading groups based on a preliminary reading test. Lydia was placed in a low reading
group because of her poor reading comprehension skills and was sent to a remedial
program when her reading did not improve. She wrote,

My mother cried when she found out that I was being sent there because

she thought it meant that l was mentally handicapped in some way. My

father took the opposite approach. He saw it as a positive thing, just as a

sick person sees medicine as a solution to a problem.

The remedial program appeared to have worked. Lydia commented in an
interview that by second grade, She was among the top readers in her class. In Lydia’s
second personal writing, where she was asked to describe the ideal place where she
would like to work, She wrote, “I would like to work in a midsized community with a
variety of socioeconomic levels and mixed ethnicities. Diversity is very important to me.”
Later in the semester, however, Lydia began to face the moral and ethical issues
surrounding inclusion and struggled with her feelings for working with special education
students. Lydia’s writings and comments in class reflected how she began to face these
struggles and question her beliefs about inclusion.

Lydia’s personal struggles with inclusion began to appear in her third personal
writing assignment. This assignment was given to students prior to reading Christine’s
case, and they were asked to write about their k-12 experiences with diverse groups of
people. Lydia wrote about one particular student, Nick, who had autism and really stood
out in her mind. She wrote, “He doesn’t stand out because of his disability so much, but
more because of the way that other students, and especially teachers pushed him to the
outer edge of everything.” Lydia explained Nick could not speak and had an aide who

stayed with him throughout the entire school day. He would communicate and indicate

115

what he wanted by pointing or spelling out words with his fingers. Lydia described how

he did not really misbehave in class, but would have occasional outbursts.

In his outbursts, Nick would stand up from his chair and run about the
room. He would slap his face repeatedly or put his fingers in his mouth.
The most disturbing behavior he exhibited was when he would sort of
scream or yell out in this very deep and then very shrill tone. Our teacher
never knew how to handle this behavior. So, instead of addressing it or
asking him to sit down, they would sort of ignore him and pretend he
wasn’t even there. This might be easy to do when students are drawing on
their desk. passing notes, or whispering to a friend. It is entirely another
thing to ignore a student when they are running all over the room slapping
themselves and screaming. I always felt uncomfortable in these Situations
because I didn’t know what I was supposed to do. It was very hard to just
ignore what Nick was doing. even though I thought that was what my
teachers wanted me to do. Some teachers would even tell us to ignore him
during these outbursts. I feel that this overlapped into times when Nick
was acting just fine. Students still felt like they were supposed to ignore
Nick and pretend he was invisible. At least, this is how I felt about the
Issues.

In this description of her experiences with Nick, Lydia also wrote that she had

mixed feelings about how to deal with handicapped children like him.

I guess I don’t know how to approach them. I feel like treating them like
they are special or talking to them differently is belittling to them and
frustrating for them. However, I feel that treating them like they are
normal is unrealistic because they are not. To me it says that you have to
be normal to be talked to; if you don’t recognize how they are unique then
it makes it seem like you are avoiding it or something. I don’t really know
how to articulate this or explain it properly. I guess I am just confused.

Soon after Lydia wrote this response, I interviewed her and asked her about the
incident and if she could tell me more about what was going through her mind when she

wrote the assignment. She explained that she was thinking as she was writing and the

116

thoughts just came out. She had not rehearsed what She was going to write. She
commented how the whole issue of inclusion was really frustrating to her because she felt
she was not prepared for it as a teacher. She said that if she were a teacher and received a
student like Nick, she would “be just really scared.” Lydia then told about her cousin who
was adopted and had cerebral palsy and severe mental retardation. She explained how
dealing with her cousin was a big challenge for her. Lydia commented that her aunt
would say, “Treat her like the rest of the kids,” but she would think to herself that her
cousin was not like the rest of kids. Lydia’s writing indicated she was having conflicting
thoughts about how one should treat handicapped children, especially the severely
handicapped. In the coming weeks. Lydia shared her feelings of doubt and concern with
her classmates.

Responding to Christine 's case. After writing about their personal experiences.
students were asked to read Christine’s case and write a response to the article for
homework. Lydia wrote her response and included it in her dialogue journal entry to
Mallory. In this entry, she again shared her frustrations about the issue of inclusion.

I wanted to type my personal response to you for my dialogue journal this

week because the special education inclusion issue is one that I constantly

struggle with and I am curious as to what your thoughts will be regarding

my response to the narrative... I agree with what many of the students in

the classroom [in the article] said after viewing the video; like them, I do

not feel prepared to teach students with special needs. There are some of

my colleagues who have chosen to focus specifically on working with

those types of students with special needs; I have not. They have the

training. patience, and desire; I do not... When Christine compares Alice

and Scan with a group of migrant children in an effort to prove her point, I

feel she was sadly mistaken. With extra time for a short time, ESL

students can begin speaking English and perform as well as any other

student. Down Syndrome students will need special help forever and will
probably never surpass other “normal” students.

117

Lydia’s personal experiences and responses to Christine’s case revealed
how she was wrestling with the “ethical questions and moral consequences” of
including handicapped children in the general education classroom (Lundeberg.
1999, p. 15). Lydia was struggling with issues of equity and equality and
wondered what it meant to be “normal.” Lydia wanted to treat her cousin like
other children, but she wondered how to treat them equally when her handicapped
cousin was obviously “not like the rest of kids.” Lydia’s frustration over not
feeling prepared emerged here and at other times throughout the semester. I
wondered what she meant by being prepared and tried to get her to state more
explicitly what she meant during an interview. Lydia explained, “I wouldn’t know
what to do even when he [Nick] does have an aide.” She added, “I’m supposed to
teach him things, and I don’t know how to like talk to him or act around him.”

These comments, like ones made earlier by Mallory, illustrated the tension
between having an awareness of inclusion and knowing how to act when
confronted with real issues in the classroom. Lundeberg (1999) defined practical
knowledge as “oriented toward performance and arises from the situations and
experiences of teachers” (p. 6). Lydia appeared to be frustrated because she had
not acquired the practical knowledge that was needed for teaching special needs
children. When Lydia said that she did not have the “training, patience, or desire”
to teach children with special needs, she also demonstrated that she had not
developed one of the fundamental orientations for becoming a culturally

responsive teacher. She had not developed the “moral obligation” to “facilitate the

118

growth and development” of all children, not just for some (Villegas & Lucas.
2002.p.53)

When Mallory responded to Lydia’s journal entry, she indicated that she
understood how Lydia felt. She wrote, “Part of me is saying, What? How am I supposed
to have enough time for a class and special needs students?” Mallory provided Lydia with
another perspective. She explained how she felt it was not fair to exclude special
education students from the regular classroom and wrote, “It is quite possible that
learning to teach them is something a teacher learns to do over time. Maybe you can’t be
‘prepared’ for it. it just comes over time.” Mallory admitted it was all a bit scary, but
demonstrated more commitment and favorable View towards inclusion than Lydia. In her
written response to Lydia, Mallory explained that she believed teachers would eventually
work through these difficult issues.

During an interview, Lydia explained that what prompted her to open up and
share her true feelings with Mallory and other group members was a result of something
Mallory had said in class prior to reading Christine’s case. Mallory made a comment
about how sometimes people are afraid to be honest in discussions about inclusion
because they do not want to seem insensitive for feeling inadequate when it comes to
instructing children with severe handicaps. In a writing assignment completed after
students discussed Christine’s case, Lydia wrote that she decided to “just be blunt and
honest” about how she felt after hearing Mallory’s comments. When students discussed
the Christine case in class, Lydia was as honest with her group members as she was with
Mallory. While discussing the case, Lydia made an analogy between people going to the

dentist and students going to special education class. She explained that if you have a

119

vision problem, you wouldn’t go to a dentist for help. She said how She saw nothing
wrong with “admitting to a weakness and going to a specialist for help.” When I heard
Lydia make this comment, it eerily reminded me of when she described going to a
reading specialist in elementary school and explained how her father saw it as a positive
thing. “just as a sick person sees medicine as a solution to a problem.” I couldn’t help but
wonder if Lydia thought of handicapped children as having a problem that needed to be
fixed.

When discussing Christine’s case with classmates, Lydia stated she didn’t think it
was “all ba ” if schools had special education students see specialists rather than
“expecting the regular classroom teacher to do everything.” When Lydia’s group
members heard her make this comment, one of them asked what it would take to make
her feel more comfortable about teaching handicapped children. Lydia responded that
perhaps more knowledge and training would make her feel more comfortable. After she
made this comment, another group member stated that time and experience would make
one more comfortable working with special education students. Lydia’s response was,
“Yeah, but I still don’t want to deal with it.”

According to Villegas and Lucas (2002), teacher candidates who hold a deficit
perspective of diverse Students believe children who “don’t conform to the dominant
culture” are “in need of ‘fixing’” (p. 36). Villegas and Lucas claimed one of the
challenges of preparing culturally responsive teachers is findings ways to confront and
change teacher candidates’ deficit views. Lydia’s experiences Show that even when
confronted with alternative perspectives, her frustration and lack of commitment to

teaching special needs students did not change. Reading and discussing Christine’s case

did not appear to support Lydia in acquiring the fundamental orientations that are needed
to become a culturally responsive teacher. Research on teacher preparation has shown
how difficult it is to change preservice teachers’ attitudes and beliefs (Calderhead &
Robson, 1991; Tillema & Knol, 1997). Lydia’s responses highlight some of the
difficulties in preparing culturally responsive teachers. Her experiences illustrate some of
the challenges teacher educators might face when using cases to prepare teachers for
working with diverse students.

After reading Christine’s case, some students wrote they felt unprepared to teach
handicapped children. For a few teacher candidates, reading the case seemed to enhance
their anxieties and fears about working with special needs students. When teacher
candidates shared some of their responses in small and large group discussions, however,
these concerns and fears were not made public. During our next planning session, Ms.
Pratt explained that she was going to use a fishbowl activity totry to surface some of the
issues that students were not making public. In a fishbowl activity, a group of students
volunteer to sit in a circle and discuss their thoughts about an issue. The rest of the class
sits around this circle, forming an outer circle. The purpose of the fishbowl is to model
small group conversations in front of an entire class. When Ms. Pratt used fishbowl in
class, she explained her reasoning for using it and discussed with students how a teacher
might model and discuss her expectations for small group discussions using a fishbowl.

Lydia volunteered to participate in the discussion during the fishbowl activity and
shared with the entire class the same concerns she had shared with her small group
members. She explained inclusion was “more than just having a teacher who is really

excited” about including students. She added, “You can write papers all day saying how

much you want to include students, but this doesn’t change the fact that people might still
struggle with how exactly they will go about doing this.” In the fishbowl discussion.
Lydia admitted she didn’t know what the goal was for including Special education
students in the regular classrooms. “Is it to be fair?” she asked. One of the special
education preservice teachers in the class responded that she didn’t think it was to make
everything necessarily fair, rather, it was “more to make the special education kids not
feel different from the others and also to make the general education students experience
this.” The response given by the special education student did not seem to satisfy Lydia,
and she continued to share her doubts and concerns about knowing how to include Special
education students in the classroom. The fishbowl discussion surfaced issues of fairness
and equity with the entire class. Lydia’s question encouraged some students to think
about these issues and ask themselves what is fair. The discussion did not. however,
alleviate Lydia’s questions, frustrations, and concerns.

After discussing Christine’s case in class, students were asked to write a reflection
for homework on what they were thinking after reading the article and engaging in the
class discussions. In her reflection, Lydia wrote, “I do not know what else to say about
teaching in inclusive learning communities.” She expressed a frustration of feeling that
she was being pushed to come up with “some kind of right answer.” In this assignment,

she reflected on when she shared her feelings with her small group members.

I decided to just be blunt and honest about how I feel. My group seemed
sort of shocked. I told them that I do not completely agree with
inclusion... It might not even be about the training issues because if the
training was offered to me I don’t think I would take it. I’m just not
interested. I sound like a jerk to some people for saying this, but I am
trying to be honest.

122

Issuesfrom thefield. About the same time Lydia was struggling with issues of
inclusion in her ED 222 course. she was also observing how her collaborating teacher
was struggling with Similar issues in the elementary classroom. In her dialogue journal
entries, Lydia spoke about a student in the field who had attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder (ADHD) and was creating a lot of behavior problems in the classroom. Lydia’s
collaborating teacher spoke with Lydia about her frustrations working the child and
openly discussed how she was struggling with knowing what to do. Lydia wrote about
the child with ADHD and explained how the classroom teacher was thinking about
seating the child away from his classmates, who were sitting in a small group
arrangement, so he could not disturb his peers. Lydia’s collaborating teacher stated that
she might put tape marks on the floor so that the child would know the boundaries for
where he should place his desk. Lydia felt uncomfortable with this idea. When she wrote
about her field experiences prior to reading Christine’s case, Lydia stated,

This bothers me but I don’t know of another solution... I can’t imagine

how he will feel when he is alone all the time, while everyone else sits

together in groups. However, it isn’t fair for his neighbors to suffer

because of his distractions either.

These comments were written near the end of the semester and revealed how Lydia was
struggling with how inclusion can be fair when what benefits one child might not benefit
another. In Lydia’s eyes, she could not envision a resolution that would benefit both the
student with ADHD and the other students in the class. Lydia was frustrated with this
situation because she was aware that the “solution” for the problem could marginalize

some students while favoring others. She was dealing with the very issues of equity and

equality that Ms. Pratt had wanted students to understand and consider. Lydia understood

123

the issues at hand but still struggled with the practicalities of what a teacher does in such
situations.

In the final two weeks of the semester. Lydia described to her group members and
wrote about how her attitude towards inclusion was undergoing change. In weeks ten and
eleven of the semester, Lydia appeared frustrated with the whole idea of inclusion. In
week thirteen she was unusually quiet in class and did not contribute to any whole class
discussions on the issue. The previous week, however, she had shared her viewpoints and
frustrations in the fishbowl activity. In week fourteen, Lydia shared her ED 222 portfolio
to group members and discussed the growth she had experienced throughout the course.
AS I walked around the room listening to students share their portfolios, I overheard
unusually positive and uplifting comments coming from Lydia. I positioned myself so I
could hear her talking to her group and later revisited the audio recording of this
discussion. Lydia commented how in the beginning, she “wasn’t really excited” about the
idea of inclusion. However, she had seriously considered a comment a classmate,
Brianna, made in class.

During the fishbowl activity, Brianna told the class that teachers couldn’t just say,
“I don’t want to teach those students.” Brianna pointed out that teachers have the
responsibility to teach all students and picking and choosing whom you want to teach is
not an option. Lydia told her group she agreed with Brianna’s comments and explained
that she now understood in the real world you can’t just say, “I don’t have the training so
I’m not going to do it.” Lydia also told her group that she still agreed with what she wrote
in her dialogue journal about her concerns for inclusion but was now considering the

issue from a new perspective. Lydia acknowledged that teachers have to take some

responsibility on their own for learning more about disabilities if they have a special
needs student in their class. She acknowledged that there were a number of places where
she could go for information and for help. During the small group conversation. Lydia
admitted she was now more willing and excited about the prospect of teaching special
education students than she was earlier in the semester.

As I listened to Lydia’s comments, I was quite amazed by her change in attitude.
What had contributed to such a change? When I read her final self-assessment and
interviewed her at the end of the semester, Lydia explained how it all started to come
together. It appeared Lydia’s experiences in the course and her experiences in the field
had combined together to give her a better understanding of how teachers create inclusive
classrooms and support the learning of all students. She explained that she began to see
that even experienced teachers struggle with these issues and there are no “right”
answers. In our second interview, Lydia explained how seeing] her collaborating teacher
struggle with the very issues that were being discussed in ED 222 helped her realize how
a teacher would actually go about making her classroom an inclusive one. Lydia
explained that she was very concerned with her collaborating teacher’s decision to isolate
the ADHD child in her class; however, in one of her last field visits she realized the
teacher was not isolating him. She stated, “This is how she is including him because now
he can be who he has to be to learn stuff, like when he’s learning and the most engaged,
he’s the loudest.” She added, “I realized that while she was isolating him initially, that
was how she was making him a better member of the community.”

In a sense, what Lydia realized was that treating a student fairly, for his best

interest, did not necessarily mean he was treated just like the others. Lydia commented

125

that the child was separated from the others just enough so his movements in the desk
would not bump and disrupt his neighbors; however, he sat just close enough that he still
functioned as a member of the group. Lydia also saw how the teacher strategically placed
the child near students with whom he worked best. Lydia realized that treating students
equally and fairly did not necessarily mean that she had to treat students exactly the same.
During her second interview, Lydia explained that many things occurred at the
end of the semester that helped contribute to her change in attitude towards inclusion.
First, discussions in ED 222 influenced the way she observed students during her field
visits. Reading and discussing cases and viewing teaching on RCE helped her realize
what she should be observing then in the field. Instead of labeling the issue surrounding
the ADHD student as a simple behavior problem, she explained that she was now seeing
it as a problem related to inclusion. Second, she began to realize teachers are constantly
struggling with issues and learning new things; there are no “right” answers. Lydia
explained how she was fascinated by the fact that Ms. Pratt left classroom teaching to
pursue more education at the university level. She was intrigued that an experienced
classroom teacher was seeking to learn more. At the same time, Lydia observed her CT
trying out new things and showing that she, another experienced teacher, also had more
to learn. Lydia explained that seeing her collaborating teacher, an experienced teacher,
struggling with the very issues that were being discussed in the course helped her realize
teachers are constantly problem solving in the classroom and are constantly learning.
Third, Lydia began to realize resources exist for teachers as they struggle with problems
and continue to learn. For example, she saw how her CT sought advice from other people

and realized the Internet and programs like RCE could also serve as resources.

126

In her last interview, Lydia explained how she was beginning to see teachers in an
entirely new way. She explained that she had first thought teachers already knew
everything but was now seeing teachers “as life-long learners.” She stated, “It’s like if
you [the teacher] are a learner, then you can be like the lead learner among them
[students in the class].” Lydia explained how thinking about herself as a lead learner
made her excited. She stated that she realized she would never have “the answer,” but she
now understood that teachers are always learning, using different resources to support
this learning. Lydia’s changing beliefs about knowledge and finding “the answer” support
what others have learned about the ways cases can support teacher candidates’
epistemological awareness and growth (Barnett & Tyson, 1993, 1999; Lundeberg &
Fawver, 1994; Lundeberg et al., 1999). Researchers have discovered that case discussions
can affect teacher candidates’ views regarding sources of knowledge and provide them
with a stronger sense of autonomy (Barnett & Tyson, 1993, 1999).

Reflections on Lydia ’s experiences. Lydia’s journey was a complex one that
involved personal writings, small and large group discussions, responding to cases,
participating in a field experience, and a variety of other activities that occurred
throughout the semester. She admitted she could have easily responded to assignments in
class by writing “a long spiel” about how she was “really excited to create an inclusive
learning community.” However, she described in her final self-assessment that She
decided to instead explore the issues because, in the long run, it “would be a better road”
for her. When asked, Lydia could not explain why she decided to personally confront
these issues in class. However, in her final self-assessment she explained that reading

Christine’s case was a key turning point for her in the course. She acknowledged that

127

reading the case was when the issue of inclusion became “very real” to her and when she
began to openly struggle with the issues.

Reading and responding to written cases was one of the most helpful

things for me this semester as far as personal learning & growth are

concerned. The Christine case was how I began to seriously think about

my attitude towards inclusive learning communities. I really struggled

with this, and in the end was inspired to learn all that I could about

building these types of communities.

Lydia’s journey stands out from the others because she was the only
student in the class who publicly criticized and questioned the idea of inclusion.
Perhaps she was not the only one undergoing such questioning and turmoil over
the issue; however, she was the only one who openly expressed her critical views
consistently throughout the semester with the entire class. Acknowledging and
understanding Lydia’s journey is important because it shows how various aspects
of the course came together for her, and it illustrates the role personal stories and
cases had in this journey. Reading cases, discussing cases, and observing
dilemmas in the field exposed Lydia to issues of inclusion that were not consistent
with her views and beliefs. According to conceptual change theory, discrepant
images can create cognitive dissonance and prompt conceptual change (Posner et
al., 1982). Before change can occur, however, Lydia would have to view her own
existing conceptions with some dissatisfaction before considering a new one. This
description of how conceptions come to change does provide some explanation
for Lydia’s experiences. However, what prompted Lydia to become dissatisfied

with her views is not clear. Lydia admitted that she could have responded to

Christine’s case saying what others wanted to hear, even if she didn’t believe

128

what she was saying. However, she chose to confront and try to understand what
was causing such dissonance rather than ignore it.

What causes some students to ignore dissonance, maintaining their
original beliefs, while others confront it? Lydia provided some insight when she
stated that the Christine case made her think about her own attitudes, and the
issues became very real to her. Discussing the issues in class, writing about
similar personal experiences. and seeing issues of inclusion being confronted in
the field all provided ways to make the issues real. However, it wasn’t until Lydia
took ownership for the issues and began to make connections between these
various experiences did a change in her conceptions begin to occur. Lydia’s story
shows how her discoveries evolved over time and demonstrates how making the
connection between course work and the field, with one supporting the other,
became one critical turning point for her in the course. Informal conversations
with Lydia and Mallory revealed some of their friends in the course shared the
same concerns Lydia expressed in class. However, these concerns were usually
revealed in one-on-one conversations between friends, sometimes occurring
outside the classrooms. They were not openly revealed with others in the class.

At the end of the semester during her second interview, Lydia expressed
her frustration with her classmates for not speaking out, questioning the purpose
of inclusion, and engaging in class discussions with a more critical view. She felt
this lack of support from her peers helped her realize she had to tackle these
issues on her own and seek out other resources that would support her in her own

learning. Lydia admitted that at one point in time, she felt she would “never be

129

able to understand how an inclusive learning community would work.” In her
final self-assessment, she stated that she remembered being “relatively hopeless
about the whole situation.” Once Lydia began to make various connections
throughout the semester, however, she began to view issues of inclusion and the
teaching of diverse students in new ways. Some of her tensions and frustrations
began to disappear when she saw how a teacher could take action and solve
practical classroom dilemmas while maintaining an inclusive learning
environment. Lydia explained how the combination of different experiences
helped her grow into a better learner who was more open to thinking about and

discussing issues of inclusion.

Learning from Stories

What can we learn from the experiences of Mallory and Lydia? Even though
these two teacher candidates do not represent the entire class, their stories reveal that
engaging students in personal writing activities and having them read and respond to
written cases can lead to a deeper awareness and understanding of what it means to create
inclusive learning communities. Focus students began to question and critique the
limitations of their assumptions and beliefs about teaching diverse learners when they
made connections between their personal experiences. field experiences, and the cases
they were learning about in class. Engaging in conversations with peers and hearing
alternative perspectives were especially important, because sometimes the simple act of
writing about experiences and reading cases did not encourage teacher candidates to look

critically at the assumptions they held.

130

These findings are important; however, they are not unexpected when considering
the research that has already been done on case methodology and narrative studies.
Lundeberg, Levin. and Harrington (1999) stated that even though they thought using
cases with preservice teachers fostered development in a variety of areas, they knew little
about how this development happened. This study is significant because it illustrates how
following the experiences of five focus students provided new insights that other
narrative and case methodology studies have not provided. What is significant about
focus students’ responses is that they illustrate the process in which individuals made
meaning from case-based activities and personal writing assignments By using narrative
as both a pedagogical approach and as a method for analyzing data, narrative stories
emerged and could be analyzed to see how teacher candidates formed new
understandings about inclusion.

Mallory’s and Lydia’s stories illustrated how reflecting upon and revisiting their
personal writings helped create a framework for talking about their experiences in the
course. When they spoke about new insights, changing beliefs, and their most powerful
learning moments in the course, they usually did so by making connections to the
personal stories and relating these stories to course and field experiences. Mallory’s and
Lydia’s greatest growth did not come from a single case, a single writing activity, or a
single discussion. These experiences arose from both carefully structured activities and
from experiences that could not have been planned in advance. Ms. Pratt provided
scaffolding for course activities by modeling activities, providing prompts to support case

discussions, and having students share personal stories. However, she found it was not

131

always easy to find ways to help students make connections across activities. She also
found it difficult to find time in class for students to discuss these connections.

Mallory’s and Lydia’s experiences are significantbecause they reveal some of the
challenges teacher educators might face when using narrative and case activities in their
classes as they attempt to prepare teacher candidates for working with diverse students.
Ms. Pratt spoke about her frustration when students did not openly share their thoughts
during class discussions, and Lydia also expressed frustration with her peers for not being
more critical of the issues during class. Having students work in fixed groups where
relationships could form and having them write to a dialogue journal partner throughout
the semester did surface critical issues. Group discussions and Open dialogue
conversations created opportunities for students to hear and critique one another’s
perspectives. The fishbowl conversation allowed more ideas to become public; however,
there were still some individuals who did not speak out during these discussions and felt
it was harder to speak in front of a large group rather than a small group.

Focus students’ responses to case activities revealed a tension between developing
an awareness of inclusive learning environments and knowing how to actually create
these environments. Making connections between cases and the field made some focus
students begin to think about issues of equity and equality in the classrooms, issues that
they had not previously considered when reading Christine’s case. Discussing cases,
relating them to personal experiences, and seeing connections in the field supported
teacher candidates in acquiring the fundamental orientations that are needed to become
culturally responsive teachers. Comments made throughout the semester illustrated the

variety of ways teacher candidates were constructing definitions of inclusion. Some

132

teacher candidates thought of inclusion as acceptance of others, regardless of their skin
color, cultural background, language, or ability. One defined it as “giving all a fair chance
to learn” and explained how it was a teachers’ responsibility and moral obligation to
teach all students. Another came to understand that inclusion meant talking about
difference in ways that honor all children’s backgrounds.

These emerging definitions of inclusion illustrate what can occur when personal
writings and case activities are used to prepare teacher candidates for teaching diverse
students. Understanding how teacher candidates come to define inclusion through these
experiences expands what has been previously learned in narrative and case studies.
Teacher candidates’ responses. however. also revealed that there was tension between
developing an awareness of inclusion and being able to act upon this awareness. In the
next chapter, I illustrate how course activities and cases, especially the “Goodnight
Moon” case and hypermedia cases, assisted teacher candidates in moving from awareness

to action.

133

Chapter 4 Moving From Awareness to Action

The purpose of this study was to investigate how teacher candidates responded to
case activities, how their personal stories and experiences interacted with their
interpretation of cases. and how their views of teaching diverse learners changed over
time. In Chapter 3, I introduced stories of focus students to illustrate how teacher
candidates constructed new definitions of inclusion when engaged in personal writing
and case activities. These stories revealed how making connections between personal
experiences, field experiences, and course activities prompted some teacher candidates to
have powerful learning experiences. Chapter 3 introduced some of the tensions that
occurred when teacher candidates developed an awareness of inclusive learning
environments but felt unable to act on this awareness. In this chapter, I illustrate how
personal writing and case activities helped move focus students from awareness to action.
These activities helped teacher candidates understand the role of the teacher in inclusive
learning environments. They also helped teacher candidates begin to acquire the
knowledge and skills that are needed to provide children with literate learning
experiences in these environments.

This chapter presents some of the ways personal writing and case activities
assisted focus students in making a connection from theory to practice. The tensions
between theory and practice in teacher education are not uncommon. Researchers have
written about the lack of impact that teacher education courses seem to have on
preservice teachers (F eiman-Nemser, 1883, 1987; Kennedy, 1999). They have found that

preservice teachers frequently complain that education courses place too much emphasis

134

on theory and not enough on actually teaching them how to teach (F eiman-Nemser, 1983;
Lampert & Ball, 1999; Lortie, 1975). Additional tensions also emerge when teacher
educators’ views of teaching do not match the views thatteacher candidates bring to their
education courses. Studies have revealed that teacher candidates frequently view teaching
as primarily involving the development and refinement of technical skills (Bartolome.
1994; Giroux. 1989; Moje & Wade, 1997; Tippins. Nichols, & Dana, 1999). This view
of teaching can lead teacher candidates to expect their education courses to provide them
with a set of tools and techniques that will work in classroom teaching situations (Moje &
Wade, 1997; Tippins, Nichols, & Dana, 1999).

Villegas and Lucas (2002) stated that a central task of culturally responsive
teachers is “to create a classroom environment in which all students are encouraged to
make sense of new ideas - that is, to construct knowledge that helps them better
understand the world - rather than merely memorizing predigested information” (p. 92).
Villegas and Lucas also stated that culturally responsive teachers “tailor instruction to
their students rather than impose singular teaching styles to which all students must
adapt” (p. 102). These visions of culturally responsive teachers parallel the goals that Ms.
Pratt and the team of literacy instructors had for their courses. They designed a literacy
methods curriculum around the theme of building inclusive learning environments so that
they could help their students develop an understanding of what it means to teach diverse
learners. They promoted constructivist views of learning that acknowledge difference not
as a deficit but as something to build upon. Throughout the semester, Ms. Pratt created

opportunities for students to engage in personal writing and case activities while

135

continually posing the questions, “What does it mean to create an inclusive learning
community?”

In the following sections, 1 describe how personal. writing and case activities
assisted focus students in acquiring the knowledge and skills for teaching literacy and
creating inclusive learning environments. The majority of this chapter describes what
focus students learned: however, I occasionally describe how others in the class
responded to activities to provide a context for focus student findings. I present the
findings in two sections. In the first section, I examine how one particular case activity
helped teacher candidates begin to reconsider the role of the teacher in an inclusive
learning environment. In this section, I describe how focus students began to understand
how teachers’ actions in classrooms could impact the learning of their students. I also
Share the story of how one focus student realized that she had .to confront her own past if
she wanted to create a supportive learning community for children. [In the second section,
I describe how teacher candidates developed general content and pedagogical knowledge
for teaching diverse learners. I highlight some of the case activities that provided teacher
candidates with examples of how teachers can accommodate and adapt literacy
instruction for a diverse range of learners. I end the chapter by summarizing what

supported focus students in acting upon their awareness and understandings of inclusion.

Reconsidering the Role of the Teacher
During the first few weeks of the semester, I began to see indications that focus
students were beginning to think about the role of the teacher in new ways. It was during

these weeks that Ms. Pratt introduced issues of learning communities, theories of

136

learning, and teachers’ conceptualizations of literacy instruction. Ms. Pratt’s first
homework assignment required teacher candidates to read McGee and Tompkins’ (1995)
article titled, Literature-Based Reading Instruction: What 's Guiding the Instruction?
This article described how literature-based reading instruction could result in very
different approaches and activities in classrooms. The article demonstrated this by
presenting four different teachers, descriptions of their teaching, and the theoretical
approaches that guided their literature-based instruction. In the second week of class
while students were discussing the article, Ms. Pratt asked who gained and who lost when
a teacher chose a specific instructional approach for his or her classroom. One of the
goals that Ms. Pratt and other instructors had for their courses was to develop teacher
candidates’ awareness of the ways children can be marginalized or excluded from
learning opportunities. They also wanted teacher candidates to become aware of how an
unintended, hidden curriculum9 could privilege some children and not others. Ms. Pratt
hoped that by asking the question, “Who gains and who loses?” she would assist teacher
candidates in thinking more critically about teacher decision-making and classroom
instruction. She also hoped that asking the question early in the semester would help
teacher candidates begin to think about issues of equity and equality in the classroom.
Teacher candidates responded to Ms. Pratt’s question by describing how
children who don’t like to read, who don’t like to talk in small groups, and who are poor
readers might be at a disadvantage when teachers use a literature-based approach to
instruction. After discussing the article, Ms. Pratt informed students that they were going
to read for homework another article that introduced a teacher who was struggling with

her own conceptualization of literacy. In this article, Peace Takes Practice, (TTP, 1997) a

 

9 See chapter 2 for a definition and discussion of the hidden curriculum.

137

teacher described her struggles to make her classroom a peaceful, learning community for
all students. The article described how the teacher, Lourdes, confronted her own reactions
to disturbances in the classroom and realized that her first, natural reaction to children’s
behavioral problems was not necessarily the kind of reaction that she wanted to act upon.

While discussing Peace Takes Practice during the third week of class. teacher
candidates were asked to think about the various communities in which they belonged.
Ms. Pratt asked students to think about how they fit into each of these communities and
how people learn the social norms for various communities. Ms. Pratt also asked teacher
candidates to think about classroom communities and how children come to learn the
social norms of the classroom. She added, “Who will determine which culture is
privileged? Which is marginalized?” After introducing these questions, she had students
form pairs and discuss the following questions: What does Lourdes value? What does she
believe about literacy? What influences her decisions? Who gains and who loses when
she makes these decisions? These questions prompted much discussion both in and out of
class. Focus students revisited the question of “Who gains and who loses” in their
dialogue journals and during interviews.

llo when she asked her

Ms. Pratt indirectly introduced issues of cultural capita
students to think about the social norms of communities and how children come to learn
the social norms of classrooms. Nieto (2002) argued that the experiences of children with
culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds and those raised in poverty “tend to be
quite different from the experiences of more economically and socially advantaged

students” (p. 8). Since the cultural capital that is privileged in schools reflects primarily

the values and goals of the White, middle class society, children from diverse

 

'0 See chapter 2 for a definition and discussion of cultural capital.

138

backgrounds can become marginalized in schools when teachers hold lower expectations
for them (Feiman-Nemser & Buchmann's, 1989; Feimen-Nemser, 1990; Hollingsworth,
1998; McDiarmid & Price, 1993). Ms. Pratt wanted teacher candidates to become more
aware of issues surrounding equity vs. equality, cultural capital, and the hidden
curriculum when making literacy instructional decisions. One of the ways she assisted
them in thinking about these issues was by having them think about who gains and who
loses when teachers make certain decisions in the classroom.

Ms. Pratt’s question of who gains and who loses prompted teacher candidates to
reevaluate and question the role of the teacher. One focus student, Jackie, was instantly
struck by the question of who gains and who loses and wrote about it in a dialogue
journal entry.

The question posed in class about who gains and who loses from a

situation really opened my eyes. I had never thought about students who

might not gain from the method of something being taught, especially in

the cases where the methods being used were ones I benefited greatly

from. For instance, when we were reflecting in our groups. I was sharing

how I really enjoyed incorporating personal experiences into activities.

However, I had never stopped to consider those children who may have

not grown up with good past experiences to draw and make connections.

When I interviewed Jackie later in the semester, she shared what she expressed in
her dialogue journal and explained that she felt these new ideas greatly impacted her. She
described how she believed thinking in this way, asking herself who gains and who loses,
helped her to become more flexible and more aware that students might not be getting
something out of an activity. Villegas and Lucas (2002) wrote that built into the fabric of

schools “are curricular, pedagogical, and evaluative practices that intentionally or

unintentionally privilege the affluent, white, and male segments of society” (p. 30). They

139

Stated that from childhood, we are told that “schools ‘level the playing field.’ providing
opportunities for all, regardless of social background, by serving as the impartial grounds
on which individuals freely prove their merit” (p. 30). Jackie’s journal entry revealed that
she was beginning to consider how schools might not level the playing field. She was
beginning to develop a cultural awareness and an understanding that others do not
necessarily share her personal perspective. Such awareness, according to Villegas and
Lucas, is an initial step in developing sociocultural awareness and becoming a culturally
responsive teacher. Jackie was beginning to see that she and her students might not Share
the same experiences and was considering how this might impact children in a classroom
environment.

Lydia, another focus student, was also struck by the question of who gains and
who loses. In her first interview, she explained that she had never thought about who
gains and who loses until Ms. Pratt asked the question in class. Lydia stated, “I never
really thought about who’d gain or lose and like how everything I do will effect
[students] in such a great way.” Lydia related the ideas of who gains and loses to her own
elementary experiences. In one of her personal writings that described her literate
experiences growing up, Lydia described how her elementary school had switched from a
phonics based, traditional approach of literacy instruction to a more holistic approach that
focused heavily on writing workshop. She remembered all of the phonics workbooks
being thrown away during the middle of second grade and described teachers’ literacy
instruction was drastically changed for the rest of her elementary schooling.

In her mid-semester assessment, Lydia reflected again on her school experiences

and wrote that she felt she had “lost out” when the school changed its literacy program.

140

She described how she later changed schools and took standardized tests that asked about
specific grammar points that she could not answer. She also remembered taking a
university English course and being unfamiliar with how to diagram a sentence. Lydia
explained that she began to realize how much her prior schooling had impacted her when
her classmates commented that the English class in which she was enrolled would be a
guaranteed 4.0 because it was all a review of what they had learned in middle school. For
Lydia, however, this was not a review. In her self-assessment, Lydia commented on the
role that learning theories have on teacher decision-making and reflected on her prior
schooling experiences. She began to form clearer ideas about the ways teachers’ actions
can positively or negatively impact students and wrote about these ideas in her self-
assessment.

This makes me feel a lot of pressure. This situation makes me realize that

not only will learning theories force me to make decisions in my

classroom. those decisions are serious. My decisions will affect the way

my students learn, and will define what they learn about and what they do

not. This is a big deal, and up until recently I never realized how much

responsibility teachers have on their shoulders.

Studies have shown that preservice teachers’ hold transmissive views of teaching
(Joram & Gabriele, 1998; Moje & Wade, 1997; Tillema & Knol, 1997), and these views
can lead teacher candidates into believing that teaching is a politically neutral activity
(Bartolome, 1994; Giroux. 1989). Researchers have also found that preservice teachers
tend to believe that children themselves are responsible for their academic problems
(Gomez, 1996; Paine, 1989). As Lydia reflected upon her own schooling experiences.
however, she saw how teaching is not neutral. She began to recognize how teachers

define what is learned in classrooms and realized that teachers have more responsibility

that she had originally thought. Writing about and reflecting upon her own personal

141

experiences provided Lydia with a real example of how students can gain or lose when
teachers make instructional decisions.

When asked the question of who gains and who loses, Sadie. a third focus student,
also began to think about the role of the teacher and made connections to her own
personal experiences. During her first interview, she commented, “I never thought of the
people that aren’t getting anything from the way a teacher is teaching.” She added,

It’s just when I was in school. that was the way they taught and there was

no other way. You know? So it was like either you get it or you don’t. And

if you don’t, I guess you get extra help.

Sadie laughed at herself as She explained what she used to think, “I didn’t even realize
there could be another way. It’s just a teacher teaches the way she teaches and all the
other teachers teach the same way. And there is no other way!” During the interview,
Sadie continued to explain how her new view on the role that.teachers play in the
classroom was impacting her thoughts as she participated in other university courses. She
explained how when she now sat in other classes, she thought about the way instructors
taught. She said that she began to notice moments in class when other students were not
understanding and began to think about how the instructor could possibly restate a phrase
or change his or her instruction so that more students could be included. Sadie explained
how she was now thinking about how her instructors could teach “the same thing in a
bunch of different ways.”

Sadie, like Lydia, was thinking about the ways in which teaching is not neutral.
Instead of believing that students are responsible for their own academic failures, Sadie
was beginning to see the responsibility that teachers have for teaching all students.

Villegas and Lucas (2002) explained that culturally responsive teachers help students

142

access their prior knowledge, “deliberately plan and implement instruction so as to
involve all students,” and “tailor instruction to their students rather than impose a Singular
teaching style to which all students must adapt” (p. 102). Thinking about who gains and
who loses in classrooms prompted Sadie to think about her own schooling experiences
and the beliefs she used to have about teachers. When Sadie reflected upon these issues
and experiences, she began to see new responsibilities and a new role for the teacher.

These various experiences revealed how reading a case like Peace Takes Practice
and thinking about an instructor’s questions assisted focus students in reconsidering the
role of the teacher. These examples show how focus students wrestled with the question
of who gains and who loses at different times throughout the semester. As they thought
about the question and reflected upon personal experiences, focus students began
developing sociocultural awareness and understanding how teaching is not neutral. They
began to see how teachers’ decisions could impact students and began to develop a new
awareness of teachers’ responsibilities. One might wonder how these experiences would
have been different if Ms. Pratt never asked students to consider who gains and who
loses. Studies have shown that when preservice teachers read or view cases of classroom
teaching, they tend to be critical of teachers and focus on classroom management rather
than the effectiveness of instruction (Moje & Wade, 1997; Tippins, Nichols, & Data.
199). They also rarely analyze the “purpose or function of the major activity structures”
in the classroom (Tippins et al., 1999, p. 345).

Ms. Pratt assisted teacher candidates in thinking more critically about instruction
when she had teacher candidates consider how teachers’ theories of learning impact their

decisions in classrooms. She also prompted teacher candidates to think more critically

143

when she asked the question of who gains and who loses when these decisions are made.
The scaffolding that Ms. Pratt provided for case discussions helped teacher candidates
think about instruction from 3 students’ perspective. Ms..Pratt designed activities that
allowed teacher candidates to write about and reflect upon personal experiences that
related to issues of who gains and who loses. Teacher candidates might not have
reconsidered the role of the teacher if this support were missing.

The impact of children 's cultures. All of the focus students grew up in Michigan
and came from small towns. All but Mallory had very limited experiences with people
from other cultures. When asked about the schools and communities where they grew up,
focus students described similar settings and depicted schools that had little or no ethnic
and cultural diversity. When asked to describe the kinds of experiences that they have
had with diverse groups of people, the majority of teacher candidates in the class stated
that their most diverse experience was coming to MWU. Since today’s k-12 classrooms
are becoming increasingly more diverse (Ladson-Billings, 1999; Nieto, 2002), teacher
educators are frequently placed in the same situation where Ms. Pratt found herself,
wondering what was the most effective way for preparing a mostly white, female teacher
candidate population for working with children who are very different from themselves.
When teacher candidates read the “Goodnight Moon” case, I began to see how cases
were helping teacher candidates develop an awareness of how a child’s culture can
impact the experiences and learning opportunities that he or she has in the classroom.

The “Goodnight Moon” casell was a short, two-page case describing an incident

that occurred when a Native Alaskan teacher read the book Goodnight Moon (Brown.

 

'1 See chapter 2 for a detailed description of the “Goodnight Moon” case and a description of how Ms. Pratt
used it in her class.

144

1991) to Native Alaskan children. The first page of the case described the incident where
children unexpectedly started to cry when their teacher read the story Goodnight Moon.
The second page explained that children were so frightened because they usually slept in
family beds, were not accustomed to sleeping alone in the dark, and found the concept of
going to bed in the dark was quite scary. When Ms. Pratt introduced the case, she only
had teacher candidates read and respond to the first page. Teacher candidates’ responses
greatly varied as they tried to figure out why the children in the case began to cry. Some
teacher candidates expressed how they were confused about the case and felt that Kae.
the teacher in the case, had not expected the children to respond to the story in a negative
way. They felt that Kae had not properly prepared for the lesson but seemed to be
sympathetic towards her case.

One group that discussed the case together explained how they treated the case as
mystery and problem that needed to be solved. Others, however, had a completely
different reaction to the incident. Some teacher candidates thought that Kae purposely
read the story with the intention of scaring the children. Some teacher candidates thought
that Kae had poorly prepared for the lesson and should not have engaged children in a
conversation around the book in the way that she did. Another group of teacher
candidates reacted very strongly to the case and said that Kae was crazy for emphasizing
parts of the story that scared the children. Mallory, who was one of the most critical of
the case, swore that Kae was some kind of “maniac.” When a more sympathetic view of
Kae was shared with the entire class, Mallory would repeat again and again that Kae was
crazy. She seemed resistant to view Kae in a more positive light. Even though these

critical responses of teachers can be typical from teacher candidates (Tippins et al.,

145

1999), I was still surprised at teacher candidates’ negative and critical reactions to this
case. Many of the teacher candidates seemed very quick to judge Kae without having a
complete understanding of what was really happening.

Ms. Pratt passed out the second page of the case after teacher candidates had a
chance to voice their reactions. When teacher candidates read the second page, they
expressed surprise that culture could have such an impact on how children interpreted the
story. Almost all of the teacher candidates stated that they had never considered that the
children’s response to the story was culturally related. Even though the final class
discussion was less emotional and critical than when teacher candidates first responded to
the case, I still did not feel that the activity had gone well and that teacher candidates had
learned much from it. Some teacher candidates expressed that they were still confused
about the case. even after reading page two, and I did not understand why they were
confused.

At the end of class, Ms. Pratt had students write a reflection on the day’s
activities. She asked them to explain if the “Goodnight Moon” case made them think
differently about teaching diverse learners and creating an inclusive learning community.
Teacher candidates’ reflections revealed new understandings and insights that were not
mentioned when they discussed the case in class. In their written reflections and in focus
student interviews, teacher candidates commented how the case made them think about
the role and responsibilities of the teacher in an inclusive learning community. One focus
student, Lizz, commented in her class reflection that the case was a “definite eye-opener”

because “it’s easy to assume that everyone thinks just like you. Teachers have to be very

146

careful in examining the diversity of their classroom and researching students’
backgrounds.” Another focus student. Jackie, wrote.

To a certain extent we live in a world of “sameness” and we forget that not

everyone acts like us. This story made me realize that a great deal of

thought has to go into planning lessons. Also, it might be good to ask

questions to get a feel for a child’s ideas and background experiences.

Jackie also shared how the case made her realize that teachers need to take into
consideration their students’ backgrounds. prior experiences, and knowledge when
planning instruction. When Lydia responded to the case. she explained that the case made
her think about how teachers create inclusive learning environments and the importance
of building a safe, inclusive community. Sadie wrote that the case made her think about
how Kae made her instruction inclusive. She explained that even though all the children
were crying, the teacher and students had something in common and were doing the
activity together.

During interviews, focus students again talked about the “Goodnight Moon” case
and described how they learned from it. In one interview, Mallory emphasized that it
wasn’t just the case that made her realize the impact that culture can have on teaching; it
was the format in which the case was presented. She explained that being able to solve
the problem on her own and being encouraged to think about all the possible reasons why
children responded negatively before being presented with the real reason made the case
much more powerful. Mallory explained how she tried to come up with various
explanations for what was occurring in the case. She explained that when she realized
that she had never considered culture to be a factor, she thought, “Oh, my gosh! There

really are different cultures.” Carter (1999) wrote, “Rather than simply illustrating, a case

as problem situation becomes a canvas on which various types of information are

147

combined and arranged to resolve an issue or dilemma” (p. 167). Teacher candidates’
responses to the ”Goodnight Moon” case revealed the reasoning that students used as
they tried to makes sense and understand the case. Focus students’ responses revealed
that analyzing and discussing the case made them think about the role of the teacher and
how teachers create inclusive learning communities. They became more aware of the
thought and planning that goes into teaching and recognized that teachers need to
consider a child’s background and culture when planning instruction. In the next section,
1 illustrate how one focus student, Sadie, began to realize that understanding her own
background and culture was also important when creating an inclusive learning
community.

The impact of one 's own culture. Sadie was the last of the focus students I decided
to include in this study. At the beginning of the semester when students reflected on their
early literate experiences, Sadie wrote, “I don’t remember how I learned to read and
write.” Her response did not reveal anything about her early experiences with reading
other than it was easy for her to learn and that her family was not one “to use big words.”
When reading this response, my first impression was that Sadie rushed through the
assignment and had not given it careful thought or consideration. Her second personal
writing, where She described the kind of school where she would like to teach, was
equally lacking in content and detail. I began to see a different side of Sadie, however,
during her first interview.

In one of my first questions, I asked her again about her early literacy
experiences. I wanted to see if I could get more information than she had provided in

writing. Once again, she responded. “To tell you the truth, I really don’t remember

148

anything.” I thought this was odd for a person to claim that he or she didn’t remember
anything. I sat quietly and let Sadie continue to talk, and she began to slowly reveal
things about herself. She stated that she remembered being a “bad kid” and getting into
trouble all the time; however, she also remembered really liking school. She described
how she “hung out” with students who were a “bad influence” on her but did not
elaborate on why they were a bad influence. She indicated that going to college was not
an expectation that she or others had for herself and explained that most of her friends
during high school did not plan to go to college.

I began to think about Sadie’s dialogue journals when she told me about her high
school experiences. I remembered her first entry when she introduced herself to her
journal partner. After our interview, I revisited this entry. In it, she had written a little
more about herself and her family. She wrote that she was married to her best friend and
had no children. She wrote that her mother had just recently married, and she never knew
her father. He had passed away when she was young. In our interview, Sadie indicated
that she had not had a happy childhood and did not like to think about it. Not much else
was said about her past in her writings and during our interviews. I began to wonder if
my initial impressions about Sadie had been incorrect. Perhaps she was more invested in
the course than I had thought, and maybe she didn’t write much in her early assignments
because she was not willing or interested in revisiting her past.

AS the semester progressed, Sadie indicated that writing about herself was
uncomfortable and that she didn’t enjoy it. This was consistent with the comments that
She made about not wanting to think about her past. It made sense that Sadie would not

enjoy some of the writing activities in Ms. Pratt’s class because Ms. Pratt frequently

149

asked students to reflect upon and write about past experiences. Even though she was
uncomfortable talking about herself, however, Sadie did value these assignments. I was
not aware of this until I read one of her dialogue journal entries. In it, she wrote, “I think
it is exciting to think about literacy and to think about our past experiences and how that
shapes what we feel about literacy.” In another entry she asked her dialogue partner,
“What do you think about the activity we did in class about our personal literacy
conceptualization? I thought it was cool to think about how we want to teach literacy and
what we value about it.”

At the end of the semester, 1 again asked Sadie how she felt about the various
personal writing assignments that she had written throughout the semester and pointed
out that she had previously said she didn’t like writing about herself. Sadie explained that
after reflecting back upon the course, she felt that these assignments were very beneficial.
She explained how revisiting her personal writings helped her see how she had changed
from the beginning to the end of the semester. Revisiting her writings helped her
remember what She had learned. She explained how revisiting “the personal stuff” helped
her realize where She needed to develop the most as a teacher. Sadie stated that even
though it was uncomfortable, reflecting on personal experiences was beneficial. She
stated that because it was so helpful, she would possibly do similar wittings with her own
students.

In her dialogue entries, Sadie frequently wrote about her field placement and how
much she was learning. She explained that she didn’t think she wanted to teach young
children, but was happy that she was placed in the class where she was because she felt

that her collaborating teacher, a kindergarten teacher, was such a good role model. In a

150

number of entries, Sadie wrote about a child who continually posed discipline problems
for her teacher. In one entry she wrote, “It is so hard not to get angry when he acts up.”
Sadie explained that she felt it was very beneficial to see how her teacher responded and
interacted with this child. She was impressed with how calm her teacher remained and
with the patience she showed when interacting with the child. Preservice teachers
frequently claim that the classroom is where their “real” learning occurs (Feiman-
Nemser, 1989), and Sadie’s comments reflected how she valued her time spent in the
field. Sadie’s journal entries also revealed that she struggled to know what to do when
children misbehaved. She saw her collaborating teacher as a model and found that it was
helpful to see how the classroom teacher dealt with discipline issues. Sadie’s journal
entries revealed her frustration with not knowing what to do, and this reflected the
tensions that some of the other teacher candidates experienced throughout the semester.
From the beginning of the semester, Sadie was an advocate for including all
children in the general education classroom. On a pre-survey questionnaire that was
handed out at the beginning of the semester, students were asked to rate how much they
were in agreement with the following sentence: Teachers often expect less from students
from the lower socioeconomic class. Sadie responded that she agreed with the statement
and added, “I don’t feel this way but I experienced it as a student. Teachers didn’t expect
much from me so I didn’t perform well (not that it’s an excuse not to perform well).”
Sadie explained that she felt it was important for teachers to “not believe all stereotypes
about children when trying to create an inclusive learning community” because “all
students need equal opportunities.” When Sadie read and responded to Christine’s case.

she again reiterated her belief that students need equal opportunities and stated that she

151

believed in mainstreaming special education students into the general education
classroom. However, she also indicated that there might be instances when a particular
child might not benefit from being in a general education classroom and so Should not be
mainstreamed. The last sentence of her response to the Christine’s case stated, “I think it
should be a decision for parents to make because they Should know what is best for their
child.”

Sadie’s presurvey response indicated that she was already aware at the beginning
of the semester of some of the ways that children are marginalized in schools. When
describing her own schooling experiences, she shared a personal story where teachers
held lower expectations of her because of her background. Early in the semester, Sadie’s
comments revealed her belief that students should receive equal opportunities to learn.
Her final response to Christine’s case is interesting. Prior to reading Christine’s case.
teacher candidates had not discussed parents’ roles in education. Christine’s case
deScribed some of the difficulties that Christine’s mother faced when she tried to enroll
Alice, the daughter who had Down Syndrome. into a general education classroom. In the
case. Christine stated,

I don’t ever remember my mother crying over Alice, but I remember the

struggle she had with the school to enroll Alice at Middle River. . .. My

mother told me she learned to be stubborn and to stand firm from being a

farmer’s wife. At the same time. I remember my mother wondering aloud

what it would be like for Alice when she went to school. (Peacock, et al.,

1999,p.l62)

Throughout other sections in the case, Christine wrestled with complex issues that
surrounded including special needs students in the general education class.

Christine thought about when Alice was included in the general education

classroom and sometimes appeared sad. She thought about special needs children

who are not accepted by their peers and wondered if they might be happier in a
special education classroom.

After reading Christine’s case, some of the teacher candidates commented
on how Christine’s mother was an advocate for Alice. They stated that because
Alice could not stand up for her own rights, it was important that her mother do it
for her. Lundeberg and her colleagues (1999) wrote that using cases in teacher
education could contribute to preservice teachers’ discoveries about teaching and
learning. They explained how these discoveries could lead to social, ethical, and
epistemological growth. Sadie’s and other teacher candidates’ responses to
Christine’s case revealed that they were beginning to think about the ethical issues
that surrounded the inclusion of special needs students in the general education
classroom. Sadie did not explicitly state that the case made her consider how
parents’ should have a voice in the decision of whether special needs children are
included in the classroom. However, it was only after teacher candidates read the
case that they began discussing these issues.

At the end of the semester, I conducted a second interview with focus students
and asked them what had been the greatest impact on their learning throughth the
semester. Students explained how they had learned a lot about inclusion and mentioned
how the fieldwork and coursework both supported them in their learning. Sometimes they
even mentioned specific activities that influenced how they were thinking about inclusion
and teaching. Sadie’s response, however, stood out from the others. Instead of
commenting on inclusion or on the new understandings that she had acquired about

teaching literacy, she responded that the greatest impact throughout the semester was

153

learning a lot about herself. Sadie explained that just recently she had been noticing that
her first reaction to a child’s misbehavior in the field was to jump up and yell, “No.
stop!” She explained that one of the biggest things she learned about herself was the
realization that this response, wanting to stop and yell at the children, came from her past.
She explained that this realization, that her past experiences were impacting how she
acted in the classroom, really did not appear until the end of the semester when She was
revisiting all of her work and writings for her final self-assessment. Her self-assessment
revealed how her own past experiences were influencing how she responded to children
in the field. She wrote that during her field experiences there were times when two
particular children in the class would start to get out of control. She wrote that her
collaborating teacher always found a positive way to reinforce these students’ good
behavior and get them back on task. In her self-assessment, she described her reaction to
these classroom disturbances.

I find that sometimes I get very frustrated with these two students and then

it is so hard to be patient with the rest of the class. I know that if patience

is not practiced all of the time, or at least most of the time, by me, that the

inclusive learning community that I am trying to create will be

jeopardized. If I use negative words and don’t reinforce positive behavior

in my classroom, then none of the children will respect me and they will

not be able to have fun learning. because I will not be having fun

teaChing. .. This always makes me think back to my family. When I was

younger, it seems that everything at my house was solved, or not solved,

by yelling. I have realized that I am struggling with trying to be positive

and not put down children when I am trying to get my point across. I feel

sometimes that the only way I can get people to listen to me is by yelling.

I am fortunate to realize this so that I can work on it.

Sadie recognized that if she responded to her students by yelling, she

might “put down children.” Her image of who she should be as a teacher and how

she should communicate with students clashes with the way her family

154

communicated with one another. Sadie recognized this tension and felt that she
needed to communicate in a more positive way if she were going to be able to
create an inclusive learning community. Sadie’s insights reflect that she is
becoming aware of how cultures can clash in the classroom. In this example. She
recognized how her own cultural norms for communicating clashed with the
norms of the classroom. She also recognized that if she imposed her cultural
norms on her students, some students might become marginalized and “put
down.” Sadie was beginning to recognize how one’s own cultural background
could have an impact on his or her teaching, and her new insights revealed how
she was becoming a more culturally responsive teacher.

During our final interview, I asked Sadie to tell me more about how she came to
the realization that her struggles in the classroom, her wanting first to respond by yelling.
were a response that came from her own family experiences. She explained that when she
revisited her course work, she reread her first personal writing and thought about how her
family didn’t read or do much together. (This was the writing assignment that was five
sentences long and did not expand on her childhood experiences.) Sadie explained that as
she reread the comments that she wrote, she realized that her family would often
communicate by yelling. She commented, “You know, when I’m in the schools, I’m like,
my gosh! How come it’s so hard for me to talk to them without yelling?” Sadie began to
find answers to her question when she revisited her coursework and personal writings at
the end of the semester.

Sadie explained that when she revisited the case Peace Takes Practice (Peacock

et al., 1999), a case that was read at the beginning of the course, she began to see a

155

connection between herself and the teacher in the case. She explained, “She [Lourdes]
was a bad teacher and yelled at the students a lot, and then went through this whole thing
and she changed.” Sadie explained that in the case, Lourdes stated that whenever she felt
like she wanted to yell and say something that She shouldn’t. she would “do the
opposite.” This. Sadie commented, was exactly how she felt when she was in the field.
She explained that She did not realize what was happening in the field until after she read
the case and reflected upon her own family experiences. She stated, “It just dawned on
me the way your parents bring you up really impacts like how you communicate when
you get older.” Sadie described how helpful it was looking back over what she had
written throughout the semester and thinking about how she had changed. She stated, “I
can sit here and half of this stuff I don’t even remember writing it last week.” However,
when she began to revisit what she wrote, she explained it all began to come back to her.
She said that “definitely coming back and looking at it for a second time” really helped
her connect and see how what she thought at the beginning of the semester had changed.
In her final self-assessment, Sadie described how reading and analyzing cases supported
her in her learning.

I feel that analyzing these cases was very helpful to see why we thought

these people did the things that they did. It was interesting to see how we

all felt differently about the Goodnight Moon case. I especially felt that

the Peace Takes Practice article was helpful because I feel that I could so

easily get trapped into the way that this lady was teaching. So it was

helpful to see how she turned her attitude around and worked to make

peace in her classroom.

Revisiting cases that were read throughout the semester and revisiting personal

writing assignments played a large role in Sadie’s new realizations about herself. her

past, and her responses to children in the classroom. By working with elementary

156

students in a classroom, Sadie was introduced to some of the challenges that teachers face
when providing instruction to a group of children. When she revisited her assignments
and readings. she was able to bring together her coursework and her experiences and
frustrations that had occurred in the classroom. Making connections between Peace
Takes Practice her frustrations in the field, and her personal family experiences led Sadie
on a journey of self-discovery. Sadie’s experiences illustrate how these various
experiences came together, complementing one another, supporting her in her learning.
Other focus students also described new discoveries when their field experiences.
coursework, and personal experiences came together; however, Sadie’s story best
illustrates how these experiences helped one teacher candidate recognize the power and
influence that one’s own culture can have on teaching. One of Ms. Pratt’s goals for the
course was to have teacher candidates examine themselves and understand what drives
their instructional decisions. She wanted them to understand that who they are as a
literate person influences who they are going to be as a teacher. Sadie’s experiences
revealed how making personal connections to case and field eXperiences assisted her in

meeting these goals.

Developing Knowledge and Skills for Teaching Literacy

Ms. Pratt’s original intentions for ED 222 were to weave the building of inclusive
learning communities throughout the course while assisting students in acquiring the
knowledge and skills that are needed to teach literacy. When Ms. Pratt and I met during
our summer planning sessions, we had some ideas for how she might do this. However.

we weren’t exactly sure how to design activities to achieve this goal. Ms. Pratt began by

157

having students respond to prompts after they read or viewed cases. These prompts
usually asked questions that pertained to the literacy content of the case, such as
emergent literacy, and to issues of inclusion. For example. a prompt for one activity
might ask. “How is the teacher assessing students’ reading comprehension? How does the
instruction in the video support or not support an inclusive learning community?” In the
beginning of the semester when students answered such questions, they frequently
responded to the content part of the question and not on the part that focused on
inclusion. As the semester progressed, conversations around cases tended to lean more
towards one issue or the other. Teacher candidates occasionally made clear connections
between the two, but this less frequently and usually occurred towards the end of the
semester. This might have been due to a number of reasons. Maybe it was because Ms.
Pratt and I developed better questions at the end of the semester, or it might have been
due to teacher candidates’ increased understanding of the content and issues that were
being introduced in the course.

When I began analyzing data, I noticed that the majority of the data that reflected
teacher candidates’ understanding of literacy concepts and pedagogical approaches came
from the days when teacher candidates viewed and discussed RCE12 video and
hypermedia cases. RCE proved to be a powerful tool for supporting teacher candidates in
this learning process. By engaging in RCE activities, teacher candidates were able to
recognize and identify some of the concepts and instructional practices that they were
learning about in their course. They were also able to recognize and explain ways to

adapt literacy instruction for diverse learners. In the following sections, I describe how

 

'2 A description of the Reading Classroom Explorer (RCE) is provided in chapter 1. More information is
also provided in Appendix A.

158

Ms. Pratt used RCE during class. Then, I provide various examples of how students
responded to and learned from RCE activities. Finally, I discuss the kind of scaffolding
Ms. Pratt provided when students were engaged in these activities.

The use of video and hypermedia cases. During the first few weeks of class, Ms.
Pratt introduced teacher candidates to various theories of learning and started a class
discussion on the conceptualization of literacy instruction. She had students read the
“Goodnight Moon” case and asked students to think about who gains and who loses when
teachers make instructional decisions. During the fourth and fifth weeks of class. students
were introduced to the concept of emergent literacy, and it was at this point that RCE was
introduced. Ms. Pratt decided to introduce her class to RCE by showing the case of Ms.
Hemmeter", a kindergarten teacher. This case complemented what teacher candidates
had been reading in their textbooks because Ms. Hemmeter modeled many instructional
approaches that supported emergent readers and writers. The case also supported the
inclusive learning theme, and the majority of the students in Mrs. Hemmeters classroom
were Hispanic and non-native English speakers. In order to prepare for the video, Ms.
Pratt had students skim through various chapters in their textbook for homework and
provided a study guide to support the reading. The study guide asked questions such as
the following: What are the stages in the reading process? What might each stage look
like in an emergent literacy classroom? What are five types of reading, and how might
teachers decide to use one over the other? What are the key features of the writing

process?

 

'3 Six out of 10 classroom videos on RCE were originally created for the Center for the Study of Reading at
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Ms. Pratt introduced teacher candidates to some of the content
of RCE by first showing them the video version of Mrs. Hemmeter’s case. The following week, teacher
candidates had access to this video and others through the RC E hypermedia program.

159

The following week, Ms. Pratt used the study guide to divide the class into
groups, having each group use a set of questions as a lens for watching the Ms.
Hemmeter case. Ms. Pratt also asked each group to take notes on how Ms. Hemmeer was
promoting an inclusive learning environment. After viewing the video. groups discussed
their reactions to what they had observed and discussed answers to the prompts that they
were given for viewing the video. After sharing ideas in small groups. they then shared
their responses with the entire class. Teacher candidates made comments about how
engaged and motivated the children appeared in the video. They also noticed how Ms.
Hemmeter created opportunities for children to read and write throughout the entire day.

Teacher candidates spoke and wrote about how impressed they were with the way
the kindergarteners in the classroom used journals. Many made comments about the ways
in which journals could be used to accommodate the various writing abilities in the class.
Children in the video wrote in their own way, whether it was by scribbling, drawing
pictures, using letters or sentences. Other than discussing how journal writing could
accommodate different levels of learners, most teacher candidates spoke about the
literacy content in the case and did not explicitly discuss issues of inclusion. At one point,
Ms. Pratt asked how one might modify instruction for ESL students, but this question did
not prompt a focused discussion on inclusion.

Based on classroom observations and comments, I began to think that teacher
candidates had forgotten that Ms. Pratt wanted them to focus on instruction that promoted
an inclusive learning environment. However, I realized that the case did influence how
teacher candidates were thinking about creating an inclusive learning community when I

read students’ written reflections for the day and heard them talking about the case when

160

they were working on their philosophy statements in small groups. At other points
throughout the semester, teacher candidates had a number of opportunities to revisit clips
of Mrs. IHemmeter’s case through the RCE program. They also had opportunities to view
other clips from other schools. Teacher candidates’ comments to both videos and clips
showed that RCE introduced them to the practice of culturally responsive teaching.
Viewing RCE videos and clips also encouraged some teacher candidates to form new
conceptions of teaching and learning.

Teacher candidates ’ responses to RC E cases. Mrs. Hemmeter’s case showed how
Mrs. Hemmeter created a literate environment by posting word walls”, poetry, and
stories around the room. The case showed how children had opportunities throughout the
day to read and discuss books, recite poetry and rhymes. listen to stories, and read words
posted in the room. The case also showed how Mrs. Hemmeter created literacy play
centers15 where children could pretend they were authors writing on a typewriter or
waiters taking orders in a restaurant. When reflecting on the Video at the end of class, all
of the focus students and a number of other teacher candidates described in writing how
Ms. Hemmeter’s case helped them see how teachers could create a literate environment
throughout their entire classroom and provide literacy instruction throughout the entire
day. Teacher candidates also noted that Mrs. Hemmeter provided authentic and
meaningful literacy experiences for her students. One focus student, Sadie, wrote,

I have realized after today’s class that it is so easy to include reading and
writing in so many different ways for children. It doesn’t always have to

 

" Word walls are “alphabetized collections of words posted in the classroom that students can refer to
when they are reading and writing and for word study activities” (Tompkins, 2003, p. 498).

'5 Literacy play centers allow young children to “learn about the purposes of reading and writing as they
use written language in play” (Tompkins, 2003, p. 113). Teachers supply literacy play centers with
authentic literacy materials so that children can experiment and use them to leam about the purposes of
written language.

161

be what you do at the beginning of the day with the morning message'6

and reading a book. but it can be incorporated into every activity that the

children are doing.

The majority of teacher candidates had field placements where they saw morning
message being used. Most of them visited classrooms in the morning because this was the
time that most teachers taught literacy. Because they came for a limited amount of time in
the morning, teacher candidates frequently observed their collaborating teachers leading
morning message and sometimes didn’t get to see other literacy instruction. Sadie’s
comment indicated that viewing Mrs. Hemmeter’s case gave her other ideas for how
teachers can create literacy learning opportunities for students.

Another part of the video showed children .writing in journals and showed Mrs.
Hemmeter telling children that they could write in a variety of ways. Mrs. Hemmeter
explained to the children that some of them wrote in their journals using pictures to
represent words. She also explained and demonstrated how other children used scribbles
or printed letters to write. Mrs. Hemmeter accepted all of these forms of writing from her
students. Focus students referred to this part of the video a number of times. They wrote
that the scenes with the journal writing helped them see how teachers can provide
learning opportunities that accommodate the various needs of individual children. They
recognized how Mrs. Hemmeter used journals in ways that honored all students’ writing .
abilities. Focus students described in their reflections and in interviews how these scenes

helped them see how Mrs. Hemmeter was accommodating various writing abilities and

making her class more inclusive.

 

'6 In morning message, the teacher begins by “talking about the day and upcoming events. and students
share their news with the class” (Tompkins, 2003, p. 115). The teacher writes the message for all to see,
providing an opportunity for children to learn about the direction of print, spelling, and other conventions
used in writing.

Lydia and Mallory were particularly intrigued with the way children used journals
in Ms. Hemmeter’s class. In her in-class quick write, Lydia wrote about the segment of
the video where Ms. Hemmeter told students they were going to write in their journals
and then demonstrated the various ways that children write. The idea of allowing children
to write at their various levels and then honoring all forms of writing was a new concept
to some teacher candidates. Mallory stated that before viewing the video. she probably
would have responded to students’ scribbles and pictures by saying, “You’re not writing
anything. You’re just drawing pictures!” In an interview, she stated that viewing Ms.
Hemmeter’s use of journals was very good because prior to that she “would have never
seen pictures as being associated with learning.” When asked to describe the insightful,
“Aha,” moments that she had while viewing the video, Lydia wrote the following:

My Aha! moment is about allowing students to work at different levels. I

think this is essential in a truly inclusive learning community. Anne [Ms

Hemmeter] allowed her students to write at different levels. The children

in turn wrote and drew freely to express themselves without feeling

frustrated or restricted by guidelines. Anne was comfortable with this and

so were students. Because she didn’t make rules, students felt free to be

creative rather than worry that they did it differently than their peers.

Lizz, another focus student, wrote that the video helped her see that it can be easy
to include reading and writing in a variety of different ways. In a previous interview, Lizz
had commented that she never felt comfortable with her own writing skills and described
herself as a slow reader. She said that she never remembered using reading and writing
together when she was in elementary school. She, like Sadie, wrote that viewing Ms.
Hemmeter’s case helped her realize that literacy can be “incorporated into every activity

that the children are doing.” She noted how Ms. Hemmeter easily related literacy events

to students’ lives. Lizz wrote that she liked how the various play center activities

163

provided authentic learning opportunities for children. Other teacher candidates gave
further examples of the various ways in which Ms. Hemmeter created authentic learning
experiences in her classroom.

In addition to helping teacher candidates understand how teachers can
accommodate various abilities in a classroom, Ms. Hemmeter’s case also challenged
some teacher candidates’ prior conceptions of teaching, conceptions that were formed
from their own k-12 experiences. For example, one student, Jackie, was placed in reading
groups that were based on ability when she was an elementary student. Her only
experiences with early literacy instruction involved a teacher grouping students by ability
level and then providing different instruction to the various groups. In her reflections on
the Hemmeter Video, Jackie wrote, “It is much harder to try and reach a child on a
different level than to exclude them. In fact, I was not even sure there was a way to solve
this type of problem until I saw it tackled in reality.” She added, .

The video helped me see that one classroom with a variety of learners can

be tailored to reach each student in some way. I realized we don’t have to

segregate students into categories in order to reach them on their level.

Even though Jackie had only experienced reading instruction where children were
“segregated by intelligence levels or learning levels,” the video of Ms. Hemmeter helped
her realize that “one classroom with a variety of learners can be tailored to reach each
student in some way” and that teachers “don’t have to segregate” their students.

Viewing the RCE case of Mrs. Hemmeter supported teacher candidates in
understanding the practice of culturally responsive teaching. According to Villegas and
Lucas (2002), one of the three strands of the curriculum framework for preparing

culturally responsive teachers is “embracing the constructivist foundations of culturally

164

responsive teaching” (p. 65). Teachers who embrace constructivist views create
environments where all students are encouraged to make sense of new ideas and
“construct knowledge that helps them better understand the world” (Villegas & Lucas.
2002, p. 92). They understand that active participation in classroom activities “is a
stimulus for learning,” and they “deliberately plan and implement instruction so as to
involve all students” (Villegas & Lucas, 2002, p. 101). Even though some teacher
candidates had only experienced traditional approaches to teaching, they were able to
become familiar with new approaches and strategies by viewing Mrs. Hemmeter’s
teaching. They saw how she created literacy learning opportunities for children by
designing activities that accommodated a broad range of abilities. They also saw how she
designed learning activities around children’s experiences and actively engaged them in
the learning process. For example, in one part of the case Mrs. Hemmeter had children
bring household items to school that represented different letters of the alphabet. She
used items that were familiar to children, like cereal boxes, to reinforce children’s
understanding of phonics and phonemic awareness.

Lizz, like Jackie, was another focus student whose prior conceptions of teaching
were challenged by Mrs. Hemmeter’s case. During her first interview, Lizz stated that her
early memories of learning to read involved “pretty much memorizing words.” She
remembered reading and writing being taught as separate subjects and stated that the kind
of literacy instruction that she was learning about in ED 222 was very new to her. In this
interview, Lizz did not seem convinced that this new way of reading and writing was a
better way. In our first interview, she admitted that it was difficult learning about literacy

instruction that was so different from the kind of instruction she had experienced as a

165

child. The tone in her voice indicated that she was struggling with this. In our second
interview, I told her that she seemed to be struggling with these issues last time we met
and asked if I had interpreted the situation correctly. She admitted that she had been
struggling with the instruction that was being introduced in class and admitted that she
had been asking herself many questions about this. She shared her questions and concerns
with me and asked, “Am I just a moron now because I wasn’t taught the way they are
saying that we Should be taught now? I mean, was I totally deprived as a student?” She
added, “You kind of go back to the traditional way and wonder how come I was taught
this way, and now they are changing it. And what’s really the right way?”

In her second interview, Lizz stated that seeing instruction through RCE videos
and clips supported her as she began to embrace a new stance towards literacy
instruction. She explained that she now thought the instruction that she had learned about
in ED 222 was more beneficial than the kind of rote learning that she was exposed to
when she was young. Viewing Ms. Hemmeter’s teaching was a key moment for Lizz as
she struggled with these issues. The reflection that she wrote after Viewing the case
revealed how She was beginning to embrace and understand a new stance towards
literacy instruction.

Today’s class really made me realize how much literacy is incorporated

into everything that we do. I found it very interesting that in the video the

teacher found ways to teach the students about reading and writing

without really “teaching.” For example, during free time some of the

students played restaurant with a menu that had the name of the item

written out and also the picture. One of the students was the waiter and

pretended to write the items down. I also realized that it is not that hard to

teach literacy in the classroom because it is literally all around us. As a
teacher you just have to point that out.

166

Lizz’s comments and writings that resulted from viewing more student-centered
teaching. practices revealed that she was beginning to see how literacy instruction can
occur without the teacher being the center of instruction. Lizz’s philosophy statement
written at the end of the semester revealed that she was beginning to form a new
conceptualization of literacy instruction that differed from the kind of instruction she
experienced as a child. Early in the semester she had written that she could not remember
reading and writing ever being taught together. In her philosophy statement, however, she
wrote. “Reading and writing should be taught simultaneously. I believe that reading and
writing are inextricably linked and that students should understand this. I think that this
can be accomplished by teaching reading and writing together.”

In Chapter 1, I explained how I considered the process of conceptual change when
selecting cases for the design of this study. Ms. Pratt and I selected cases that presented
progressive, leamer-centered teaching approaches knowing that these cases might counter
the images of teaching that teacher candidates already held. Lizz’s comments reveal how
viewing Mrs. Hemmeter’s approach to teaching created cognitive dissonance. Lizz
recognized that the images of teaching that were presented in class were very different
from what she experienced as a child. She began to feel unsettled when she realized that
the kind of instruction Ms. Pratt was advocating differed from the instruction she had
received when she learned to read and write. Lizz began to feel conflicted and began to
question how she had been taught in elementary school. Even though she had learned
how to read and write from a traditional approach, Lizz began to wonder, “Was I totally
deprived as a student?” Posner and his colleagues (1982) stated that novices have to view

their own existing conceptions with some dissatisfaction before they seriously consider a

167

new one. Lizz’s comments at this point in the semester revealed that she was beginning to
question her existing conceptions of teaching. However. she had not become totally
dissatisfied with these conceptions because she recognized that she did learn to read and
write from more traditional approaches.

Various data collected on Lizz revealed that viewing RCE videos and clips had a
large impact on how she was thinking about literacy instruction, and a lesson plan that
she created represented how she began to put these ideas into action. For one of her
assignments. Lizz had to create and teach a literacy lesson to children in her field
placement. In the middle of the semester, Ms. Pratt asked her students to share the ideas
that they had for their lessons. Lizz had not decided upon a specific lesson, but e-mailed
Ms. Pratt indicating that she had received various ideas from watching videos and clips
on RCE.

In the following weeks, Lizz drafted out a lesson, taught it, and wrote a reflection
on her teaching. When she turned in the assignment and the reflection, she included a
photograph that she had taken of a chart that had been created by her and her students
when she taught. When I saw this chart, I realized it had a striking similarity to one that
was shown on an RCE video clip. Lizz’s lesson, which focused on the teaching of story
grammar, was almost a mirror image of a lesson that she saw while viewing clips. During
my second interview with Lizz, she confirmed that her lesson was closely modeled after
the one that she saw on RCE. She explained that her collaborating teacher had initially
recommended a lesson idea, but she felt that it was not very exciting. Lizz explained how
she really liked the lesson that she saw on RCE and decided to use it as a model. She

stated that what she particularly liked about the RC E lesson was that the teacher involved

168

children in the story writing process, and children had a say in what they wanted to write.
Lizz was impressed with how the students and teacher worked together to review story
grammar and create their own story. Lizz’s use of RCEis significant because it revealed
that viewing RCE videos and clips could not only impact preservice teachers’ views and
beliefs about teaching. it could also impact how they carried out instruction once they
were given the chance.

Lizz and Jackie’s responses to RCE demonstrated how viewing and discussing
RCE cases challenged their prior assumptions about teaching and learning. In these two
examples, Lizz and Jackie began to seriously reflect upon and question the kind of
literacy instruction that they received when they were young. In a third example, Lydia
described how Viewing a different RCE clip challenged the biases she had formed about a
reading comprehension strategy that was introduced in class. In this example, teacher
candidates read an article that discussed the importance of teaching reading
comprehension strategies to children. One of the strategies that was introduced involved
asking students to make and confirm predictions as they read. Lydia strongly opposed
this idea and told her group members that no student wants to stop and make a prediction
while he or she is reading. Lydia felt that children would find it tedious and would resent
being asked to do it. However, while using RCE, she stumbled upon a clip that showed a
teacher working with a small group of students, asking them to make predictions about
their reading. Lydia selected this clip to show the rest of the class and explained why it
was significant. She commented,

I just thought that if I had to do this when I was in elementary school I

wouldn’t want to do it. But then we watched the clip... It seemed [the

students] all contributed and felt that it was fun. So, it changed my whole
outlook of prediction.

169

Before showing the clip a second time to the entire class, Ms. Pratt asked Lydia
what she wanted classmates to notice. Lydia explained that she wanted people to notice
how excited the children were to share their predictions and how the level of enthusiasm
was contagious. In future classes and interviews, Lydia again made reference to this clip
and how it made her change her views on having students make predictions while
reading.

Lydia’s experience provided another example of how an RCE clip offered an
image of teaching that countered a teacher candidate’s conception of teaching. Lydia’s
comments revealed how she changed her view of making predictions after she saw how
motivated students were in the RCE clip. Lydia’s comments, however, do not show that
she was going through the same kind of inner turmoil that Lizz experienced. The RCE
video and clips that were mentioned by focus students can be described as cases as
exemplar. According to Carter (1999), cases as exemplars “are commonly used in teacher
preparation to depict vividly such matters as the complexity of teaching environments” or
the way in which “a method is actually carried out in a classroom” (p. 166). The various
examples that have been provided in this section show how viewing RCE video and clips
prompted change in teacher candidates’ conceptions of teaching. The RCE video and
clips also provided teacher candidates with examples of literacy instructional approaches
that reflected culturally responsive teaching; however, these cases did not always
contribute to deeper understandings of inclusion. Some teacher candidates’ responses
revealed that viewing RCE cases supported superficial views of inclusion, and this will

be discussed in more detail in the next chapter.

170

Scaffolding learningfor RCE users. Teacher candidates described how RC E case
activities supported their learning and spoke about the benefits of being able to see the
kind of literacy instruction that they were learning about in ED 222. However, not all
activities were as successful as the ones that were described above. Sometimes teacher
candidates misinterpreted assignments and made inaccurate assumptions when viewing
clips. Other times they focused on children’s actions and behaviors in clips rather than on
the literacy instruction that Ms. Pratt had hoped they would notice. In one example, Ms.
Pratt asked teacher candidates to search for clips that presented examples of informal
literacy assessment. She then told groups to select their favorite clip and post a message
on the RCE discussion forum17 describing why it was an example of informal literacy
assessment. When MS. Pratt read teacher candidates’ comments, She realized that they
had inaccurately interpreted the term informal assessment. In another example, Ms. Pratt
asked students to View clips and tell why certain teaching practices were more inclusive
than others. Students’ responses revealed that they were not using the term inclusive in
the way that Ms. Pratt had intended. Some teacher candidates thought that if a child were
included, then he or she was participating. And if the child was not actively participating
in class, such as by speaking or raising his or her hand, then he or she was not being
included. Teacher candidates who made such comments did not seem to understand that
instruction could include children even if they were not participating in a way that was

observable to the eye.

 

'7 When teacher candidates used the forum, Ms. Pratt usually had them post a comment about the clip and
then write a question that they wanted answered. Ms. Pratt’s purpose for having students use the forum was
to give them opportunities to view and read comments about clips and to enter discussions about what they
saw.

171

Ms. Pratt and I began to form hypotheses about why some RCE activities were
more successful than others after comparing the ways in which students were responding
to different activities. After closely studying focus students and interviewing them about
RC E, I began to form a better understanding of what did or did not support their learning.
Focus students described in detail how viewing videos and clips on RCE, combined with
other activities and experiences in ED 222. gave them a fuller understanding of the
content and issues that were being discussed in class. Jackie explained that being able to
see how instruction was being used in real classrooms helped her “more fully understand
the concept” than if she were to just hear it being described in class. Being able to
visually see progressive literacy instruction occur especially helped students like Lizz
who were only familiar with more traditional teaching practices. For some students, RCE
provided their first exposure to progressive, student-centered teaching approaches.

Mallory spoke repeatedly about how having choice throughout the semester
supported her learning and kept her motivated. She described how RCE gave students the
flexibility to pick and choose through keywords what they wanted to watch, but she also
explained how she liked the guidance and support that Ms. Pratt provided for RCE
activities. A few students described how their first introduction to the various keywords
was a bit overwhelming, but they also pointed out the Ms. Pratt would give them
suggestions for which ones they might use for viewing a particular aspect of literacy
instruction. Mallory. for example, described that when the class was searching for clips
on literacy assessment, Ms. Pratt suggested viewing clips from a specific school because
it provided more video footage of teachers assessing students. Lydia, Jackie, and Lizz

described how they also liked the flexibility of being able to view clips at home.

Sometimes when students worked in groups on one computer, they didn’t get to view the
clips that interested them. Being able to access RCE from home allowed them to revisit
clips that were already seen in class or view new clips that they had not previously seen.

All focus students spoke about how beneficial it was discussing and sharing ideas
with others while viewing instruction on RCE. Students spoke more positively about their
RC E experience when they had the opportunity to discuss the clips that they were
viewing. During her second interview, Jackie explained that discussing what she saw on
RCE made her think about things in new ways, ways that she had not previously
considered. She spoke about the advantages of using the discussion forum and described
how it was a “really helpful tool” because a person could attach a link to a video clip
when typing a message. This made it easier for others to view and respond to the clip.
Lydia described how simply forming and typing a question on the discussion forum
helped her process what she had just seen. The incident with the informal assessment
activity, however, revealed that simply having students discuss and write about clips with
one another did not always result in deeper understandings. When Ms. Pratt and I
reflected on the informal assessment activity, we realized that she had not provided any
prior instruction about informal assessments before having teacher candidates search and
comment upon clips. As a result, teacher candidates formed their own definitions.

Even though teacher candidates gave examples of how the discussion forum
supported them in their learning, they also expressed frustration when they posted
messages and did not receive responses. Lydia even went as far as giving one of her
messages a controversial title, hoping that this would trigger a response from the other

class. Another group complained because they felt some of the responses to their

173

questions were neither sincere nor helpful. At the end of the semester, Ms. Pratt asked
students to write and tell her how they felt about the different activities that they did in
class. She explicitly asked students to write a comment about how they felt about RCE.
Sadie wrote, “I don’t think that the discussion forum was all that helpful because we
didn’t discuss that much [online] and didn’t get much insightful feedback.” End of the
semester writings revealed that all teacher candidates thought using RCE was valuable;
however, their reactions to the discussion forum varied.

Lydia and Mallory spoke favorably of the forum and even stated that it was one of _
their favorite parts about RCE. Sadie, on the other hand, didn’t feel that the forum was
very useful. Lizz and Jackie had mixed feelings; they felt that it was helpful, but could
have been used in a better way. When reflecting back on when the group used RCE in
class, I realized that either Mallory or Lydia always had control of the mouse and posted
various messages. The group would decide together what they would write. but
ultimately the person typing the message had more control over what was actually
written. Lydia even posted a number of messages from home and received responses
from both Ms. Pratt and students in another ED 222 class. Lydia commented that posting
the questions on the forum gave her a sense of ownership over the forum and questions. It
appeared that students who were most active on the forum and who received the most
responses to their questions had a more favorable impression of the RCE on-line
discussions than those who were not as engaged in posting messages. If Ms. Pratt and I
had known this prior to planning the course, we might have had RCE-groups function

differently.

174

When I reanalyzed data at the end of the semester, I paid careful attention to the
kinds of support that was provided to teacher candidates when they used RCE. I noted
what MS. Pratt did before, during, and after RCE activities. I noted what support was
provided when activities seemed to be successful, and I also noted what kind of support
seemed to be missing when activities were less successful. It appeared that teacher
candidates benefited from the prompts that Ms. Pratt provided. These prompts alerted
teacher candidates to what they should be observing when viewing clips. Teacher
candidates also gained new insights when they had opportunities to discuss the clips with
one another, sometimes relying on articles that they had read or Ms. Pratt’s comments to
guide these discussions. Interviews with focus students revealed that RCE was helpful
when they were able to compare what they were seeing in clips to what they were
observing in the field. Sometimes teacher candidates saw teachers in the field providing
instruction that was very similar to RCE clips, and other times they didn’t. When
instruction was similar, teacher candidates spoke about using RCE to think about ways
lessons might be modified and adapted. When instruction was not similar, teacher

candidates used RCE as an opportunity to see what could be possible.

Observations on Moving from A wareness to Action

This chapter provided examples of how personal writing and case activities
assisted focus students in developing the knowledge and skills that are needed to provide
literacy instruction in inclusive learning environments. Throughout the semester, focus
students developed awareness and understanding of inclusive learning communities, but

sometimes became frustrated when they felt that they didn’t know how to create and

175

teach in these environments. This chapter highlighted the ways in which reflecting upon
personal experiences and engaging in case activities helped provide focus students with
the ability to move from awareness to action. They began to form new understandings
about the role of the teacher when they engaged in case activities and reflected upon their
personal experiences. They recognized that teachers needed to consider children’s
backgrounds and cultures in order to create inclusive learning communities. Some focus
students also recognized how their own backgrounds impact who they will be as teachers.

This chapter illustrated how focus students began to develop an understanding
that classrooms are not neutral places and that teachers’ and students’ perspectives
sometimes differ. These new understandings helped teacher candidates move from a
general awareness of inclusion to an awareness of what inclusion looks like in the
classroom. Viewing RCE videos and cases supported focus students in understanding the
practice of culturally responsive teaching. They began to learn how to accommodate and
adapt literacy instruction for a diverse range of learners. They learned about specific
pedagogical approaches that reflect the constructivist foundations of culturally responsive
teaching. Viewing RCE cases also prompted some of them to begin to reflect on their
own educational experiences and encouraged them to form new conceptions of teaching.

The examples presented here, like those in the previous chapter, illustrated how
focus students made meaning out of activities by making connections between their own
lives and the cases that they were reading or viewing. However, sometimes these
connections appeared to happen by chance as teacher candidates made connections to the
content and issues of the course in their own, individual ways. When Ms. Pratt

specifically assigned personal writing activities to correspond with case activities. she

I76

frequently did not have class time for students to discuss their writings. However,
revisiting these writings on their own, at the end of the semester, prompted some teacher
candidates to have some of their most insightful moments. The success stories that are
revealed in this chapter illustrate what can be possible when all the right connections are
made; however, not all teacher candidates’ told stories of new insights, revelation, and
change. Teacher candidates who did not share personal stories of learning made it
difficult to understand the process in which they made meaning out of the various
activities that took place throughout the semester. The stories that were presented in
Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 illustrated how focus students sometimes struggled to see value
in what they were learning if they could not immediately see how it applied to practice.
Viewing RCE cases helped them begin to see what inclusive learning practice looks like
in action. For some focus students. embracing these new teaching practices required a
critical reflection upon themselves and their personal experiences. In the next chapter. I
situate focus students’ experiences within a broader context by presenting what was

learned from data collected on the entire class.

177

Chapter 5 Class Findings

Following focus students closely throughout the, semester provided a window into
the ways in which a small group of teacher candidates responded to and made meaning
from written and hypermedia video case activities; however, data collected on focus
students do not necessarily reveal how others in the course responded to these activities.
Through interviews, I was able to ask for clarification about what focus students said or
wrote in class and was able to probe more deeply into their individual experiences. Even
though I did not have the opportunity to get this kind of detailed information from all
teacher candidates in the class, I did collect coursework from all 25 teacher candidates in
ED 222.

Data that were collected and analyzed on the entire class consisted of the
following: (a) in-class reflections that were written when students. finished discussing the
“Goodnight Moon” case, (b) the quick-writes that students’ wrote before and after
discussing Christine’s case, (c) pre and post survey responses, and ((1) final self-
assessments. I also used classroom observations and field notes to support what was
learned from other data sources. Teacher candidates did not respond to Peace Takes
Practice in writing, so I did not have class data for this case. I did not analyze dialogue
journals because I did not have copies of all journal entries. I did, however, take notes on
journal entries as I read them throughout the semester. I read these assignments as teacher
candidates completed them and noted general patterns and themes that emerged. These
notes became part of my field notes as I reflected upon and summarized each class

session. I did not analyze students’ philosophy statements because I did not collect all of

178

the drafts that were written throughout the semester. I also did not analyze students’
lesson plans because teacher candidates worked on these with a partner and sometimes
received feedback from their collaborating teachers. Because students did not create their
own lesson plans, it was impossible to know who generated which ideas when reading
the lessons.

At the end of the semester, I revisited the documents that I had collected on the
entire class in order to see if the general class findings reflected what was learned from
the five teacher candidates whom I followed closely throughout the semester. I learned
that focus students and others in the course learned similar things when they were
engaged in written and hypermedia video case activities. However. by analyzing data that
were collected on the entire class. I reached new insights that might not have appeared if
I had only focused on the experiences of five people in the course. In this chapter, I
describe how I analyzed data from the entire class and present new discoveries that were
made. I also explain some of the challenges that I faced as I attempted to make
connections between what was learned from focus students and what was learned from
others in the course.

In this chapter, I organize general class findings according to two key themes that
emerged. These themes also appeared in focus Student data. In the first section, I describe
how data collected from written case activities. pre and post surveys, and end of the
semester self-assessments revealed how reading and responding to written cases assisted
teacher candidates in developing an awareness and understanding of inclusion. In the
second section, I describe how data collected from RCE case activities and pre and post

surveys revealed the ways in which teacher candidates began to develop the knowledge

179

and skills that are needed to teach literacy to diverse students. Within each section, I
describe how data were analyzed and illustrate the context in which data were collected. 1
end this chapter by summarizing how teacher candidates defined inclusion, describing the
pedagogical approaches that supported them in constructing these understanding, and

illustrating what was learned when comparing focus student and general class findings.

Developing A wareness and Understanding of Inclusion

Chapters 3 and 4 described how focus students began to develop an awareness
and understanding of inclusion throughout the semester. Reading and responding to
written cases helped focus students recognize that .they had been narrowly defining
inclusion and had been unaware of some of the issues that surrounded the inclusion of
diverse students in the general education classroom. Focus students began to recognize
the impact that culture can have on teaching. They also began to recognize the roles and
responsibilities that teachers have when creating an inclusive learning environment. This
chapter describes how other students in the class developed similar understandings when
responding to case activities. Data collected on the entire class indicated that focus
students and the rest of the class responded to and learned from cases in similar ways.
When analyzing data from the entire class, I became most aware of their new
understandings of inclusion when I analyzed the ways in which they responded to
Christine’s case and the “Goodnight Moon” case.

In the following sections, 1 illustrate how reading and responding to cases
prompted a number of teacher candidates, not just focus students, to develop a deeper

understanding and awareness of inclusion. I begin by describing how teacher candidates

180

began to define inclusion by broadening their understanding of diversity and asking
themselves who is included. I then explain how teacher candidates came to recognize the
impact that culture can have on instruction. Next. I illustrate how reading and responding
to cases helped teacher candidates understand the role of the teacher and how teachers
include children in instruction. Finally, I describe how data collected at the end of the
semester supported what was learned from the quick-writes and reflections that were
written earlier in the semester. I end this section by revisiting what was learned from
focus students and compare focus student and general class findings.

Recognizing who is included Reading and discussing the Christine case assisted
teacher candidates in forming a definition of inclusion, deciding who is included in
inclusive learning communities, and coming to terms with whether or not they supported
inclusion. Comparing responses before and after discussing Christine’s case revealed that
the case impacted teacher candidates in different ways. When Ms. Pratt talked about
inclusion, she wanted her students to think about the inclusion of all students in the
classroom, including ESL, special needs, and minority children. She defined diversity in
the broadest sense and continually challenged her students to think of ways to include
diverse students in the general education classroom. Ms. Pratt wanted teacher candidates
to hold high expectations for all students while providing them with equal opportunities
to learn. Because she defined diversity very broadly and wanted teacher candidates to
think about the inclusion of diverse students, we purposefully selected written cases to
reflect different ways in which diversity can exist in a classroom. The “Goodnight Moon”
case was selected to represent how cultural differences can impact teaching. and

Christine’s case was selected to represent issues of inclusion and diversity from the

181

special education perspective. In the middle of the semester, teacher candidates read
Christine’s case. As described earlier, this case described the thoughts and feelings of
Christine, a teacher education student, when her class participated in a discussion about
the inclusion of special needs children in the general education classroom.

Ms. Pratt asked teacher candidates to read Christine’s case at home and then write
an immediate reaction to the case. Teacher candidates wrote their reactions before having
the opportunity to discuss the case with others. After having teacher candidates share and
discuss their reactions in class, Ms. Pratt asked students to do a reflective writing at
home, considering the Christine case and class discussions. She asked teacher candidates
to respond to the following question: What personal ‘AHA’ did you have about working
with special needs students and inclusive learning communities? Teacher candidates’ pre-
discussion quick-writes, which came from their very first responses to the case, and post
discussion class reflections were analyzed to see what common themes appeared in the
responses.

In order to analyze the data, I created a chart that contained all pre discussion
responses in one column and all post discussion responses in another column. I placed
these columns side by side so that I could compare teacher candidates’ responses to one
another and compare individual’s pre and post discussion responses. I used abbreviations
and symbols to shorten and summarize each response so that I could represent as much of
the actual response on the chart. As I searched for patterns and themes, I noticed that a
number of responses described frustration, new insights, and personal experiences and
stories. As these patterns emerged, I reread through the chart multiple times to code

responses based on the categories that I had created from these responses.

Over half of the teacher candidates (54%) responded to pre-discussion quick-
writes by telling personal examples or stories that they felt were related to Christine’s
case. For example, one teacher candidate wrote about abrother who was placed in a
special education classroom, and another described how She had experience babysitting
children who had special needs. In these responses, teacher candidates basically shared
their stories, made connections to Christine’s case, and described how they could
empathize with the feelings that Christine was experiencing. Four teacher candidates, or
16% of the class, expressed that they struggled with the issue of including special needs
students in the regular education classroom and could see reasons for and against
inclusion. Three teacher candidates, or 12.5% of the students, explained how reading the
case challenged them to think about issues of inclusion in new and different ways. For
example, one wrote that she had previously thought that including special needs students
in the general education class “was a waste of money and staffing.” She felt that it would
also “hinder the learning of other students.” After reading the case, however, she wrote,
“I now think differently... I am now sympathetic to this whole idea and 1 do fully feel for
Christine and her sister named Alice.” In the remaining responses, teacher candidates
expressed their support for inclusion but did not describe any new insights or changes in
their thinking.

Post discussion responses revealed an increase in those teacher candidates who
described having new understandings about inclusion after discussing the case with
others. Thirteen teacher candidates, over half of the class, described how their
understandings of inclusion had changed after having the opportunity to discuss the case

with others. These responses are a significant increase when comparing post discussion

183

responses with pre discussion responses. In her post discussion reflection, one teacher
candidate said talking with her classmates helped her realize that she had been
“clumping” all children together and had not considered the variety of ways in which
diversity can enter a classroom. She described how she began to form a new
understanding of inclusion by broadening her definition of diversity. A second teacher
candidate wrote about a similar discovery. She described how her group discussion
helped her realize that there were “various groupings of inclusion” and that she needed to
broaden her definition of inclusion so that it included ESL students and students with
learning and behavioral problems. Others described how discussing Christine’s case with
their peers and hearing different perspectives helped them think about inclusion in new
ways.

Even though the majority of the class supported inclusion and described how
discussing Christine’s case helped them think about inclusion in new ways, there were
still a few teacher candidates who expressed some frustration after discussing the case
with others. These teacher candidates explained how they saw both the positive and
negative aspects of including special education students in the general education
classroom but expressed frustration over not being prepared to work with such students.
These teacher candidates wrote that they would need support and extra training if they
were to receive handicapped students in their classrooms.

After reading and discussing Christine’s case, all teacher candidates indicated that
including special education students in the general education classroom would be
challenging. The majority of the teacher candidates provided general statements that

showed their support for inclusion. However, pre and post discussion responses indicated

184

that more than one person struggled with the concept of inclusion and whether or not they
agreed with it. These responses were not evident in whole class discussion, where Lydia,
one of the focus students, was the only one who publicly critiqued including special
education students in the general education classroom. Comparing pre and post
discussion responses revealed that discussing the Christine case with their peers
encouraged more teacher candidates to question and challenge their understanding of
inclusion than when responding to the case on their own. Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the
differences between pre and post discussion responses. The charts illustrate the
proportion of students who responded by (a) describing a deepening understanding about
inclusion. (b) responding with uncertainty and frustration, (c) sharing a personal story
related to the case, or (d) stating their support for inclusion without describing new or

changed understandings.

 

I Understanding ‘
IE] Frustration
El Story
['3 Other

 

 

 

Figure 1. Types of responses written about Christine’s case prior to class discussions.

185

 

 

I Understanding
El Frustration

El Story

D Other

 

 

 

 

Figure 2. Types of responses written about Christine’s case after class discussion.

Recognizing the impact of culture. Almost‘all of the teacher candidates in ED 222
grew up in small, midwestem towns and had very limited exposure to people from
different cultures. One of the reasons that the “Goodnight Moon” case was chosen was
because it illustrated how two different cultures clashed. impacting the learning
environment in the classroom. As described in Chapter 2, the “Goodnight Moon” case
described how Native Alaskan children unexpectedly responded to a popular children’s
bedtime story by crying. The second page of the case provided more context for the case,
explaining how the Native Alaskan children were frightened by the bedtime story
because they were not accustomed to sleeping by themselves in the dark. After teacher
candidates read and discussed the case, Ms. Pratt asked them to explain and write
whether or not the case made them think differently about teaching diverse learners and
creating an inclusive learning community. I analyzed all 25 responses that were written in
class to see how teacher candidates responded to the activity. Most responses were short.
and many of the teacher candidates wrote about the same topic. However, responses

revealed that reading and discussing the case assisted teacher candidates in developing

186

cultural awareness and an understanding of how differences between teachers’ and
students’ cultures can impact classrooms.

The majority of the class, 72%. responded that the case made them consider how
important it is for teachers to consider students’ background and culture while planning
lessons. These teacher candidates described culture in general terms, spoke about cultural
insight, described cultural change, or did not make an explicit reference to culture (see
Figure 3). One teacher candidate wrote about culture in general terms, stating that it was
important for a teacher to consider students’ cultures. Seventeen teacher candidates
described how reading and responding to the case either enhanced or even changed their
views about the impact of culture on teaching. The remaining teacher candidates, 28% of
the class, did not explicitly mention culture but described how the case made them think
differently about such things as the use of children’s literature, the role of the classroom
environment, or the importance of planning lessons in advance. ,

Eighteen teacher candidates described how the “Goodnight Moon” case enhanced
their understanding of culture. They explained that the activity helped them in
recognizing the impact that culture could have on instruction and the need for teachers to
acknowledge children’s cultures when planning lessons. One teacher candidate wrote
about her understandings in general terms, and 11 teacher candidates gave more detail
about how the case helped them deepen their understanding. These teacher candidates
gave examples of how the case made them “recognize,” “realize,” or “think deeper”
about the role that culture has in instruction. For example, one teacher candidate wrote,

This story makes me realize how different cultures really are at times and

how careful teachers must be. As a teacher, you really have to know your

Students and where they are coming from so that you don’t end up sending
the wrong message to them.

187

The 6 teacher candidates who spoke about cultural change described how the case made
them “reconsider” or “think differently” about culture and instruction. For example, one
teacher candidate wrote, “This makes me reconsider the way I view a group of learners
and how to best accommodate them. I feel like I should make fewer assumptions and
make sure I understand different views based on culture.” Another teacher candidates
wrote.

This makes me feel differently about my own teaching. I cannot always

assume that all of my students come from the same culture or background.

I will need to spend some critical time getting to know each of the students

personally. Then, once this occurs, I can introduce different backgrounds

to the entire class.

These responses do not reveal how teacher candidates are defining culture.
However, they do indicate that reading and discussing the “Goodnight Moon” case
supported them in developing more understanding about the ways that teachers’ and
students’ cultures can differ. By reading the case, they saw how cultures could clash in
the classroom and lead to misunderstandings. Some teacher candidates recognized that
they had made assumptions about students, expecting them to share the same
experiences, values, and beliefs as themselves. One of Ms. Pratt’s goals for the course
was to help teacher candidates recognize and understand how the hidden curriculum
operates in schooling. She also wanted them to recognize that the cultural capital that
children have is not necessarily the cultural capital that is privileged in schools. By
reading and discussing the “Goodnight Moon” case, teacher candidates began to develop

an awareness that differences in beliefs and values can lead to unintended outcomes in

classrooms. They recognized that teachers needed to be careful not to make assumptions

188

about their students when teaching. They also saw that it’s important for teachers to

consider students’ backgrounds when planning instruction.

 

I Cultlgeneral
I Cult/insight
I Cult/change
El General

 

 

 

Figure 3. Proportion of “Goodnight Moon” case reflections that represented general
understandings, deepened and insightful understandings, or changed understandings
about culture.

The teacher ’s role when including children. Reading and discussing written cases
encouraged teacher candidates to view the role of the teacher in new ways. When teacher
candidates discussed the “Goodnight Moon” case. they began to recognize that it’s
important for teachers to consider children’s cultural backgrounds when planning lessons.
As one teacher candidate illustrated. “Culture really does exist!” Reading and discussing
the case supported teacher candidates in recognizing some of the responsibilities that they
will have when they become teachers. Discussing Christine’s case helped teacher
candidates recognize some of the challenges that teachers face as they strive to make their
classrooms inclusive learning communities. When teacher candidates first responded to
Christine’s case, the majority agreed with inclusion and gave personal examples that

supported it. However, after engaging in conversations with their peers and hearing

189

different perspectives, they began to develop a fuller understanding of the challenges that
teachers face when including special education students in the general education
classroom.

Some of teacher candidates’ post survey responses revealed how course activities
assisted them in thinking about the role of the teacher when children are included in
classrooms. Field experiences and case activities supported some teacher candidates in
thinking about issues of equity and equality in the classroom and developing a
commitment to include all children during instruction. Pre and post survey questions'8
that asked teacher candidates to rank their level of agreement to seven statements did not
reveal significant differences in responses; however. some of the comments that teacher
candidates wrote to support their ratings revealed how they were thinking about the role
of the teacher. Responses that proved to be the most informative came from the
statements, “Teachers often expect less from students from the lower socioeconomic
class,” and “Students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds typically have fewer
literacy opportunities than their middle-class peers.” Ratings for these statements, like the
others, did not reveal significant patterns or changes. However, some comments from
post survey responses revealed that teacher candidates were aware that teachers have a
responsibility to teach all children and that teacher decision-making can impact the
learning opportunities that children do or do not have in the classroom. Some teacher

candidates even wrote comments to support their ratings that revealed how their

experiences in ED 222 impacted the ways in which they thought about teachers and

 

'8 See chapter 2 for a more detailed description of the survey and for why only parts of it were useful
during data analysis.

190

teaching. However, only a small percentage of the class wrote comments that referred
back to classroom activities or assignments.

When responding to the statement, “Teachers often expect less from students
from the lower socioeconomic class,” one teacher candidate responded to the question by
mentioning RCE video clips. She wrote, “Video clips, especially the Harlem clip, showed
otherwise. My field work also showed that teachers expect success from all.” A second
student stated, “Maybe in some areas [students have fewer literacy opportunities]. The
Harlem video suggests otherwise.” A third teacher candidate wrote, “After being in my
field experience, I have noticed that my CT does not treat any students differently
because of SES.” Another teacher candidate wrote, “I think teachers believe
modifications might be needed at times for students of lower SES. but that quality of
work is expected to be the same.” A fifth student wrote, “I think teachers (most teachers)
try to accommodate students abilities rather than socioeconomic class.”

These responses revealed that some teacher candidates believed that teachers
could create inclusive learning environments where they hold similar expectations for all
students. Comments like these reflected a belief that teachers should have high
expectations for all students and can provide equal opportunities for a diverse range of
learners. These comments also reflected an awareness that teachers sometimes need to
make modifications to instruction to support student learning. All teacher candidates did
not provide comments for their rankings, and I cannot use these responses as evidence
that all teacher candidates formed new understandings about the role of the teacher in
inclusive learning environments. However, the responses that are illustrated here provide

further examples, supporting what was learned from written cases, that some teacher

191

candidates were beginning to think about the role of the teacher in new and more
complex ways. References made to field placements and to RCE videos and clips
indicated that course activities and field experiences had an impact on how teacher
candidates were thinking about the role and responsibilities of the teacher when creating
inclusive learning communities. Class discussions and written responses to the
“Goodnight Moon” case and Christine’s case revealed that teacher candidates were
developing a deeper understanding of what it meant to teach diverse students. Responses
reflected that some teacher candidates were thinking about issues of equity and equality
in the class and revealed a commitment to teach all students.

It’s much easier to trace how focus students’ views about the role of the teacher
changed throughout the semester than follow how the other 20 teacher candidates’ views
changed. Post survey responses, when studied by themselves, do not provide evidence of
change. However, there is evidence that teacher candidates began to think about the
teaching of diverse students in more complex ways. When considering what was not
written at the beginning of the semester versus what was written at the end of the
semester, one can see that teacher candidates may have formed more complex
understandings of what it meant to include all students in the classroom. Written
comments showed that teacher candidates began to develop a broader definition for
inclusion and began to recognize the challenges that teachers might face when including
special needs students in the classroom.

Data collected on the entire class indicated that many teacher candidates were
writing about issues at the end of the semester that they had not been writing at the

beginning of the semester. Some began to question the role and responsibilities of the

192

classroom teacher and stated how teachers can modify instruction while maintaining high
expectations for all. Comments made by teacher candidates, both in class discussions and
in writing. revealed that there were others, and not just focus students, in the course who
began thinking differently about the role and responsibilities of the teacher.

End of the semester reflections. One important goal that Ms. Pratt had for her
class, in addition to learning about the teaching of literacy, was to help teacher candidates
learn about what it means to have an inclusive learning community. She wanted her
students to examine themselves as learners, teachers, and as literate cultural beings. She
planned activities with the intention of helping teacher candidates recognize and
understand what drives their decisions and how experiences and beliefs influence who
they are as teachers. At the end of the semester, teacher candidates were given a take-
home self-assessment and were asked to comment on their learning and growth
throughout the semester. They were asked to provide examples from artifacts in their
portfolios that supported comments that they made about their growth. Data were
collected on 24 of the 25 final self-assessments. One student was late handing in her self-
assessment, and her self-assessment was incomplete. Because I did not collect her self-
assessment, I did not include this student’s responses in the final self-assessment analysis.
Responses to self-assessment questions revealed that teacher candidates believed both
field and course experiences contributed to their growth and learning. They gave
examples of how they developed deeper understandings of what it meant to create
inclusive learning communities and provided examples of how making personal

connections to course and field activities supported their learning.

193

On the final self-assessment, teacher candidates were asked to describe one
instance, a critical incident, experienced during the semester that helped them strengthen
their understanding of the importance of creating inclusive learning communities. They
were asked to provide sufficient detail for their responses and give reasons why they
experienced change. In response, 50% of the teacher candidates described how field
experiences and observing interactions in real classrooms helped them better understand
what inclusion might look like. They explained how viewing real issues in the field
helped them understand what teachers face when trying to create inclusive learning
communities.

Two teacher candidates described how reading and responding to Christine’s
case, A Case of Freedom to Learn (Peacock et al., 1999). served as a critical incident in
their learning, and a third mentioned how both Christine’s case and field experiences
were critical turning points for her. The remaining 9 students, just over 37% of the class,
described critical incidents that came from other course activities that were not based on a
particular case that they read or on an incident that occurred in the field. For example,
some mentioned how participating in group discussions and book club activities were
particularly enlightening. It’s important to note that these critical incidents are significant
because teacher candidates gave examples of how both the field and the course served as
critical learning moments for them. Teacher candidates gave examples of critical
incidents that occurred in the course just as frequently as they gave examples from the
field. It’s also important to note that some teacher candidates, when they could have

chosen any experience from ED 222, selected the Christine case activity for their critical

194

incident. Figure 4 illustrates the proportion of the class that selected field, course, or case-

related activities for their critical incidents.

 

 

I Field

I Field/Christine
Christine

D Other

 

 

 

 

Figure 4. Proportion of self-assessment critical incidents that were related to field
experiences. the Christine case, or other course-related activities.

In a second question on the final pre-assessment, teacher candidates were asked to
write about the changes in knowledge and/or beliefs that they experienced in relation to
how to teach literacy in an inclusive learning community. Ms. Pratt told teacher
candidates that in order to analyze their growth throughout the semester, they needed to
read through the contents of their portfolios and look for patterns, contradictions, or
changes in how they had thought about issues throughout the semester. In response, 20
out of 24 students (83%) made reference to reading cases and described how activities
around these cases helped them better understand issues of inclusion. Their responses
reiterated many of the new understandings that they had previously described in the
“Goodnight Moon” and Christine case quick-writes and reflections.

Some teacher candidates mentioned how cases in general helped them better

understand issues of inclusion, see issues from multiple perspectives, and redefine what it

195

means to work with diverse learners. Ten out of 24 teacher candidates. however, made
explicit reference to the “Goodnight Moon” case and how it impacted their understanding
of inclusion and the role that culture plays in classrooms. Seven others made explicit
reference to the Christine case and how it impacted their views and beliefs about
including special needs students in the classroom. One teacher candidate explicitly
mentioned both the “Goodnight Moon” case and Christine’s case. The remaining teacher
candidates cited other course activities in their responses. Some examples came from
book club and class discussions that were not directly related to field experiences or case
activities. Figure 5 illustrates the proportion of teacher candidates who referred to cases

when describing their growth and learning throughout the semester.

 

 

I Mention Cases
El Don't Mention Cases

 

 

 

 

Figure 5. Proportion of self-assessment responses that highlighted learning from cases.

Relationships between focus student and class findings. Teacher candidates’
responses to written cases, pre and post surveys, and end-of—the semester self-
assessments provide examples that reading and discussing written cases supported

teacher candidates in developing understandings of what it means to have an inclusive

196

learning community. As they read and discussed cases, teacher candidates recognized the
impact of culture on teachers, redefined inclusion, and began to understand the roles and
responsibilities of teachers when creating inclusive learning environments. Teacher
candidates’ responses on the final self-assessment also showed that field-based
experiences supported their learning. These experiences assisted teacher candidates in
learning about how to create inclusive learning communities. These experiences and new
understandings also reflected what focus students learned throughout the semester. Each
focus student, however, highlighted a different aspect of her growth in the final self-
assessment.

In their final self—assessments, Mallory and Lydia both provided examples of how
field experiences and case activities helped them gain new understandings about how to
create inclusive learning communities. Their experiences and understandings reflected
what was learned from the general class findings. Both Mallory and Lydia highlighted
and gave examples of how their attitudes and beliefs had changed over the semester.
Mallory provided examples of how she had narrowly defined diversity at the beginning
of the semester when she expressed a desire to teach only English and Spanish speaking
children. When describing her growth at the end of the semester, she revealed how she
began to recognize why she felt uncomfortable when children talked about difference.
This realization helped Mallory begin to face her own fears about working with diverse
groups of children. It also helped her see that teachers cannot avoid the issue and need to
talk with their students about difference,

Lydia also provided examples of how both Christine’s case and experiences in the

field helped her better understand what it meant to create inclusive learning

197

environments. Throughout the semester, Lydia was very critical of including special
needs students in the general education classroom. At the end of the semester, however,
she began to recognize that she needed to change her attitude and take more
responsibility for learning how to teach diverse children. She began to see the role of the
teacher in a new way, understanding that teachers. even the most experienced. do not
always have the answers.

Lizz, Sadie, and Jackie also provided examples of how their understanding of
inclusion had either deepened or changed throughout the semester. They provided
examples of early written work that revealed limited knowledge about inclusion and
diversity. Lizz revisited an assignment where she described her ideal classroom and
recognized that she, too, had narrowly defined inclusion. She had not considered how
students could be culturally and linguistically diverse. Jackie and Sadie did not describe
changes in their attitudes and beliefs about inclusion, but they did provide examples that
revealed deeper understanding of the issues. When She revisited an assignment where she
described her k-12 experiences with diverse students, Jackie recognized how limited her
own experiences were and wrote that she still had much to learn. Sadie provided
examples of how reading one of the cases and observing her CT in the field helped her
understand what an inclusive learning community might look like.

All focus students provided examples in either quick-writes or final assessments
an understanding that their initial definitions for diversity and inclusion had been quite
narrow. Like many others in the class. focus students gave examples of how written cases
supported them in reaching these new understandings. These various experiences and

understandings illustrated the similarities between focus student and general class

198

findings. General class findings reinforced what was already learned from following 5
individual students in the class. However, the personal stories and connections that
appeared in much of the focus student data was difficult, and sometimes impossible, to

identify and analyze with the rest of the class.

Developing Knowledge and Skills for Teaching Literacy

During the first few weeks of ED 222, Ms. Pratt spent a lot of time helping
teacher candidates think about what it meant to be literate and what it meant to create
inclusive learning communities. She had teacher candidates read about different theories
of learning and asked them to begin thinking about their own philosophy of literacy
instruction. She wanted teacher candidates to think critically about the role of the teacher
and consider how a person’s prior experiences, understandings, and beliefs impact who
they are as teachers before introducing them to the literacy content of the course. By
beginning the semester in this way, Ms. Pratt hoped that teacher candidates would be
more critical of what they were learning and would continually ask who gains and who
loses when teachers make instructional decisions. Ms. Pratt also began the semester by
focusing on issues of inclusion because it was an overarching theme of the course that
could be linked to the concepts of the hidden curriculum, cultural capital, and equity vs.
equality.

Another goal that Ms. Pratt had for the course was to provide teacher candidates
with an overview of the knowledge and skills that are needed to teach literacy to diverse
students. Since ED 222 was the first literacy methods course for teacher candidates, they

were expected to develop an awareness and understanding of the literacy concepts and

199

pedagogical approaches used to teach literacy but were not expected to be able to
implement all of the approaches by the end of one semester. Because Ms. Pratt began the
semester by focusing on what it meant to create an inclusive learning community, she
hoped that teacher candidates would consider issues of inclusion as they were introduced
to the literacy content of the course. Activities that were based on written cases were
successful in helping teacher candidates think about issues of inclusion; however, data
collected from these activities provided few examples of how written cases supported
teacher candidates in learning about the pedagogy of teaching children to read and write.
Data collected from RCE activities, however, indicated that the hypermedia program
supported teacher candidates in developing these knowledge and skills.

In the following section, I provide examples to illustrate how RCE videos and
clips supported teacher candidates in developing literacy content and pedagogical
knowledge. I describe the various ways in which RCE cases were integrated into the
course and provide examples of what was learned from RCE activities. I begin by
explaining how Ms. Pratt used RCE to assist teacher candidates’ in understanding the
ways that teachers create learning opportunities for emergent readers and writers. Then, 1
illustrate how RCE supported teacher candidates in thinking about the ways in which all
children can be included in instruction. Finally, I describe how pre and post survey
responses revealed teacher candidates’ increased knowledge but limited understanding of
how to design literacy instruction for inclusive learning communities.

Creating Learning Opportunities for Readers and Writers. Ms. Pratt introduced
teacher candidates to RCE in the sixth week of class. Previous to this class, teacher

candidates had already read a chapter in their textbook on emergent literacy and viewed

200

some clips of classroom instruction through a CD-Rom that came with their course
textbook. In the sixth week of class, Ms. Pratt showed an entire RCE video, which lasted
approximately 40 minutes. The video introduced Ms. Hemmeter and her kindergarten
class in San Antonio, Texas. The majority of the students in the video were native
Spanish speakers but appeared to speak fluent English. Before showing the video, Ms.
Pratt told teacher candidates to keep in mind the various emergent literacy concepts and
strategies that had been introduced in their textbook. Teacher candidates had previously
received a study guide to go with the emergent literacy chapters and referred to the guide
when Viewing Mrs. Hemmeter’s case. When the video was over, Ms. Pratt had teacher
candidates form small groups to discuss what they observed in the video. Each group
then reported back to the entire class. At the end of class, teacher candidates reflected on
the RCE video and wrote a quick-write that described what they learned that day and
what stood out to them in Mrs. Hemmeter’s class. Quick—writes were analyzed to see
what aspects of the video and literacy instruction were mentioned.

An analysis of teacher candidates’ quick-writes revealed that all teacher
candidates provided examples of how viewing the video of Mrs. Hemmeter’s class
helped them learn new things about teaching literacy to children. Some teacher
candidates gave general examples of how the case helped them better understand
different aspects of literacy instruction and ways to create inclusive learning
communities. Some of the general instructional insights that were mentioned included the
following:

0 Teachers can make classrooms more inclusive by offering students choice in

activities.

Teachers can make literacy a part of the entire day and can create
environments where reading and writing are everywhere.

Teachers should make instruction relevant to the real world and should relate
it to students’ lives.

Teachers can make classrooms more inclusive by allowing students to work at
different levels.

Teachers can incorporate different types of reading. such as paired reading
and guided reading. during literacy instruction.

Teachers can use literature to support emergent readers and writers.

Other teacher candidates described what they learned in more detail and described

specific instructional strategies that Mrs. Hemmeter used to include all students in

learning. Some of the specific instruction strategies that were mentioned include the

following:

Mrs. Hemmeter showed how teachers can incorporate the family and
community. She had students write letters to her husband and to the owner of
a local grocery story. She also had them write personal stories.

Mrs. Hemmeter demonstrated how to create an environment where literature
is all around. In one example she used word walls.

Teachers like Mrs. Hemmeter can create more literacy opportunities by
incorporating reading and writing into play centers. For example, students in

the video read from menus in their “pretend” restaurant.

202

0 Mrs. Hemmeter incorporated more opportunities to read and write when
students wrote in their journals describing and illustrating things that they
made from Leggo blocks.

0 Mrs. Hemmeter gave a student an opportunity to succeed when she asked a
girl to locate the letter “N” in the morning message. The girl’s first name

began with “.”N

In the following two class sessions. Ms. Pratt had teacher candidates work with
RCE hypermedia program in groups so that they could search for clips that supported the
lessons that they were going to teach in the field. These RCE activities were less
structured than the Mrs. Hemmeter video activity, and teacher candidates were able to
view clips from other schools. After Spending time viewing clips, groups selected their
favorite clip and posted a message on the discussion forum describing why they liked it.
Ms. Pratt and I had arranged to have another ED 222 class respond to teacher candidates’
messages, but the other class did not consistently post responses. In the end, Ms. Pratt
encouraged her students to respond to one another’s message.

Responses to postings were very sporadic, and teacher candidates had mixed
feelings about the effectiveness of using the forum. However, a number of teacher
candidates later reported in an e-mail to Ms. Pratt that they acquired teaching ideas from
the RCE clips and planned to incorporate them into their literacy lesson plans. In their
final self-assessments, teacher candidates had differing opinions about the effectiveness

of the discussion forum conversations. However. all teacher candidates wrote that

viewing literacy instruction on RCE was beneficial and helped them understand the
literacy practices that were being introduced in the course.

Including all children in instruction. Responses to RCE activities indicated that
case activities reinforced teacher candidates understanding of teaching literacy and
assisted them in looking critically at instruction. However, responses also revealed that a
number of teacher candidates still held superficial views of inclusion. In week nine,
teacher candidates discussed an article that they read on teaching reading comprehension
strategies and formed groups to select RCE clips that, according to Ms. Pratt,
“demonstrated some aspect of comprehension.” Groups identified clips that illustrated
such strategies as predicting, using prior knowledge, and questioning. The following
week, groups presented their favorite comprehension strategy clip to the entire class and
explained why they selected the clip.

In their examples, one group showed a clip of a teacher and students working
together to create a story. The clip illustrated how the activity assisted children in
developing awareness of character, setting, and plot. When reading an article titled,
Effective Practices for Developing Reading Comprehension (Duke & Pearson, 2002),
teacher candidates read that having knowledge of story grammar could assist children’s
comprehension of stories. The RCE clip illustrated one of the strategies that was
introduced in their reading. In another clip, teacher candidates showed how a teacher
asked students to make predictions and confirm their predictions while reading. Teacher
candidates identified that having children make predictions and confirm predictions while

reading could support their understanding of the text.

A third RCE example illustrated how a group of children assisted one another in
comprehending a text by asking each other questions and clarifying statements. Using
open-ended questions to support reading comprehension was another strategy that was
introduced to teacher candidates when they read the article on teaching reading
comprehension. By selecting clips in groups and presenting and discussing these clips,
teacher candidates demonstrated that they were becoming more aware of reading
comprehension strategies and were able to identify these strategies in practice.

While groups presented their clips to the entire class, Ms. Pratt asked teacher
candidates to think about how the clips did or did not support an inclusive learning
community. She gave everybody a chart to write down ideas as they viewed the clips and
told students that they could add to their charts as the class discussed the clips. Charts and
field notes that were collected from this day indicated that all teacher candidates were
able to describe at least one way that instruction could be supportive of an inclusive
learning environment.

1 Teacher candidates who presented the story grammar clip explained that the clip
demonstrated how a teacher could include all students in a lesson while teaching about
the plot, setting, and characters that make up a story. The teacher took ideas from
children and used these ideas as the class created a story together. The clip also showed
how the teacher had children tell their ideas to a partner, creating an opportunity to
include all children in the sharing of ideas. A group that presented a joumal-writing clip
explained that the teacher in the clip created a more inclusive learning community by

using journals and allowing students to write in their own ways.

205

Teacher candidates gave mixed responses when they compared the prediction clip
with the clip that showed children discussing a story together. The prediction clip was
very teacher-centered where the teacher initiated all questions. The second clip was
student-centered, and the teacher wasn’t even shown. When asked whether these two
clips supported inclusive learning communities. some teacher candidates thought that if a
lesson were teacher-led, then it would be easier to include all students in various
activities. Other teacher candidates, however, pointed out that some of the clips that
showed student-led groups were also very inclusive, and the teacher was not leading the
instruction. One teacher candidate commented that in the student-led group, one child
seemed to dominate all of the discussion. Her observation prompted a class discussion on
what teacher candidates were seeing in their field placements and how instruction can be
made more inclusive.

These conversations between teacher candidates demonstrated that they were
beginning to view classroom instruction with a more critical eye towards whether
instruction favored some students over others. When discussing the first clips, teacher
candidates appeared to dichotomize instruction as being either inclusive or not inclusive.
However, when discussing the student-centered and teacher-centered clips, teacher
candidates made comments that indicated they were beginning to look at classroom
instruction in a manner that was not so “black and white.”

When Ms. Pratt and I met after class, she stated that she was pleased with how
class went and with the conversations that students were having. It appeared that not only
were they demonstrating an understanding of specific reading comprehension strategies,

teacher candidates were also demonstrating an awareness of how instruction might or

might not support an inclusive learning environment. Ms. Pratt was pleased because we
had struggled for weeks to come up with strategies that would assist teacher candidates in
integrating issues of inclusion with the literacy content of the course. Teacher candidates’
homework assignments, however, revealed that they had developed understandings about
inclusion that were not evident in their class discussions. For this assignment, teacher
candidates were asked to reflect upon their field experience and describe the inclusion
that they were seeing in the field. All of the teacher candidates, except for one, described
how their classrooms were very inclusive. The teacher candidate who stated that she
hadn’t seen much inclusion was a special education student that defined inclusion as
having special needs students integrated in the regular education classroom. Since she did
not observe special education students in her classroom, she felt that neither inclusion nor
exclusion was taking place.

When describing their field placements, very few teacher candidates provided
examples of exclusion. When they did, examples were usually based on children being
excluded from instruction because of behavioral problems. These comments appeared to
indicate that a number of teacher candidates were not recognizing that “built into the
fabric of schools are curricular, pedagogical, and evaluative practices that intentionally or
unintentionally” privilege some students over others” (Villegas & Lucas, 2002, p. 30).
Some of the comments written by teacher candidates indicated that they were still
thinking about inclusion and exclusion in superficial ways.

In other examples on the same homework assignment, Ms. Pratt and I noticed that
teacher candidates were providing examples of inclusion that only illustrated a child’s

active involvement in the class. For example, if a child could voice an answer to a

207

question, then he or she was stated as being included. If the child was inattentive, didn’t
engage in the activity. or didn’t respond, then he or she was excluded. After reading a
number of such examples, I realized that teacher candidates seemed to be defining
inclusion as whether or not students had a fair opportunity to participate in class
activities. In order to provide evidence for how children are included in their classrooms,
teacher candidates wrote such comments as the following:
o All have a fair chance to participate.
o All went on a field trip.
0 The teacher includes all students in daily activities.
0 The teacher calls on all.
0 Most of the time the classroom experiences many instances of inclusion.
Usually all lessons are directed at the entire group and every child is given the
opportunity to respond or comment.

0 When the whole class is together as a large group everyone participates.

These responses indicated that when teacher candidates thought about inclusion
and instruction, they were taking into consideration issues of equity and equality and
giving all children equal opportunities to participate in class. However, they did not take
into consideration the concepts of cultural capital and the hidden curriculum that had
been implicitly embedded throughout ED 222. Ms. Pratt seldom used these terms while
teaching, but she did have her class engage in conversations throughout the semester
about who gains and who loses during classroom instruction. She wanted teacher

candidates to recognize that some children are inherently at a disadvantage when they

208

come to school not having knowledge or experience of the ways of thinking. believing,
and acting that are privileged in schools. Ms. Pratt wanted teacher candidates to
recognize that just by selecting one type of activity over another, regardless of whether or
not all students actively engage in the activity, teachers instantly privilege some children
over others. Teacher candidates’ homework responses indicated that they were thinking
about issues of inclusion but were not thinking about inclusion at this deeper level.

Responses to pre and post surveys. Throughout the semester. teacher candidates
had demonstrated through RCE activities, written assignments, and class discussions that
they were developing an understanding of how to teach literacy to diverse students. This
growth was also evident when I compared the open-ended responses that teacher
candidates wrote to two pre and post survey questions. In the first example, teacher
candidates were given a scenario that stated they were teaching in an inner city, public
school in Detroit. The paragraph asked teacher candidates to imagine that they were
teaching in a very diverse classroom and described some of the Students that were in this
classroom: gifted students, students struggling to work at grade level, students with
attention deficit disorder, and students from single parent and low-income homes. After
reading the description of the students, teacher candidates were asked, “What
considerations and accommodations will you need to make when planning literacy
lessons for this group of Students? Please explain.”

In a second example, teacher candidates were given a scenario that introduced
them to Nian Nian, an English as a Second Language (ESL) student who recently
immigrated to the United States. The scenario told teacher candidates to imagine that they

were a classroom teacher who just received Nian Nian in their class. The scenario

explained that Nian Nian appeared to be able to understand very general conversation
that occurred in the classroom: however, her English reading and writing skills were very
poor. Teacher candidates were told to describe how they thought they could best support
Nian Nian in acquiring English skills and the kind of literacy instruction that they thought
would best support her learning. Teacher candidates responded to both scenarios in pre
and post surveys. Ms. Pratt never returned the surveys to her students, and the scenarios
were never discussed in class. Ms. Pratt and I did not want the scenarios to be discussed
in class because we wanted to try and assess how individual responses varied from the
beginning to the end of the semester. If the scenarios had been returned and discussed in
class, teacher candidates might have written responses that represent Ms. Pratt’s or other
students’ ideas.

Analyzing the Detroit and ESL scenarios. Data collected on focus students
revealed that personal writing and case activities assisted them in beginning to acquire
the knowledge and skills that are needed to teach literacy to diverse students. Responses
to pre and post surveys indicated that others in the class gained similar knowledge
throughout the semester. However, survey responses also revealed that some teacher
candidates lacked knowledge and had misconceptions about teaching ESL students. Pre
and post survey responses were analyzed for the number of suggestions that teacher
candidates provided. the degree of detail that was provided for each suggestion, and
whether or not suggestions were appropriate. Responses were coded as either general or
expanded to describe their level of detail. A response was labeled as general if teacher
candidates described how they would provide instruction but didn’t provide a discussion,

rationale, or explanation for their response. For example, one teacher candidate wrote,

“You should use a variety of different strategies and monitor their success and then adapt
or mold your strategies.” In this response, the teacher candidate provided three
suggestions. “Use a variety of different strategies” was one response. “Monitor their
success” was a second. “Adapt or mold your strategies” was a third. “Adapt” and “mold”
are not listed as two separate ideas because I interpreted them as being the same. These
responses would all be labeled as general responses because no explanation or further
discussion was given about why these ideas or strategies are being used.

An expanded response was one that provided more information and a possible
rationale or explanation for why a specific suggestion was given. For example, one
teacher candidate wrote,

I will choose books with many levels of complexity so individual

assignments can be modified. For example, I may ask a learning disability

child to just try and re-tell me the story and then reflect on it whereas I

may ask a gifted and talented student to discuss the symbolism they found

in the book.

This response would be labeled an expanded response because the student went into
further discussion and provided further examples that supported her statement, “I will
choose books with many levels of complexity. . .” In this response, “choose books with
many levels” is one suggestion. “Ask a learning disabled child to just try and retell” is a
second suggestion. “Reflect on it” is a third suggestion, and “ask a gifted and talented
student to discuss the symbolism” is a fourth suggestion. This student would be labeled
as giving four different suggestions for instruction, and the first suggestion is expanded.

The rationale for choosing books with many levels of complexity is so that the teacher

can modify individual assignments.

211

Responses were also coded as acceptable if they seemed appropriate for the
question and reflected goals that Ms. Pratt had for the class. For example, one of the
goals for the course was to encourage teacher candidates to think about how teachers can
make their classrooms inclusive learning communities. Ms. Pratt wanted teacher
candidates to consider ways that literacy instruction can occur to promote learning for all
students in a classroom. In all of the pre and post responses to the Detroit scenario, only
one teacher candidate gave an inappropriate response. Instead of offering ways that a
teacher could modify or adapt instruction for diverse learners, this teacher candidate
suggested that the gifted students be sent to another program or another school. She also
responded to the question by stating that she would “assess and provide more instruction
for the others.” This teacher candidate’s suggestions were counted and added to the
overall suggestions that were given by the entire class; however, her response to send the
gifted students to another classroom or school was flagged as not supporting the kind of
instruction that was being promoted in ED 222. Therefore, this response was labeled as
inappropriate.

After responses were coded for number, detail, and appropriateness, I again
revisited pre and post responses to determine how individual’s responses differed from
the beginning of the semester to the end of the semester. For example, some teacher
candidates listed very general responses in their pre survey and listed very similar,
general responses in their post survey. The only difference in some of these pre and post
survey responses was that more general responses were sometimes listed in the post
survey. In other examples, the quality of pre and post responses differed. For example, in

the pre survey one teacher candidate responded that she would consider different ability

levels and provide additional support; however, no specific suggestions were given for
what this support might look like. In the post survey, this same student provided more
specific examples and explained how she would use a‘variety of specific grouping
strategies to provide more support for struggling students. This teacher candidate’s post
survey response provides and example of how more specific strategies were given at the
end of the semester when compared to the beginning of the semester.

Findings fiom the Detroit and ESL scenarios. Teacher candidates provided more
instructional suggestions and more suggestions that were expanded in their post survey
Detroit responses in comparison to their pre survey responses. In the pre survey, a total of
154 instructional suggestions were offered, whereas 174 suggestions were offered in the
post survey. In the pre survey, 26 expanded responses were given whereas 37 expanded
responses were given in the post survey. In addition, one teacher candidate provided an
inappropriate response for both the pre and post survey. The differences between pre and
post survey responses reflected what was learned from other data sources that were
collected throughout the semester. Scenario responses revealed that teacher candidates
were developing an understanding of the kinds of strategies that support literacy
instruction and were able to provide more explanation for why they were selecting
specific strategies at the end of the semester compared to the beginning of the semester.

When comparing the pre and post responses of individual teacher candidates, 16
out of 25 teacher candidates, or 64%, gave specific and detailed suggestions in the post
survey responses that were not mentioned in the pre survey. Eight out of 25 students, or
32%, gave general post survey responses that were very Similar to their pre survey

responses. In the post survey responses, however. more overall suggestions were given.

213

In summary, 24 out of 25 teacher candidates provided appropriate instructional
suggestions in both pre and post survey responses. Teacher candidates, however.
provided more specific suggestions and more rationales for these suggestions in

responses that were written at the end of the semester. Figure 6 illustrates these findings.

I Specific
L'l Inappropriate

 

 

 

Figure 6. Types of suggestions given for teaching literacy to diverse learners on the
Detroit post survey scenario.

In general, pre and post survey responses to the ESL scenario were similar to the
Detroit scenario in that more suggestions were provided in the post survey than in the pre
survey. However, the quality of the responses for these two scenarios was quite different.
Less than half the class, or 10 out of 25 students, gave specific, appropriate Strategies in
the ESL post survey responses that were not mentioned in the pre survey. Almost the
same number of students, 9 out of 25. provided general responses in both their pre and
post surveys, and these responses frequently reflected the same ideas both at the
beginning and end of the semester. What is most interesting, however. is that at the end
of the semester, 6 teacher candidates. or 24% of the class. provided responses to the ESL

scenario that were inappropriate or questionable. These responses indicated that teacher

214

candidates might not have understood some of the issues that needed to be considered
when working with ESL students.
In the general responses. many teacher candidates wrote that they would involve
Nian Nian in more class activities, would pair her up with a partner, and would try to get
her parents to use more English at home. Common responses also focused on the
importance of creating a safe environment for Nian Nian so that she would feel more
comfortable speaking English. Some of the specific strategies that were provided in the
post survey included:
0 Reading done in class should be given to her ahead of time so she has time to
prepare in advance; work on recognizing words that go with pictures;
0 She may be able to participate with the class in a book club if the book is read
to her. She may understand more English than She can speak or write;
0 Select books carefully which include basic vocabulary words. I would also
look for books which support the text strongly with illustrations which are not

reliant on language.

Some of the teacher candidates who provided inappropriate or questionable
responses focused their suggestions on having Nian Nian practice phonics and
letter/sound relationships and did not provide suggestions for how she might improve her
English comprehension. One teacher candidate suggested that Nian Nian work on
phonics skills and workbooks while the rest of the class was engaged in literacy
activities. Another suggested that Nian Nian take phonics workbooks home and practice

doing the pages in the workbooks. All of these responses emphasized phonics instruction

215

and did not suggest other ways that Nian Nian could improve her English skills. The ESL
scenario explained that Nian Nian had a limited understanding of spoken English and
struggled with reading and writing. This description would indicate that in addition to
learning about the English phonetic system, Nian Nian would benefit from instruction
that supported vocabulary development and fluency. A more appropriate response might
have described how a teacher could support Nian Nian by relating her native language to
English and building upon what Nian Nian already knew. Instead of focusing all
instruction on phonics, a more appropriate response would have suggested a more
balanced approach to literacy instruction. A balanced approach, one that integrated a
variety of instructional strategies, was an approach Ms. Pratt advocated in her course.

Another teacher candidate provided an inappropriate response because her
response did not reflect Ms. Pratt’s goal for building an inclusive learning community.
This teacher candidate did not offer ways in which a teacher might modify instruction to
accommodate a learned like Nian Nian. Instead, this particular teacher candidate stated
that Nian Nian, a fourth grader, should be sent back to kindergarten because of her
limited English skills. This teacher candidate wrote that even if Nian Nian “was up to par
in mathematics, science, and history,” the teacher should still send her back to
kindergarten if Nian Nian struggled to communicate. This response did not take into
consideration the social and psychological implications of moving Nian Nian to a
kindergarten class and did not support the course goal of building of inclusive learning
communities.

Significance of findings. Ms. Pratt integrated RCE into her course on the days

when literacy concepts such as emergent literacy and reading comprehension strategies

216

were being introduced to teacher candidates. She designed RCE activities so that they
would support what teacher candidates were reading and discussing in the course. Data
collected during class sessions and from pre and post surveys revealed that a number of
teacher candidates were able to identify and describe ways in which teachers could
provide literacy instruction to children. However. there were times when teacher
candidates responded to activities by giving very general suggestions for literacy
instruction. Suggestions were appropriate, but sometimes they were so general that it was
difficult to judge how well teacher candidates really understood the literacy concepts that
were being introduced in the course. Teacher candidates were able to identify, name, and
list strategies that supported reading and writing instruction; however, they did not
always provide further descriptions and rationales for why they choose to focus on
particular strategies over others. Considering that one of Ms. Pratt’s goals was to provide
teacher candidates a broad overview of literacy concepts and strategies for teaching
literacy to diverse students, these findings support that goal. However, it appeared that
there were times when teacher candidates demonstrated a superficial understanding of
what it meant to provide instruction that supports inclusive learning communities.
Responses from the Detroit scenario Show that over half the class provided not
just more responses. but more specific responses that suggested how teachers could
modify and adapt instruction to meet the needs of students of varying abilities. Responses
to Nian Nian, however, indicated that less than half the class was able to provide specific
strategies that would support a non-native English Speaker, and some of these suggestions
reflected limited knowledge of literacy instruction that supports the needs of normative

English speakers. When we consider that no class sessions were specifically focused on

217

how to provide instruction to ESL students, these findings might not be surprising.
However, the majority of the class had field placements that were in diverse classrooms
and that included non-native English speakers.

One reason why teacher candidates might have given more inappropriate
responses to the ESL scenario in comparison to the Detroit scenario could be because
more explicit discussion and conversation took place on modifying instruction for those
children who have no difficulty communicating in English. For example, in one of the
RCE videos, teacher candidates saw how Mrs. Hemmeter accommodated instruction for a
group of kindergarteners of varying abilities. Even though this class contained many non-
native English speakers in the video, all children appeared to have no difficulty
communicating in English. Ms. Pratt and teacher candidates discussed various strategies
that a teacher could use to accommodate different reading and writing abilities, but they
did not enter into any discussions that focused on what one should do when children are

struggling with the language that is used for instruction.

Understanding Inclusion

Collecting data on focus students and others in the class provided much
information on the various ways that teacher candidates responded to personal writing
and case activities. Teacher candidates’ responses shed light on the types of pedagogical
practices that supported them as they began to acquire the knowledge, skills, and beliefs
that are needed to teach diverse learners. Responses also revealed the different ways that
teacher candidates understood inclusion. In this section, I briefly describe the definition

of inclusion that was constructed by teacher candidates throughout the semester. I also

218

highlight the pedagogical approaches that appeared to support teacher candidates as they
began to form an understanding of inclusion and how to create inclusive learning
environments. I end the chapter by reflecting on the insights that I gained after analyzing
and comparing focus student and general class data.

Defining inclusion. Teacher candidates’ definitions of inclusion evolved, grew.
and changed through course and field experiences. One of the first concepts that teacher
candidates wrestled to understand was defining who is included in inclusive learning
communities. Some teacher candidates defined inclusion as acceptance of others.
regardless of their skin color, cultural background. language, or ability. Teacher
candidates also defined inclusion as giving all children a fair chance to learn, but their
image of what this looks like in inclusive learning communities varied. For instance,
some teacher candidates defined inclusion as giving all students equal opportunities to
physically engage in classroom activities. Some defined inclusion as treating children
fairly, but recognized that treating them fairly did not always mean treating them the
same. Teacher candidates also began to recognize ways to adapt and modify instruction
in ways that would meet the needs of diverse learners. Teacher candidates began to
recognize that including all children meant having the responsibility and moral obligation
to teach all children. They began to see how differences between teachers’ and students’
backgrounds could impact classrooms and learning. Some also recognized that creating
inclusive learning environments meant talking freely about difference in ways that honor
all children’s backgrounds.

Pedagogical insights. The ways in which Ms. Pratt designed and provided support

for activities influenced teacher candidates’ understandings of inclusion. Sometimes Ms.

219

Pratt provided scaffolding and support that assisted teacher candidates in developing
complex understandings. However, when this support was missing. activities sometimes
reinforced superficial interpretations of inclusion. Analyzing data that were collected on
focus students and others in the class indicated that some pedagogical approaches
appeared to support teacher candidates’ understandings better than others. For example,
introducing cases that presented different perspectives and ways of teaching helped
teacher candidates expand their own perspectives and views.

Giving teacher candidates time to discuss cases and hear alternative views
prompted more teacher candidates to question their own assumptions and encouraged
them to analyze cases more critically than when they simply read or viewed cases without
having discussions. Even when they discussed cases, however, some teacher candidates
still needed additional scaffolding and support to move beyond basic and rudimentary
understandings. One example of how Ms. Pratt provided such support occurred when
teacher candidates read Peace Takes Practice (Peacock et el., 1999). When teacher
candidates read this cases. Ms. Pratt assisted them in considering instruction from a
students’ point of view and pushed them to think about issues of equity and equality
when she asked teacher candidates to consider who gained and who lost when Lourdes
made different instructional decisions.

Ms. Pratt assisted teacher candidates in acquiring the knowledge and skills that
are needed to teach literacy in inclusive learning environment by introducing teacher
candidates to RCE videos and clips. These cases of classroom teaching provided teacher
candidates with images of the instructional approaches that were being introduced in the

course. Ms. Pratt supported teacher candidates in becoming familiar with the hypermedia

220

 

program by showing entire video cases and providing suggestions for searching through
clips. She also assisted teacher candidates in knowing what to observe when viewing
clips by providing them with prompts and questions for RCE activities. She also had
students use their textbook and articles to guide their discussions around clips. Having
teacher candidates discuss videos and clips, both in class and online. encouraged some
teacher candidates to critically view cases. However, data collected at the end of the
semester revealed that those teacher candidates who valued the discussion forum were
usually those who posted messages and received responses. When using both written and
RCE cases, Ms. Pratt discovered that using small groups, dialogue journals, and a
fishbowl activity encouraged teacher candidates to share views and opinions that they
were sometimes hesitant to share.

Data collected on focus students and others in the class also reflected that written
cases and RCE videos and clips appeared to support teacher candidates’ learning in
different ways. For example, teacher candidates’ responses to written cases revealed that
reading and discussing cases helped them develop awareness of inclusion, diversity, and
the ethical and moral issues that surround inclusion. Reading and discussing written cases
also encouraged some teacher candidates to question their assumptions and beliefs about
inclusion. However, responses to RCE activities revealed that video and hypermedia
cases prompted fewer emotional responses than written cases. RCE cases also prompted
more discussion on specific instructional approaches rather than general awareness and
beliefs. The activities, prompts, and scaffolding that were provided for these cases could
have impacted the ways in which teacher candidates’ responded. However, these

differences could also be a result of differences that emerged from reading about

classroom dilemmas compared to actually seeing progressive teaching approaches being
applied in a real classroom.

Reflections onjocus student and class data. Data collected from class sessions,
case activities, pre and post surveys, and teacher candidates’ self-assessments reflect that
focus students and others in ED 222 shared common experiences and gained new insights
about what it means to teach literacy to diverse students. Focus students and others in the
class provided many examples of how reading and responding to written cases
encouraged them to redefine their understanding of inclusion and recognize the impact
that culture can have on instruction. Both groups of teacher candidates also reported
various ways in which RCE case activities assisted them in acquiring the knowledge and
skills that are needed to teach literacy to diverse students. When analyzing the ways in
which teacher candidates came to reach these new understandings, it became apparent
that engaging in conversations with others helped many teacher candidates View cases in
new ways. Hearing different interpretations and perspectives from others encouraged
many to look critically and question their own knowledge and beliefs about teaching
diverse students. Data collected on both groups of students also revealed that field
experiences had an impact on many teacher candidates’ learning experiences.

As I gathered and analyzed data from the entire class. I learned things that were
not discovered when I only studied what was happening with focus students. First, I did
not realize the many ways in which teacher candidates were defining inclusion until I
read the homework assignment that they turned in on the day Ms. Pratt used RCE to
introduce reading comprehension strategies. I knew that focus students had different

understandings for inclusion, but I didn’t realize that the class. as a group, was defining

inclusion in ways that Ms. Pratt had not intended. Second, I did not realize that so many
teacher candidates felt that the “Goodnight Moon” case had supported their learning until
after I read all teacher candidates’ final self-assessments. Because some of the focus
students responded so negatively to the case, claiming that the teacher was crazy, I felt
that the overall activity had not been successful. Third, I was fascinated by the Detroit
and ESL scenario responses. During class discussions, it appeared that teacher candidates
were developing an awareness and understanding of what it meant to teach literacy to a
wide range of learners. However, I was surprised at how the Detroit and ESL responses
differed. I realized that teacher candidates had much to learn about teaching ESL students
and was surprised at some of the misconceptions that they held.

Analyzing class data also brought about frustrations that did not appear when I
was analyzing focus student data. I was surprised that it was so difficult to identify the
personal connections that teacher candidates, those other than focus students, were
making to various case activities by using the quick—writes, surveys, and self-assessments
that I collected and analyzed at the end of the semester. Data collected on focus students
revealed rich stories that allowed me to see many of the personal connections that
students were making with field and course experiences. Following focus students in
class, getting to know them personally, and having the opportunity to meet with them
various times throughout the semester allowed me to learn about the actual process in
which they were reaching new understandings. I did not have such detailed and personal
data from others in the course.

Reflecting upon what teacher candidates learned as a class was extremely

valuable; however, I can’t help wonder what I would have done differently if I had

 

designed this study with the knowledge that I now have. It might have been easier to see
how the class in general was making sense out of various ED 222 experiences if they had
more opportunities to do personal writings and reflect upon their experiences.
Restructuring the dialogue journals might have helped. I wonder if dialogue journals
could have been used to create a space for more teacher candidates to write about the
connections that they were making in the course. During focus student interviews, I asked
a lot of why questions, encouraging focus students to explain how they were rationalizing
and making sense of things. This kind of information was missing from the class data.
and so I am still left with many unanswered questions. In the following chapter, I discuss
the significance and implications of this research and offer suggestions for how future
studies might further explore the use of personal writing activities and case activities in

teacher education.

224

Chapter 6 Discussion and Implications

This study investigated how teacher candidates responded to written and
hypermedia cases and how their personal stories and experiences interacted with these
cases. This study also investigated what teacher candidates’ responses to cases revealed
about their views of teaching diverse learners. Data collected throughout the semester
revealed that teacher candidates constructed different meanings for inclusion and creating
inclusive learning environments when they engaged in a combination of personal writing
activities, case activities. and field experiences. Engaging in these various activities
surfaced and challenged some of the prior assumptions and beliefs that teacher candidates
held about teaching diverse students. According to Lundeberg and Sheurrnan (1997),
most case-based pedagogy with preservice teachers has “focused on the reasoning
process rather than the pedagogical knowledge gained from case discussion” (p. 784).
This study is significant because it investigated how teacher candidates’ responded to
case activities in a literacy methods course and how personal writing and case activities
supported them in acquiring the knowledge. skills. and dispositions that are needed to
teach literacy to diverse students. This study revealed some of the definitions of inclusion
that teacher candidates’ held, illustrated the ways that these definitions surfaced, and
demonstrated how a combination of course and field experiences influenced teacher
candidates’ knowledge and perceptions of teaching literacy to diverse learners.

In this chapter, I describe the significance of the study and discuss the
implications that it has on teaching and research. I begin by describing the definitions and

understandings of inclusion that teacher candidates constructed over the semester. I then

225

revisit the role that conceptual change had in teacher candidate learning and illustrate
how teacher candidates’ responses to personal writing and case activities revealed that
describing their learning as a process of conceptual change was limiting. Next, I explain
how Ms. Pratt scaffolded learning for teacher candidates as they engaged in case based
activities, and I make connections between this scaffolding and cognitive flexibility
theory. Finally, I end the chapter by introducing the different roles that narrative had in
the study and provide concluding thoughts and suggestions for the directions that
researchers might pursue while investigating the use of cases and narrative as pedagogy

in teacher education.

Defining Inclusion

Having limited experiences with diverse groups of people, teacher candidates
began the semester defining inclusion based on their experiences, and these definitions
sometimes revealed superficial understandings of what it means to teach literacy in
inclusive learning environments. When differences between teacher candidates’
definitions and teacher educators’ definitions go unrecognized, according to Holt-
Reynolds (1992), critical definitions and concepts can go left unexplored in teacher
education courses, resulting in teacher educators and students arguing their case and
“neither side dealing with the argument presented by the other” (p. 341 ). Ms. Pratt’s
definitions of inclusion sometimes differed from students’ definitions, and these
differences were not always recognized. However, when teacher candidates encountered
different images and interpretations of inclusion through reading, viewing. and discussing

cases. some of them began to develop more complex definitions and understandings. At

 

the beginning of the semester. teacher candidates defined inclusion in a number of ways.
Some definitions that emerged were including special needs students, students with
different academic. and students from ethnically diverse backgrounds in the general
education classroom. As teacher candidates read and discussed cases like “Goodnight
Moon” and Christine’s case. cases that introduced different forms ofdiversity, teacher
candidates began to expand their definition of who is included in inclusive learning
communities.

Teacher candidates’ responses to case activities, personal writing assignments.
and field experiences uncovered different ways that they were interpreting inclusion and
revealed how these definitions changed over time. Some teacher candidates began the
semester with definitions of inclusion that were based on what one could observe in the
classroom. For example, some explained that inclusion meant giving all children equal
opportunities to participate in class activities and share ideas. They explained how giving
children a fair chance to learn meant including them in class activities. but they did not
acknowledge how children could be excluded from learning opportunities in ways that
are not observable to the teacher.

Preskill (1998) stated, “Students planning to pursue a career in teaching
frequently have little sense of how racism, miseducation, and bureaucratic insensitivity
have plagued schools” (p. 347). According to Preskill. a lack of knowledge of these
“behind-the-scenes” organizational and political processes can contribute to the
maintenance of ways in which schools and teachers marginalize those who do not come
from white, middle-class backgrounds. This study revealed that reading and discussing

cases like “Goodnight Moon” and Christine’s case introduced teacher candidates to other

perspectives and illustrated that children can become marginalized in ways that are not
always apparent to those who belong to the dominant culture privileged in schools.
Considering how perspectives in these cases differed from their own encouraged some
teacher candidates to consider the ways that differences between students and teachers
can unintentionally contribute to the marginalization of children. These new
understandings prompted teacher candidates to construct new definitions of inclusion.

These new ways of thinking also encouraged some teacher candidates to consider
the moral and ethical implications of including all children in the general education
classroom. As teacher candidates constructed new understandings of inclusion. they also
developed new understandings of the ways teachers create inclusive learning
environments. For some. these new understandings influenced how they defined
inclusion. For example, observing inclusive practices in the field assisted Lydia in
redefining inclusion and what it means to treat children fairly. Lydia began to see that
treating students fairly and equally did not necessarily mean that teachers had to treat
them exactly the same.

One might use a social constructivist perspective to describe how teacher
candidates’ understandings of inclusion emerged and changed over time. Gavelek and
Raphael (1996) stated that proponents of a social constructivist perspective “suggest that
knowledge is constructed collaboratively by individuals as they discuss and argue a
particular perspective or interpretation” (p. 183). Gavelek and Raphael claimed that
instead of viewing knowledge as immutable, “those who adopt a social constructivist
perspective suggest that what we accept as knowledge is based on conventions that we, as

a community. have constructed and agreed on” (p. 183). Teacher candidates’ responses to

 

Christine’s case and the “Goodnight Moon” case could be used to illustrate how the
social settings and group conversations in the classroom were a means by which teacher
candidates came to acquire and construct new understandings of diversity and inclusion.
In these examples. teacher candidates’ interactions with one another and with Ms. Pratt
encouraged them to think about issues of inclusion more critically. These interactions
also influenced the ways in which they came to redefine inclusion.

Since most of the teacher candidates grew up in small, mostly white, middle-class
towns, they did not have experience or knowledge of what an inclusive learning
community looks like or sounds like. McDiarmid and Price (1993) stated that for some
educators, the “answer to diversity is. ironically, individualization. When faced with
learners who bring diverse interest, backgrounds, and capacities. many teachers appear to
segregate students from one another during opportunities to learn” (p. 47). Teacher
candidates’ responses to course and field activities revealed that some of this
individualization could be due to a lack of knowledge about how to select. modify. or
adapt instruction for diverse learners. For example, one focus student. Jackie, had only
experienced learning in classrooms where children were grouped and taught by ability.
Since her knowledge of teaching was based upon these prior learning experiences. she
began the semester lacking knowledge of how teachers can modify instruction while
maintaining an inclusive learning environment. This study revealed. however, that Jackie
and others began to form new understandings of inclusion when they were able to see
progressive, leamer-centered teaching approaches in the field or through RCE videos and

clips. They began to understand how teachers can provide equitable learning

229

opportunities and hold high expectations for all students by selecting. adapting or modify
instruction to meet various learners’ needs.

It is important to recognize the knowledge and beliefs that teacher candidates’
have of inclusion because these knowledge and beliefs serve as filters through which
teacher candidates come to understand their educational experiences (C alderhead &
Robson. 1991). When teacher educators and their students recognize the different
understandings and perspectives that each brings to teacher preparation courses. they can
begin to explore these differences in ways that are not possible if differences in
understandings remain unrecognized (Holt-Reynolds, 1992). Researchers have
discovered that it is difficult to change teacher candidates’ beliefs (Tillema & Knol,
1997), yet educators and scholars continue to seek ways to alter teacher candidates’
traditional views of teaching and deficit views of diverse learners (Ladson-Billings, 1999:
Nieto, 2002; Villegas & Lucas, 2002).

Villegas and Lucas (2002) created a curricular framework for preparing culturally
responsive teaches and recommended that teacher education programs use the framework
as they design a programmatic approach to preparing teachers. Ladson-Billings (1999)
argued that a programmatic approach that cuts across coursework and field experiences
has proven to have more success in altering teacher candidates’ knowledge and beliefs
than Single courses. Villegas and Lucas illustrated and described multiple aspects of their
curricular approach and acknowledged that preparing culturally responsive teachers is a
process that evolves over time. However. even when using this framework, teacher
educators are still confronted with how to incorporate it into content-specific courses and

knowing what can be reasonably achieved in a single course.

230

This study is significant because it illustrated the ways that personal writing and
case activities in a literacy methods course could support teacher candidates in becoming
culturally responsive teachers. It extends our understanding of how teacher candidates’
conceptions of teaching diverse students were constructed or changed over time and
revealed the ways that some teacher candidates learned from personal writing and case
activities. This study also revealed how making connections between personal, course,
and field experiences helped alleviate some of the tensions that emerged as teacher
candidates struggled to make connections between knowledge and awareness of inclusion

and classroom literacy instruction.

Revisiting the Idea of Conceptual Change

As stated in Chapter 1, I considered different perspectives and theories on the
ways people come to learn and know when I designed this study. The concepts of
V conceptual change theory, cognitive flexibility theory, and narrative ways of knowing
influenced how I conceptualized and designed this study. These ideas also impacted how
I collected and analyzed data. Findings from this study both support and expand our
understanding of the ways teacher candidates’ concepts developed or changed and the
role that narrative had in the process of preparing them to become culturally responsive
teachers. In this section, I revisit the theory of conceptual change that guided this study
and illustrate how it does not fully explain the process in which teacher candidates
learned form written and hypermedia cases. In the following section, I describe how Ms.

Pratt supported teacher candidate learning and describe how cognitive flexibility theory

231

provides insight into the ways that teachers can support novices when using personal
writing and case activities.

According to conceptual change theory (Posner et al., 1982), learning is a process
where students’ conceptions change under the impact of new ideas and new evidence. If
students are going to modify their strongly held beliefs, according to conceptual change
theory, new concepts and ideas must be introduced in ways that create cognitive
dissonance and are discrepant to the images and beliefs that novices already hold.
According Posner and his colleagues, if people are going to replace their old ideas with
new ones. they need to experience their existing conceptions with some dissatisfaction.
This study provided examples of how personal writing and case activities encouraged
teacher candidates to change or reconstruct their conceptions of teaching and themselves.
This study revealed which concepts changed and the process in which change occurred;
however, teacher candidates’ experiences bring into question whether this was a process
of change or one were concepts were constructed over time. Based on data that were
collected on teacher candidates, I argue that the process that was presented in this study
illustrates a complex view of teacher candidate learning that cannot be fully explained by
a single theory or perspective on learning.

Wideen, Mayer-Smith, and Moon (1998) described how many studies on learning
to teach focus on changing the beliefs of beginning teachers; however, they claimed that
seeking to change teacher candidates’ beliefs seems pointless if evidence supports their
enduring quality. Wideen and his colleagues (1998) argued that a less problematic
approach might be to take the perspectives of others such as Feiman-Nemser and

Buchmann (1989) and Calderhead and Robson (1991) where an “alternative to changing

beliefs is to build on the beliefs that already exist” (Beginning teachers and their beliefs
section, para. 11). This study provided examples of how teacher candidates both built
upon and changed their prior conceptions of teaching'and learning. Instead of attempting
to decipher the difference between whether concepts were changed or constructed. 1 am
going to highlight the process that led to deeper understandings. I will use the ideas of
Posner, his colleagues, and others to illustrate different aspects of this learning process.

Focus students’ responses to personal writing assignments, case activities. and
field experiences revealed that for some, feelings of tension and dissonance played a role
in the process of learning to teach literacy in inclusive learning environments. It appeared
that feelings of dissonance prompted some teacher candidates to reflect upon their
understandings and beliefs. When this occurred, some teacher candidates became
dissatisfied with these understandings and beliefs and changed or reconstructed their
understandings. For example, when Lydia, Mallory, and Sadie described how they came
to reach new visions of themselves or of teaching and learning, they described moments
where they struggled to understand something and felt tension and dissonance. For
instance, Sadie’s dissonance and tension occurred when she was in the field and struggled
to keep herself from yelling at students. She did not like how she became irritated with
children and struggled to keep from yelling at them For Lydia, such tension occurred
when She felt pressure to find “the answer” and continually struggled with how teachers
create inclusive learning communities.

In these two examples, teacher candidates responded differently to cases. For
Sadie, relating her feelings and struggles to Lourdes’ experiences in Peace Takes

Practice (TTP, 1997) helped her resolve her question of why she was struggling so much

233

in the field. With Lydia, however, reading Christine’s case appeared to heighten her
frustration. Mallory’s experienced tension and dissonance when children in her field
placement talked about difference in ways that were unexpected. At one time. a child
shocked Mallory when she asked. “What color am I?” A combination of experiencing
this tension in the field, discussing cases in class, and revisiting her personal writing
assignments helped Mallory recognize that she was uncomfortable with children’s
openness because it countered her childhood experiences where she was taught that one
does not talk about difference.

When some teacher candidates experienced tensions, frustrations, and dissonance.
they described going through a process that resulted in new understandings. This process
reflected similarities with Posner’s and his colleagues’ (1982) conceptual change theory.
For example, Lydia formed new conceptions of the teacher when she realized that
teachers do not always have to have the answer. Sadie gained a new awareness that her
way of communicating at home did not support the creation of an inclusive learning
environment. She began to form a new conception of herself and of teaching when she
made connections to her family, realized that her past influenced who she was as a
teacher, and decided that she needed to confront herself and her past if she wanted to
develop the kind of patience that her collaborating teacher had. Throughout the semester,
teacher candidates provided examples of how reading and viewing cases, discussing
cases, reflecting upon past experiences, and observing interactions in the field heightened
feelings of tension and frustration. However, not all experiences created dissonance for

all students, and not all students responded to these experiences in the same way.

234

 

Many teacher candidates’ learning experiences reflected a process of conceptual
change where cognitive dissonance prompted reflection and dissatisfaction with their
own assumptions and beliefs. A number of times this process resulted in deepened or new
understandings. One might use the process of conceptual change to interpret and
understand these learning experiences: however, this process does not help illustrate why
some teacher candidates grew from dissonance and others resisted it. It does not illustrate
why one teacher candidate responded to the experience by questioning her assumptions
and beliefs while another held onto her original beliefs even more strongly. The process
of conceptual change does not shed light on how the same case or same experience might
prompt frustration and confusion in one teacher candidate while inducing realization and
understanding in another.

This study revealed how some teacher candidates resisted change when they
encountered dissonance. For example, Lydia became more and more frustrated as the
class discussed inclusion of special needs students in the general education classroom.
When some teacher candidates read Christine’s case and heard other classmate’s
perspectives, they became more open to the idea of inclusion and advocated the inclusion
of special needs children in the classroom. However, when Lydia read and heard these
same perspectives and viewpoints, she continued to be critical of inclusion and adamantly
stated that she did not want to deal with the issue.

In another example, no matter what perception and perspective was given in class,
Mallory maintained her position that Kae, the teacher in the “Goodnight Moon” case, was
crazy. Reading the case caused dissonance for many in the class; however, when they

read the second page and learned why children cried to the story Goodnight Moon, they

 

looked at the case and Kae in a new way. For example. one teacher candidate realized she
had been quick to judge Kae. Others became more sympathetic to Kae’s situation when
they realized that there were other perspectives that they had not considered. Mallory’s
views on Kae, however, did not change. She continued to blame the teacher for creating a
situation that frightened the children.

In these examples, it appeared that some teacher candidates moved forward,
learned, and grew when dissonance occurred while others did not. When confronted with
a problem or a challenge, some teacher candidates tried to resolve the problem and
diminish the dissonance. Others, however, did not experience dissonance or resisted it.
This study illustrated the complexities that are involved when personal writing and case
activities challenged teacher candidates’ conceptions of teaching and learning.
Understanding how focus students like Lydia, Mallory, Lizz, and Sadie responded to
these activities revealed that preparing teacher candidates to become culturally responsive
teachers was more complex than changing their conceptions of diverse students and
traditional views of teaching.

Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, and Tarule (1986) offered an interesting
perspective on the role that conflict and cognitive dissonance have on learning. In their
study, Belenky and her colleagues conducted a series of interviews with women to
examine their ways of knowing. In their book Women ’s Ways of Knowing, they described
“five different perspectives from which women View reality and draw conclusions about
truth, knowledge, and authority” (p3). They stated that in the psychological literature
concerning “the factors promoting cognitive development, doubt has played a more

prominent role than belief” (p. 227). They explained, “People are said to be precipitated

236

into states of cognitive conflict when, for example, some external event challenges their
ideas and the effort to resolve the conflict lead to cognitive growth” (p. 227). Belenky
and her colleagues did not deny that cognitive development and growth can emerge from
cognitive conflict; however. they stated that during their interviews with women, “On the
whole, women found the experience of being doubted debilitating rather than energizing”
(p. 227). Belenky and her colleagues explained how women did tell of occasions when
teachers challenged their ideas, but “they did not describe them as occasions for cognitive
growth” (p. 227). Belenky and her colleagues added,

None of the women we interviewed wanted a system in which knowledge

flowed in only one direction, from teacher to student... The kind of

teacher they praised and the kind for which they yearned was one who

would help them articulate and expand their latent knowledge. (Belenky et

al., p.217)

These comments made me realize how using cases like “Goodnight Moon” might
make teacher candidates feel as if knowledge were only flowing in one direction and as if
the instructor were expecting them to find the “correct answer.” For example, teacher
candidates read the case and then brainstormed for all the various reasons why children
might have cried when hearing the story. Upon reading the second page of the case,
however, all of the teacher candidates discovered that their various reasons were not the
“correct” reasons. This was reflected when a number of teacher candidates read the
second page of the case and made the comment that they had never thought children’s
response of fear could have been due to culture. In their study, Belenky and her
colleagues (1986) discovered that women’s “epistemological assumptions were central to

their perceptions of themselves and their worlds” (p. xiii). If we apply this idea to this

study, then how teacher candidates viewed knowledge and the construction or

237

 

transmission of this knowledge could impact the ways that they responded to written.
case. and field experiences. Considering this perspective is useful when thinking about
the variety of ways that teacher candidates responded to cases and considering how
teacher candidates’ epistemological assumptions might have influenced the ways that
they responded to case activities. For example. believing that knowledge comes from the
teacher might have contributed to Lydia’s frustration for not finding “the answers” when
Christine’s case was discussed in class. Also, viewing knowledge as something that is
constructed and based upon personal experience might explain why some teacher
candidates did not judge the teacher in the “Goodnight Moon” case and tried to
brainstorm various reasons why the children cried when hearing the story.

This study revealed not only the different ways that teacher candidates responded
to personal writing and case activities. it depicted the kinds of pedagogical approaches
that supported teacher candidates in the different stages of their learning. This study
supports the process of conceptual change because it illustrates how dissonance prompted
some teacher candidates’ conceptions to change; however, it contributes to furthering our
understanding of this learning process by showing what supported teacher candidates’
learning when resistance to dissonance occurred. It also illustrated the different kinds of
scaffolding and support that assisted teacher candidates in moving forward in their

learning.

Scaffolding Learning Experiences
Teacher candidates responses to written and hypermedia case activities reflected

the challenges of working with novices that Carter (1993) described when discussing uses

of story in education and that Spiro and his colleagues (1988) described in cognitive
flexibility theory. Carter (1993) stated that stories convey “the multiplicity of ways
actions and situations intertwine and thus accuratelyrepresent the complex demands of
teaching” (p. 10). At the same time, stories can also

confuse and frustrate novices. who lack the situated frames within which

such stories are interpretable at all, who often presuppose that one learns

best from clear and direct statements that are true, and who normally have

well-developed conceptions of what it means to teach, conceptions that
may or may not match the view represented in a particular story. (Carter.

(p. 10)
Spiro and colleagues (1988) used cognitive flexibility theory to describe the process in
which novices acquire advanced knowledge in ill-structured domains like teaching and
also described the challenges that confront novices when learning. They described how
novices tend to oversimplify the complexities found within the structures of complex
domains like teaching. They also offered suggestions for how to support novice learning,
stating that teachers need to provide instruction in ways that prevent oversimplification
and provide multiple representations if people are going to overcome the difficulties of
acquiring the cognitive processes that are necessarily to transfer knowledge flexibly.
Spiro and his colleagues also argued that teachers need to cover content material in
different ways and at different times if they want to support their students in transferring
knowledge flexibly. This study provided examples of how presenting teacher candidates
with multiple perspectives on teaching assisted them in creating more complex
understandings of what it meant to teach literacy to diverse students. These examples

support cognitive flexibility theory.

239

Teacher candidates’ responses to various case activities revealed that reading and
viewing different cases. hearing alternative perspectives, and revisiting cases throughout
the semester assisted them in acquiring the knowledge and skills that are needed to teach
literacy to diverse learners. However. there are examples that not all teacher candidates
gained deeper and more complex understandings when they were introduced to these
various perspectives. Teacher candidates’ responses to these activities provided an
opportunity to investi gate the kind of scaffolding that some teacher candidates needed in
order to learn from these experiences. Data collected on teacher candidates supported the
concepts that have been presented in cognitive flexibility theory and enhanced our
understanding of the kinds of support that helped prevent novices from making broad
generalizations or oversimplifications when learning from written and hypermedia video-
based cases.

Understanding the process of how Ms. Pratt used cases and how teacher
candidates responded to these cases illustrated ways that Ms. Pratt supported novices in
learning from case activities. This study provided examples of the kinds of support that
assisted teacher candidates in this learning process. For example, teacher candidates’
responses to Christine’s case revealed that discussing cases with others encouraged some
teacher candidates to view the cases more critically and from altemative perspectives
than when they simply read the case with out discussing it. According to Spiro and his
colleagues (1988), one of the ways that novices deal with complexities of advance
knowledge acquisition is to respond by applying a single, encompassing representational
logic “to complex concepts and phenomena that are inadequately covered by that logic”

(p. 376). This phenomena was seen when Mallory read Christine’s case and made

 

comments that “clumped” together different groups of learners and made broad
generalization that all children should be included in the classroom. She made
comparisons between teaching Down Syndrome children and children who have lesbian
parents without acknowledging the different needs of these children. Mallory also did not
seem to grasp the moral and ethical dilemmas that surround including severely
handicapped children in the general education classroom. Her comments reflected an
over reliance on the idea to “include all” without acknowledging the complexities and
multifaceted issues that surround inclusion and that might be unique to including
different types of students. However. after discussing Christine’s case and hearing other
perspectives, Mallory began to move forward and develop a deeper understanding of
inclusion.

Using discussions to support teacher candidates’ learning did not come without its
challenges. There were examples throughout the semester when teacher candidates were
hesitant to share ideas that differed from the group or did not feel comfortable sharing
personal thoughts and opinions. There were also examples when teacher candidates’
conversations remained at a superficial level where they did not explore the complexities
of cases that they viewed or read. Ms. Pratt provided support for these occasions in a
number of ways. First. she assisted teacher candidates in creating communities of trust
where they could openly talk with one another by having students work in small groups
that met regularly throughout the semester. This group structure helped create a more
comfortable space for some teacher candidates to share ideas. Ms. Pratt also provided
similar open spaces for discussion by having teacher candidates communicate with one

another through dialogue journal entries and allowing them to select their journal partner.

241

 

In a third example, Ms. Pratt used a fishbowl activity to model discussions and assist
some teacher candidates in making their views and ideas more public.

These examples of Ms. Pratt’s scaffolding illustrate how she assisted students in
socially constructing an understanding of what it means to teach literacy to diverse
students. They illustrate how Ms. Pratt assisted teacher candidates in “moving from using
new meanings or strategies publicly and in interaction with others to individually
appropriating and transforming these concepts and strategies into newly invented ways of
thinking” (Gavelek & Raphael, 1996, p. 185). Gavelek and Raphael (1996) described
language and literacy education using Harré’s (1985) Vygotsky Space. According to
Gavelek and Raphael, this model “illustrates the relationship between the public
discourse that occurs... and individuals’ subsequent ability to think, feel, and act” (p.
185).

Harré’s Vygotsky Space represents how “the movement from what is taught and
learned as part of the classroom’s social setting to what eventually becomes an
individual’s personalized learning” is an ongoing process that is evolving and changing
“over time and with experiences” (Gavelek & Raphael, 1996, p. 187). Harré’s model
illustrates how the construction of knowledge occurs through a non-linear movement
between public, private, individual, and social dimensions. By forming small groups and
engaging students in a fishbowl activity, Ms. Pratt provided opportunities for teacher
candidates to publicly Share ideas and learn from one another. She created a space for
students to go public with their ideas. Through the use of dialogue journals and reflective
writings, however, she also created a space for teacher candidates to work through these

ideas in individual and private ways. As teacher candidates moved between these private-

242

public and social-individual dimensions, they had various opportunities to engage in,
individualize, and internalize issues and topics that were introduced in the course.

In another example, Ms. Pratt provided support by having teacher candidates
revisit their work at the end of the semester and specifically asked them to look for
evidence of how their knowledge and beliefs had changed or grown. For some teacher
candidates, like Sadie. new understandings and awareness did not occur immediately
after reading and discussing cases. Understanding altemative perspectives and
experiencing growth did not occur for some until after revisiting cases and their writings
later in the semester. Revisiting cases and assignments provided some teacher candidates
with a new perspective that they did not have the first time they did these assignments.

For example, when Sadie revisited her work at the end of the semester, she had
new understandings from reading Peace takes Practice (Peacock et al., 1999) and from
her field experiences that she did not have when she first completed her assignments.
When she returned to her original work at the end of the semester, she had new
understandings and insights that encouraged her to see her work in a new way. This
knowledge of other experiences and perspectives helped Sadie view one of her personal
writings in a way that challenged her to think about how her family’s ways of
communicating were impacting her experiences in the field. This example illustrates how
one teacher candidate needed support that went beyond reading and discussing multiple
cases. Being asked to purposely go back, revisit cases and personal writings. and look for
signs of growth assisted Sadie in developing new and more complex understandings of
herself and inclusion. In Sadie’s example, revisiting and reflecting upon course and field

experiences assisted her in moving from Harré’s public and social dimensions to more

243

 

individual and private dimensions. This movement assisted her in personalizing what had
been taught and discussed throughout the semester and assisted her in reaching new
levels of understanding. Sadie’s experiences illustrate the recursive way in which such
learning can occur.

For some teacher candidates, frustration and dissonance were related to feeling
unprepared to teach children and not knowing what teachers actually do to create
inclusive learning communities. Viewing and discussing RCE cases assisted teacher
candidates in developing knowledge of various instructional approaches and teaching
strategies that could be used in the classroom. Ms. Pratt provided different kinds of
scaffolding and support for teacher candidates when they were engaged in RCE activities.
She helped make the complexities of teaching less complex and confusing when she had
teacher candidates read articles and chapters in their textbook to assist them in making
meaning out of the instructional approaches that were introduced on RCE. She assisted
them in using RCE and making meaning from what they saw by showing full videos to
introduce the content of the program, providing suggestions for how to find clips, and
providing students with opportunities to engage in discussions about clips. She provided
different structure for these conversations by having students engage in large group.
small group, and on-line conversations.

Exploring teacher candidates’ wide range of responses to case activities and
examining closely the scaffolding that was provided for these activities provided a deeper
level of understanding of the various ways teacher candidates learned from written and
hypermedia cases. These examples reflected the different ways that teacher candidates

understood inclusion. the misconceptions that they held. and the pedagogical approaches

244

that supported them in developing more complex understandings of inclusion and
teaching literacy in inclusive learning environments. These examples also illustrate how
the contexts in which cases were presented and the kinds of scaffolding that were
provided influenced how teacher candidates responded to and learned from written and
hypermedia cases. Teacher candidates’ responses to cases revealed that the power of
these activities did not always come from what was written on paper or presented through
video. This study illustrates a more complex view of cases and shows how a combination
of personal experiences, course activities, field experiences, and interactions with others
influenced how teacher candidates interpreted and made meaning from case activities.

These examples of how Ms. Pratt scaffolded learning for students enhance our
understanding of how teacher candidates can learn from personal writings and case
activities. These examples, however, do not explain why teacher candidates responded in
different ways to the same case activities. Data collected on focus students revealed that
some of the greatest growth and learning occurred when teacher candidates made
personal connections to cases and field experiences. Exploring these teacher candidates’
experiences provided an understanding of the process of learning that occurred when they
engaged in personal writing and case activities. This process illustrated why some teacher
candidates responded to personal writing. case, and field experiences in a particular way.
It also revealed that understanding teacher candidates’ narrative ways of knowing and the
role that narrative had in this study could provide further insight into why teacher
candidates responded to cases in specific ways.

In the next section, I illustrate the role that narrative had in this study and explain

how connecting personal, field, and course experiences assisted teacher candidates in

245

 

beginning to acquire the knowledge and skills that are needed to teach diverse learners.
Making these connections also encouraged some focus students to reflect upon
themselves and their assumptions of teaching. learning. and students. Understanding the
role that narrative had in this study provides further insight into the ways that teacher
candidates responded to case activities and how making connections between personal.

course, and field experiences supported them in their leaming.

The Changing Roles of Narrative

In this section, I explain how I conceptualized the role of narrative during the
design of the study and explain how narrative extended into the methodology of how the
study was conducted and how data were analyzed. I then describe how four focus
students’ narrative ways of knowing produced storylines that illustrated how personal
writing and case activities supported them in learning to teach diverse students. Next, I
provide an example of how data on one focus student did not reveal a storyline and offer
suggestions for why this particular student’s experiences appeared to be different from
other focus students. I end the section by discussing how narrative can be used as
pedagogy in teacher education courses and describe the implications that this has on
teacher education.

Narrative as inquiry. I designed this study taking into consideration how narrative
could be used in teacher education courses and how narrative ways of knowing could
support preservice teacher learning. However, as the research process unfolded, the role
of narrative expanded into other areas of the study that I had not expected. Narrative

impacted how the study was designed and influenced how data were collected and

246

 

analyzed. Connelly and Clandinin (1990) defined narrative inquiry as “a process of
collaboration involving mutual storytelling and restorytelling” as the research process
proceeds (p. 4). They described how narrative could. be both the “structured quality of
experience to be studied” and “the patterns of inquiry for this study” (p. 2). I first realized
that narrative was becoming a method for collecting, analyzing. and making meaning
from data when teacher candidates began to write and talk about personal experiences
and tell stories from when they were young. According to Connelly and Clandinin
(1990). interviews, journal entries. storytelling, and autobiographical writing can all be
sources of narrative data. As I began to collect and analyze these forms of data. I realized
that narrative was becoming a powerful way to know focus students and their learning
experiences. Narrative inquiry became one of the methodologies that I used to investigate
research questions and revealed how focus students reached new understandings and
insights when they made connections between personal experiences. course activities,
and field experiences.

Behar-Horenstein (1995) stated, “One of the fundamental assumptions underlying
narrative inquiry is that teachers’ personal biographies interact with particular situations
that help them understand their use and application of practical knowledge” (p. 146). The
process of narrative inquiry “attempts to explicate an understanding of the events that
occur in specific educational contexts under investigation” (Behar-Horenstein, 1995, p.
146). Wideen, Mayer-Smith, and Moon (1998) explained that sometimes a detailed
interpretive analysis of individuals’ writings and interviews could reveal the process of

change, whereas comparisons using statistical techniques can often mask this process. It

247

 

was through narrative inquiry and following and documenting the experiences of focus
students that I gained insight in the process of learning from personal writing and cases.

When Lydia. Mallory. Lizz. and Sadie described their greatest changes and
growth throughout the semester. they illustrated how they made connections between
these personal experiences and course and field activities. As I analyzed focus student
data, distinct stories emerged from all of the focus students except Jackie. These stories
revealed that for four of the focus students. narrative acted as a way of making meaning
from their experiences in the course. Understanding how teacher candidates used
narrative as a way to make meaning from their experiences is significant because
following narrative storylines provided the most insight into the ways that personal
writing and case activities supported some teacher candidates in developing the
knowledge and skills that are needed to teach literacy to diverse students.

Narrative as a way of making meaning. When I originally designed this study. I
was interested in how teacher candidates responded to narrative written cases and
hypermedia video cases. I also wanted to investigate how teacher candidates’ personal
stories and experiences interacted with their interpretation and understanding of these
cases. Since narrative cases have the potential to draw in the emotions of the reader
(Laframboise & Griffith, 1997), l hypothesized that making personal connections to cases
could encourage teacher candidates to internalize. embrace. and take ownership for the
issues and ideas that were presented in them. According to Connelly and Clandinin
(1990),“life’s narratives are the context for making meaning of school situations” (p. 3).
By following the narrative stories of individual students, I was able to investigate how

they responded to and learned form case activities. The personal experiences that were

248

described by Mallory, Sadie. Lizz, and Lydia illustrated how narrative served as an
organizing structure for their learning experiences.

This study revealed that all focus students followed different paths in their
learning; however, four focus students constructed storylines as they engaged in course
and field experiences. Laurillard (1998) explained that a storyline provides “an internal
structure for presentation” which enables learners to derive an “overall meaning” from
their educational experiences (Introduction section. para. 1). It is in this way. she
commented. that narrative performs “an essential organizing function for the learner”
(Laurillard, 1998. Introduction section. para. 1'). Laurillard’s research investigated the
storylines that support learning from multimedia; however. her discussion of narrative
can also apply to other aspects of learning. such as learning from ones’ own stories or
from written and hypermedia cases. The storylines of Mallory, Lydia, Lizz, and Sadie
provide examples of how narrative served as an organizing framework that assisted them
in moving “from what is taught and learned as part of the classroom’s social setting” to
what eventually became a personalized learning process “of internalizing and
personalizing what had been taught” (Gavelek & Raphael, 1996, p. 187).

Early in the semester, Mallory and Lydia described and told stories of personal
experiences that formed the beginnings of narrative storylines that connected some of
their learning experiences throughout the semester. Mallory and Lydia revisited these
stories, or aspects of these stories, at various times. I first noticed the beginnings of these
storylines when Mallory and Lydia were given an assignment to reflect upon and write
about their K-12 experiences with diverse groups of people. Mallory wrote about her

lesbian aunts and her childhood experiences feeling uncomfortable around children with

 

special needs. Lydia also wrote about her prior experiences with children who had special
needs. She described a classroom incident that occurred with Nick, a handicapped child
who attended one of her elementary school classes. [Both focus students referred to these
experiences in their dialogue journals, quick-writes, and class discussions. When they
engaged in case activities and field experiences. some of the issues that were brought up
in their personal writings again reappeared.

In one example, Lydia wrote about Nick’s outbursts in the classroom and
explained that she and others felt uncomfortable in the class, unsure how to respond to
Nick. Lydia explained that she also felt the teachers did not know what to do with Nick.
She revisited her concerns about not knowing what to do with special needs students
when she discussed Christine’s case and expressed critical views of including special
needs students in the general education classroom. Lydia stated that a big turning point
for her was when she read Christine’s case and decided that she wanted to confront issues
and feelings that she had about including special education students in the classroom.

Lydia revisited these issues during a large group discussion when MS. Pratt used
the fishbowl activity. During this activity, a comment made by one of Lydia’s classmates
prompted her to think about the role and responsibilities of teachers. A classmate
commented that teachers really do not have a decision in whether they teach handicapped
children, and this comment supported Lydia in thinking about a teacher’s obligation to
teach all students. After the fishbowl conversation, however, Lydia was still frustrated
because the activity did not resolve her question of what do teachers do when they have

- special needs students in their classrooms.

250

At the end of the semester when Lydia made connections between her field
experiences, her responses to Christine’s case, and her feelings of frustration and not
knowing what to do. her attitude towards teaching special needs students began to
change. She began to recognize that teachers need to take the responsibility to seek out
resources and help if they have special needs students in their classrooms. Lydia began to
view the teacher as somebody who does not always have the answers. In these various
experiences, the theme of not knowing what to do and not knowing how to respond when
including special needs students in the classroom was a reoccurring theme that surfaced
when Lydia responded to personal writing assignments. case activities. and field
experiences.

In another example, a storyline emerged when Mallory wrote about a K-12
experience when a teacher yelled at her and her friend when he overheard them use the
word retarded. In this personal writing assignment, Mallory described how she was
always scared to talk about handicapped children because she was always worried that
she would say something wrong and offend somebody. Throughout the semester, Mallory
wrote about her field experiences and explained how she was shocked at how easily and
naturally children in the field spoke about difference. Even though Mallory did not retell
the experience that occurred with her and her friend, she did revisit and write about her
uncomfortable feelings when children asked her questions or spoke about difference.

Mallory began to question how she really felt about teaching diverse students
when she reflected on field experiences, discussed Christine’s case, and revisited a
writing assignment where she explained that she wanted to teach English and Spanish

speaking children. When she reflected upon these experiences, Mallory realized that she

had been narrowly defining diversity and recognized that she had a fear of working with
students who were very different from herself. Mallory, like Lydia, began to form new
understandings about herself and inclusion when she made connections between her
personal experiences. field experiences. and issues of inclusion that were introduced in
class.

Storylines also emerged from the data that were collected on Lizz and Sadie. For
example, Lizz wrote about her early literacy experiences in one of her personal writing
assignments and stated that she never remembered reading and writing being taught
together. Later in the semester, she used these prior experiences to make meaning from
RCE clips and wrestled with which approach was the best approach to use. After being
introduced to new teaching strategies, Lizz had the opportunity to implement some of
them in her field placement. Viewing RCE clips, reflecting upon her own experiences.
and trying out new strategies in the field supported Lizz in developing a new
conceptualization of literacy instruction. Sadie’s storyline emerged at the end of the
semester when she described how her biggest growth throughout the course was related
to what she had learned about herself. She described in her self-assessment how revisiting
Peace Takes Practice (Peacock, 1999), her personal writing assignment that described
her home literacy experiences, and her experiences in the field made her realize that her
family’s communication style influenced how she responded to behavioral problems in
classrooms.

Some focus students’ storylines became clear early in the semester, while other
storylines were not as evident until later in the semester. Lydia and Mallory were very

articulate students who frequently shared their thoughts and feelings in class. Both

252

expressed early in the semester a desire to “figure something out.” Mallory investigated
why she felt uncomfortable talking about difference with children in the field. Lydia
explained that reading Christine’s case made her want to confront her feelings and
uncertainties about working with handicapped children. Lizz’s and Sadie’s storylines.
however, were not as easy to follow. Lizz’s questions about the teaching practices that
were being introduced in ED 222 did not become apparent until her first interview. Lizz.
unlike Mallory and Lydia, did not share her doubts and concerns openly with others in
the class. Sadie’s storyline was being constructed throughout the semester, but the
connections did not become clear until the end of the semester. Sadie struggled to figure
out why it was so hard for her to have patience with children in the classroom.

These four examples are similar in that each of the focus students were trying to
resolve some kind of dilemma. These four examples also illustrate how narrative served
as an organizing framework for making meaning of course and field experiences. When
each of these focus students described their greatest growth and change throughout the
course, they made connections back to the their personal stories and experiences that
surfaced earlier in the semester.

Missing storyline. Jackie’s responses to personal writing and case activities are
unique from other focus students because a clear storyline did not appear to emerge from
data that were collected. In her response to Christine’s case, Jackie wrote that it made her
think of a third grade classroom where she volunteered. She also stated that she could
relate to the issues in the case, but she did not expand on these personal experiences or
connections. Jackie also wrote that she wasn’t sure how she felt about mainstreaming

Special education students into the general education classroom. When she wrote about

253

her k-12 experiences with diverse groups of people, she described how her school was
not very diverse and wrote that She never really had a “problem” with people of different
backgrounds. Jackie’s work revealed little personal connections to course and field
activities, and I struggled to identify themes and issues that reappeared throughout the
semester.

When describing her growth throughout the semester in her self-assessment,
Jackie wrote that learning about teaching in inclusive learning communities was a
process. She explained that when she began the semester she did not have many ideas
about how to teach literacy lessons. She described how the course gave her knowledge
about how to act upon her ideas. When I interviewed Jackie at the end of the semester
and asked her to describe her greatest change or growth, she explained how her beliefs
were “about the same” as when she started the course. When describing her growth, she
again commented on how she now had knowledge of specific strategies that she could
use when teaching literacy. When the semester was over, I shared my findings with
Jackie and explained how some focus students seemed to experience times throughout the
semester where they struggled to figure something out or resolve some kind of dilemma.
Jackie responded to this comment by stating that she was the kind of person who was
comfortable with uncertainties and did not feel that there were always answers that
existed.

The experiences of Sadie, Mallory, Lydia, and Lizz demonstrated how they were
reaching new understandings and insights throughout the semester by making
connections between their own personal experiences and case and field activities. Jackie.

however, did not appear to share the same kind of experiences. Thinking about Jackie’s

254

experiences raises some important issues and questions about the study, its limitations.
and the role of narrative in preservice teacher learning. Behar-Horenstein (1995) stated,
“The relationship between story and reality as defined by the experiences of an outside
observer does not necessarily portray a one-to-one correspondence” (p. 148) She added.
“Interpretation of narratives are influenced by belief systems that are a product of one’s
own cultural framework.” (p. 149). As I reflected upon Jackie’s experiences, I considered
a number of reasons why her experiences did not reflect those of the other focus students.
First, I considered that a storyline might have existed, and 1 could have missed
noticing the significance of Jackie’s comments and experiences. Storylines were not
always easy to identify, and sometimes the patterns and connections between teacher
candidates’ experiences became clearer overtime. Even though teacher candidates were
engaged in various activities throughout the semester, there were limited opportunities to
assess their growth and learning throughout the semester. If teacher candidates did not
write about or talk about their course experiences or what they were learning. I had few
ways of knowing what meaning they were making from the course. I cannot make the
assumption that teacher candidates were not making connections simply because these
connections were missing from the data. There is the possibility that different kinds of
assignments and different kids of prompts might have provided more opportunities for
Jackie to express how she was making meaning from her course and field experiences.
Data revealed that some teacher candidates did not like talking about themselves or
reflecting upon their pasts. Some did not feel comfortable sharing their ideas in groups.

There is the possibility that if more data had been collected on Jackie and if other forms

255

of data collection had been used, I might have noticed that she, too, used narrative as a
way to make meaning from her experiences.

Second, I considered how the dynamics of the classroom discourse might have
contributed to Jackie’s missing storyline. Gee (1992) explained that the “social practice
or on—going activities and interactions that are associated with a group of people” is
called Discourse. People who share a common Discourse can share similar values,
beliefs, ways of thinking, and ways of doing things. Gee stated that the Discourse of
school often privileges those students who begin their academic careers already having
white, middle class values while at the same time marginalizing those students who have
not grown up sharing these same experiences and values. Gee’s discussion of Discourse
made me consider how the activities in Ms. Pratt’s class privileged a particular way of
thinking, speaking, or knowing. Activities relied on teacher candidates’ abilities to
express themselves in speaking and writing. A number of activities asked teacher
candidates to reflect upon personal experiences and talk about growth and change. These
types of activities favor those students who are verbal and reflective. They also favor
those who are comfortable speaking about themselves and sharing opinions, feelings,
beliefs, and doubts. There is the possibility that these kinds of classroom norms could
have conflicted with Jackie’s ways of knowing, expressing, and learning.

Considering the discourse and cultural norms of the classroom also reminded me
of Holt-Reynolds’ (1992) study and her discussion of how difference in understanding
concepts and definitions can go unrecognized between instructors and students. If these
differences occurred in Ms. Pratt’s course, there is the possibility that different

interpretations existed when Ms. Pratt asked teacher candidates to reflect or write about

256

growth. For example, one might interpret reflect as reflection upon personal experiences.
while another might understand it to me a reflection upon factual knowledge that was
presented in the course. These differences in understanding could explain why Jackie’s
storyline appeared to be missing and why she didn’t share how she was making personal
connections to course and field experiences.

A third explanation for a missing storyline takes into consideration how my own
values and beliefs could have impacted the study. When this study began, I had a clear
agenda. I wanted to know how teacher candidates responded to personal writing and case
activities. In addition, based on what I had learned from prior research and my own
teaching experiences, I had hypothesized a number of ways that I had thought teacher
candidates might respond to case activities. So, when I colleted data, interviewed
students, and observed the class, there were particular things that I was drawn to more
than others. For example, considering the process of conceptual change, I hypothesized
that some teacher candidates would respond to cases with some kind of dissonance and
questioning of their own assumptions and beliefs. Because of these assumptions, there is
the possibility that I noticed more of these kinds of responses than others.

There may have been other ways of responding to cases that I had not anticipated
and. therefore might have overlooked. Occasionally when Jackie did not write or talk
about growth, change, or new ways of thinking. my first reaction was that growth and
change had not occurred and that she was not learning. Sometimes I had to remind myself
not to make such assumptions as I analyzed data. I feel confident that many different
storylines and interpretations of stories existed; however, I know that I favored responses

that appeared to have a connection to my research questions. However, Lizz’s and

257

Sadie’s experiences revealed that these connections are not always easy to see and can
appear over a period of time.

A fourth explanation for why Jackie appeared to have a missing storyline is
related to issues of power and the politics of the classroom. Gee (1989) described how the
practices within and across Discourses are political. He explained how a cultural model
“not only defines what is normal and to be expected but also sets up what counts as non-
normal and threatening” (pg. 9). When analyzing Jackie’s case, I cannot ignore the
context and politics in which conversations were occurring in class and during
interviews. Both Ms. Pratt and I are university faculty, and we are older and more
experienced than the teacher candidates who participated in the study. I cannot ignore
power relations, implicit messages, and the hidden curriculum that are relayed to students
as they engaged in various ED 222 activities. There is the possibility that teacher
candidates produced responses that they thought Ms. Pratt or I wanted to hear. There is
also the possibility that if teacher candidates felt there was only one way to respond, one
“correct” way, they might have been hesitant to share ideas in fear that they were wrong.
This could be especially true in instances where Ms. Pratt assessed teacher candidates’
knowledge and understanding in the course by asking them to reflect upon and write
about their learning and growth throughout the semester.

As stated earlier, teacher candidates’ epistemological assumptions could have had
an impact on the ways that they respond to course activities. As seen from the study'
conducted by Belenky and her colleagues (1997), viewing knowledge as something that
is handed down from the instructor and fearing their ideas might be doubted could have

had a debilitating effect on some students preventing them from sharing what they really

258

thought. Also, teacher candidates might have responded differently to cases if they
viewed knowledge as something that was supposed to coming directly from the case or
Ms. Pratt rather than something that they constructed and built upon prior knowledge and
experiences.

A final explanation for Jackie’s missing storyline, but certainly not the final
possible explanation. surrounds the pedagogical approaches that were used in the course
and the kind of scaffolding that was provided when teacher candidates engaged in
personal writing and case activities. There is the possibility that the structure of the
activities and the writings did not support Jackie in showing and representing what she
learned. There is also the possibility that Jackie did not develop or maintain a storyline.
This leads to the next section where I describe how narrative acted as pedagogy in the
course and illustrate how teacher educators can assist students in developing and
maintaining storylines that support learning.

Narrative as pedagogy. Narrative served as a form ofinquiry in this study, and
some teacher candidates used narrative as a way to make meaning from course and field
experiences. Narrative also existed as pedagogy. and considering narrative as pedagogy
has implications for teacher educators. Some of the pedagogical approaches that Ms. Pratt
used in her course involved reading narrative cases, writing about personal experiences.
and retelling childhood stories. By designing activities in this way, Ms. Pratt created
instances where she used narrative activities to assist teacher candidates in learning how
to teach literacy to diverse students. Using narrative stories and writings in this way
contributed to narrative being used as pedagogy in the course. Ms. Pratt specifically

designed activities where teacher candidates read and wrote about narrative experiences

259

to support their learning. According to Carter (1993), one of the first issues that teacher
educators confront when using narrative as pedagogy and when story is viewed as
curriculum is deciding upon which stories to tell. A number of challenges can arise when
using narrative as pedagogy. and this study illustrated some of the challenges that teacher
educators might face when using narrative in this way.

First, this study illustrated that it can sometimes be difficult to find and decide
upon narrative stories and activities that best support the goals and content of a course.
Second, as we saw from Ms. Pratt’s experiences, using narrative as pedagogy in a
content-based course like ED 222 can create challenges for balancing the tensions that
exist between covering specific literacy concepts and having time for students to reflect
upon, write, and discuss narrative stories or personal experiences. Third. using narrative
can present difficulties when teacher candidates do not value reading. responding, or
writing narrative stories and did not understand how these experiences support them in
learning how to teach. Fourth, a narrative pedagogy has the potential to privilege some
students over others, especially those who were articulate and enjoy reflecting upon
themselves and their personal experiences. This study revealed some of the challenges of
using narrative as pedagogy in a literacy teacher education course. yet it also revealed
ways that teacher educators might support student learning as they write about personal
experiences, read narrative cases, and reflect upon their experiences in the course.

Laurillard (1998,) claimed that interactive multimedia resources are essentially non-
narrative in form, and she conducted a study that investigated how a non-narrative
medium can support meaningful learning. Her discussion on storylines and her

investigation of how people respond to non-narrative mediums is helpful when

considering how teacher educators can support student learning and the implications that
using narrative as pedagogy has on teacher education. She claimed that instructors or
multimedia programs needed to support learners in the process of maintaining storylines
for the academic learning process to occur. According to Laurillard (1998), the structure
of storylines is similar to the following: “where are we going? what do we need to get
there? how do we do that? what do we get when we do it? how far does that help us?
where have we got to?” (Interpretation section, para. 1).

Laurillard (1998) argued that students needed to ask themselves questions that enable
them to maintain their storylines as they are engaged in learning. She explained that in
order for the academic learning process to occur where students achieve “full
understanding of the ideas being put across by the teacher,” students “must be able to
experience them [these ideas] through interaction on the real world, reflect on this
experience to inform their dialogue with the teacher, and use this dialogue to adapt the
way they operate on the world” (Affordance as an aspect of learning activity section.
para. 6). For students in ED 222, real world interactions occurred in their field placement.
Also, Mrs. Pratt used hypermedia video-cases and narrative cases that were written by
others to bring real world issues, sometimes ones that students weren’t experiencing in
their field placements. into the university classroom. As seen from this study. however,
simply presenting hypermedia video cases and written narrative cases to students did not
always contribute to new insights and understandings.

Laurillard (1998) stated that in order to maintain a storyline during learning, students
need support for the various stages that follow the guiding questions of storylines. She

also claimed that it is the responsibility of the teacher (or designer of multimedia) to

261

“create the environment that makes it possible for them [students] to maintain a focus on
the development of the argument” (Conclusion section para. 1). In her article, How Can
Interactive Multimedia Enhance Leai'rringl), Laurillard (1998) listed some ways that
instructors or multimedia designers can support learners in maintaining a storyline. These
suggestions provide a useful framework for teacher educators who want to support
teacher candidates’ narrative ways of knowing. She suggested that teachers can support
the maintenance of students’ storylines in the following ways: (a) clarify the overall goal,
(b) provide continual reminders of the goal, (c) help learners define their own sub-goals,
(d) motivate their own articulation of what they know; (e) motivate them to refine what
they know, and (f) enable them to assess to the extent to which they are achieving the
goal (Conclusion section, para. 1). I dedicate the remaining paragraphs of this section to
illustrating ways that Ms. Pratt provided support that mirrors Laurillard’s suggestions,
and I use the findings of this study to offer further ideas for how teacher educators can
assist students in developing and maintaining storylines.

Laurillard (1998) wrote about the importance of continually reminding students of
course goals. Ms. Pratt clarified her overall goals for the course by explicitly stating them
in the course syllabus and spending time discussing these goals in class. She also
communicated the purpose and goals for different activities in a number of ways. For
example, she provided models and examples of the ways that students might respond to
activities. When she asked them to write about a time when somebody acted out of the
norm, she modeled the kind of response that she wanted from students by sharing her
own personal story. In another example, when she recognized that teacher candidates

were not voicing their questions, doubts, and critiques of inclusion, she used a fishbowl

activity to model the kinds of discussions that would bring these ideas out in the open for
more to hear. As goals are being defined. as we saw from this and Holt-Reynolds’ (1992)
study. it is important that teacher educators and students become aware of the different
ways that they are understanding and defining concepts and ideas that are presented in
class. According to Holt-Reynolds (1992), teacher educators and students can only begin
to explore these differences if they are aware that differences exist.

One of Ms. Pratt’s goals was to assist teacher candidates in developing the
knowledge and Skills that are needed to teach literacy in inclusive learning communities.
By making this a theme of her course, she had a number of opportunities to revisit the
issue. One of the ways that Ms. Pratt provided continual reminders of this goal was
through the prompts that she provided for case-activities and writing assignments. Ms.
Pratt continually asked teacher candidates how different activities related to inclusive
learning communities. She also had students reflect and write upon understandings that
were gained after they engaged in case discussions. In one example, she provided a
prompt that asked, “How does this relate to inclusive learning communities? How are you
now thinking bout inclusive learning communities?” Also, encouraging teacher
candidates to write about their experiences, share these experiences, and make
connections between personal experiences and cases encouraged some teacher candidates
to reflect upon and critique their prior assumptions and beliefs. Providing cases that
illustrated perspectives that were unfamiliar to teacher candidates also encouraged some
teacher candidates to broaden their view and deepen their understanding of inclusion.

By bringing forth multiple perspectives on issues of inclusion, Ms. Pratt also

provided opportunities for teacher candidates to develop their own goals and determine

263

the kind of teacher that they wanted to be. Teacher candidates were also encouraged to
develop their own stance on literacy instruction as they constructed philosophy
statements. MS. Pratt gave teacher candidates opportunities to work on these throughout
the semester. share ideas with their peers. and reflect upon the ways course discussions
and activities influenced their own conceptualization of literacy instruction.

Another way that teacher educators could encourage students to identify and
acknowledge their own subgoals for teaching diverse learners is by applying the
questions that Laurillard (1998) used to illustrate the structure of storylines. Teacher
educators could encourage students to explicitly state and develop their own goals and
then guide teacher candidates’ inquiries into learning. Teacher educators could encourage
their students to do this by having them pursue the question of where are they going as a
learner and as a teacher of diverse students. They could ask students to think about what
kind of teacher of diverse learners they see themselves becoming and ask students to
consider what needs to occur in order for them to be this kind of teacher. They could ask
students to ask themselves what knowledge, skills, and beliefs are needed to become
culturally responsive literacy teachers.

As teacher educators support students in this process, especially when working
with novices who might have limited knowledge and experience of culturally responsive
teaching and inclusive classrooms, it is vital that they provide students with opportunities
to see the kind of practice that they are promoting. Teacher educators could do this by
providing teacher candidates with classroom field experiences where culturally
responsive instruction is modeled. They could also provide images of this kind of

teaching through video, hypermedia, and written cases. Teacher educators would have to

264

assist teacher candidates, especially those who do not have knowledge of this kind of
teaching, in envisioning what is possible and what culturally responsive teaching looks
like. Teacher educators would also have to assist some teacher candidates in seeing value
in such teaching. This study revealed that some teacher candidates questioned the
teaching approaches that were being presented in class and were sometimes unsure of the
value of personal writing and case activities if they did not see how they applied to
classroom practice. This study revealed that teacher educators would need to provide
support and scaffolding as novices read, view, and discuss these cases and assist them in
knowing how to act upon their awareness of inclusion and inclusive teaching practices.
Teacher candidates could also provide further support for students by findings ways to
support them in making connections between their personal experiences, knowledge and
beliefs and the image and stories of teaching that are presented to them.

Laurillard (1998) emphasized that students need to be given opportunities to
articulate and refine what they know. Ms. Pratt did this by asking teacher candidates to
make connections between cases and their own personal experiences and asking them to
reflect upon and comment on these connections. She also had them reflect upon and write
about their learning at various times throughout the semester. MS. Pratt provided
opportunities for teacher candidates to articulate what they were learning and encouraged
them to openly share ideas with others by providing them with opportunities to get to
know one another and develop trusting relationships. She did this by having teacher
candidates work in small groups that met regularly throughout the semester by having
them select and write to a dialogue journal partner. Ms. Pratt also provided space for

teacher candidates to articulate their thoughts and ideas by introducing the “Goodnight

265

Moon” case in a way that allowed teacher candidates to try to figure out what was
occurring before giving them the second page of the case that described why children
were crying when their teacher read Goodnight Moon. Teacher educators could also
assist their students in articulating what they know by providing other means for teacher
candidates to share and express their ideas. For example, teacher candidates in Ms. Pratt’s
class were involved in many activities that involved reading, writing, and speaking.
Teacher educators might have their students express their understandings in other ways.
such as through pictures, movement, and role-playing.

The different ways that teacher candidates articulate and refine what they know
could also serve as opportunities for individuals to assess their own understandings. For
example, as we saw from Ms. Pratt’s teaching, teacher candidates could assess their own
learning and what they know by revisiting artifacts that were created in the course,
searching for evidence of growth and learning, and articulating what they learned with
others. Ms. Pratt had teacher candidates assess their learning throughout the course;
however, she was the one to create the questions that guided the assessment. Teacher
educators could further engage students in defining and assessing their own goals by
involving them more in the assessment process and having them take part in deciding

upon ways to both demonstrate knowledge and assess learning.

Concluding Thoughts
This study investigated how teacher candidates responded to written and
hypermedia cases in a literacy methods course. The study sheds light on the different

ways that teacher candidates defined inclusion and the pedagogical practices that assisted

266

them in developing the knowledge and skills that are needed to teach literacy in inclusive
learning environments. Data collected on all teacher candidates revealed how a
combination of personal writing activities, course activities, and field experiences
assisted teacher candidates in developing more complex understandings of inclusion and
ways to select, adapt, and modify literacy instruction for diverse groups of students. The
combination of these experiences also influenced how teacher candidates interpreted and
made meaning from case activities. These new understandings about learning from cases
suggest that teacher educators need to define how one learns from cases more broadly.
When using both written and hypermedia cases, teacher educators need to take into
consideration the broader context in which students are introduced to and engaged in case
activities.

This study revealed how various tensions emerged throughout the semester as Ms.
Pratt used cases and personal writing activities to prepare teacher candidates for working
with diverse students. The tensions between teacher candidates’ need for subject matter
knowledge and the instructor’s focus on building inclusive learning communities
lessened when teacher candidates began to make personal connections to the issues and
ideas that were presented in the course. Teacher candidates also began to see how issues
of inclusion related to the teaching of literacy when they made connections between case
activities and what they were experiencing in the field. This study revealed how a teacher
educator can support teacher candidates in making these connections. It also revealed the
challenges that Ms. Pratt encountered as she attempted to create a balanced curriculum

that focused on both subject matter knowledge and issues of inclusion and diversity.

267

This study demonstrated that the lens in which teacher candidates viewed cases
was influenced by prompts that were given by Ms. Pratt and by interactions with others in
the course. It also showed how teacher candidates began to see over a period of time
more connections between inclusive learning communities and the teaching of literacy.
Seeing more connections between these issues could be a result of students’ increased
knowledge of inclusion and literacy instruction. It could also be due to Ms. Pratt’s
increased understanding of the ways that teacher candidates respond to perSonal writing
and case activities.

Data collected on four focus students illustrated how narrative served as an
organizing framework and a way of making meaning from personal writing assignments,
case activities, and field experiences. As Mallory, Lydia, Sadie, and Lizz made
connections between these experiences, they began to reflect upon and critique their
assumptions and beliefs about inclusion and formed new understandings about
themselves, teaching, and learning. Such connections, however, were more difficult to
identify with Jackie. Also, for some teacher candidates, these same activities appeared to
reinforce prior assumptions and beliefs and sometimes led to misinterpretations of what it
means to create an inclusive learning community.

Teacher candidates’ responses to personal writing and case activities have
implications for the use of narrative as pedagogy. This study revealed how novices might
need scaffolding and support when engaged in written, video, and hypermedia case
activities. It also provided insight into the ways that teacher educators might provide
support for these activities when preparing teacher candidates to teach literacy to diverse

students. This study advances what is currently known about the use of cases and

narrative in preparing culturally responsive teachers. However, limitations did exist in
this study, and there is still much to learn about the use of written cases, hypermedia
cases. and narrative as pedagogy in teacher education.

This study explored teacher candidates’ responses to written and case activities;
however, all of the teacher candidates in the study, except for one, were White, female
and came from similar backgrounds. In order to develop a fuller understanding of how
personal writings and case activities can support teacher candidates’ learning, future
studies need to be conducted on a more diverse teacher candidate population. Also, data
collected on focus students revealed that teacher candidates began to gain new
understandings and make connections between various learning experiences at different
times throughout the semester. It would be informative to follow teacher candidates
beyond one semester to see how their knowledge and beliefs about teaching diverse
learners change over time and to investigate what contributes to these changes. Future
studies also need to investigate more closely the knowledge and beliefs that teacher
candidates have on teaching literacy to diverse students and how their knowledge, beliefs,
and epistemological assumptions can influence the ways they respond to and make
meaning from personal writing and case activities.

Little research has been conducted on the pedagogy of teacher education
(AACTE, 2202, 2003), and this study is significant because it provides insight into the
role of narrative in teacher preparation. Further research needs to be conducted on
narrative as pedagogy and the ways that teacher educators can assist teacher candidates in
developing and maintaining a storyline as they are engaged in narrative and case

activities. This study revealed how teacher candidates responded differently to written

269

cases and RCE video and hypermedia cases. There is the possibility that different
representations of cases can contribute to different kinds of learning and support different
kinds of knowledge; however, more research needs to be conducted to understand if
different responses are more likely a result of the instructional approach that is used with
cases or the medium that is used to present images of teaching and learning.

Based on the findings of this study, it is unclear what role creating and
maintaining a storyline had on teacher candidate learning. Jackie’s experiences are the
exception compared to other focus students. However, little is known about the kinds of
personal connections that other teacher candidates made to written and hypermedia cases
and whether or not making these connections supported their learning. Investigating and
understanding the experiences of students like Jackie is necessary if we are going to gain
more insight into the role of narrative in preparing teachers to teach diverse students.
Doing a more detailed interpretive analysis on those teacher candidates’ experiences that
appear to be the exception rather than the norm could create a better opportunity to
understand the role that narrative pedagogy and case methodology has in teacher
education.

Behar-Horenstein (1995) stated, “Critics of story claim that story telling suffers
from an absence of an ‘authenticity judge’ (Klein & Green, 1993) and an inability to
‘ . . .distinguish a scholarly interpretation of a classroom event from that of a delirious
observer’ (Salomon, 1991, p. 10).” (p. 47). She argued that one of the criticisms of
investigating learning through narrative inquiry is that researchers “reify narrative
discourse, make inferences from nonobservable mental processes, and then use discourse

as evidence for the existence of the inferred processes” (Behar-Horenstein, 1995, p. 151).

I believe that there is some validity to these arguments. One of the limitations of this
study was that much of the data came from what teacher candidates said and wrote about
their own learning in the course. I believe that we do need to hear what teacher
candidates have to say about their experiences and learning in order to understand how
personal writing and case activities support them in becoming culturally responsive
teachers. However, this study revealed the difficulties of assessing teacher candidates’
knowledge and beliefs. As we move forward and conduct more research on the role of
narrative as pedagogy and as a means of knowing, we must find alternative ways to
identify, assess, and analyze the knowledge and beliefs that teacher candidates bring to
their educational experiences. We will also need to continue to investigate the ways that
teacher candidates’ knowledge, beliefs, and epistemological assumptions shape the ways

that they make meaning and learn from narrative and case activities.

APPENDICES

272

APPENDIX A

List of Cases

LOURDES’ CASE

Teaching Tolerance Project. (1997). Peace takes practice. Starting small: Teaching
tolerance in the preschool and early grades. Montgomery, AL: Southern Poverty Law
Center.

This case describes the challenges that a kindergarten teacher. Lourdes, faced while
teaching a group of children that came from mostly low-income Haitian and African
families. The case describes how many of the students in Lourdes’s class had started
school “having already learned that the world is an uncertain and often hostile place”
(p.144). When children encountered disagreements in Lourdes’s class, they frequently
resorted to violence to settle their disputes. Lourdes reached a turning point in her
teaching when she realized that if she kept getting upset, focusing on the negative in the
class, then students’ behavior wasn’t going to get any better. As Lourdes began forming
new ideas about teaching and her role in the classroom, she enrolled in a three-day
training session offered by the Peace Education Foundation (PEF) program. The case
illustrates how Lourdes continues to face a number of challenges in her classroom, but
manages to turn hostile and negative experiences into ones that focus on maintaining
peace and respect in the classroom.

GOODNIGHT MOON CASE (See APPENDIX D for the complete case.)

This case was written by a doctoral student and describes a real-life incident that
occurred to an acquaintance of hers while supervising student teachers in a small native
Alaskan village. The incident described what happened when Mary, an early childhood
consultant, went to observe a young Alaskan teacher who was teaching children in the
Alaskan Bush. Prior to being observed, Mary and the teacher had decided that the story
Goodnight Moon would be a nice story for the teacher to use because it is considered a
beloved book in early education settings. Mary felt that recommending this book to the
young teacher would help set her up for a successful lesson. In the end, however, the
soothing bedtime story became frightening to the children, and they began to cry in fear
when their teacher began to ask them questions about the book. This case illustrates how
children’s cultural experiences can impact a teacher’s instructional moves in unexpected
ways.

Brown, Margaret Wise. (1991). Goodnight Moon. New York: Harpercollins Juvenile
Books.

CHRISTINE’S CASE

Peacock, T., Keller, C., & Rallis, H. (1999). A case of freedom to learn: Balancing the
needs and rights of all children. In R. McNergney, E. Ducharrne & M. Ducharrne (Eds),
Educating for democracy: C use-method teaching and learning (pp. 159-173). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

This case is told through the eyes of Christine. a teacher education student, after
viewing a video in class that tells the story of a child with special needs being
mainstreamed into a general education classroom. In the case, Christine writes about her
thoughts and reactions when her classmates begin discussing the video and debating over
the advantages and disadvantages of including special needs students in the general
education classroom. Christine faces complex thoughts and reactions to the class
discussion because he own sister has Down Syndrome. The case describes how Christine
faces “serious personal and professional questions about who wins and who loses when
children with special needs are excluded (and included) in general education classrooms”

(p.159).

MRS. HEMMETER CASE

Emergent Literacy: Ann Hemmeter, Kindergarten
Neal Elementary
San Antonio, Texas

DAWN HARRIS MARTIN CASE

The Reading/Writing Connection: Dawn Harris Martin, 2nd grade
Mahalia Jackson Elementary
Harlem, New York

These two videos come from a six-part national teacher training video series and were
produced by C enter for the Study of Reading. The Center for the Study of Reading is
located at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

These videos are accessible through the Reading Classroom Explorer (RCE) program.
RCE is an online video-based hypermedia environment that helps teacher candidates gain
access to classrooms with diverse student populations and teachers with diverse
pedagogical approaches to literacy instruction. RCE enables teacher candidates to
observe, analyze, and critique video clips and supporting materials that portray a wide
variety of successful literacy practices in academically, economically, racially, and
linguistically diverse classrooms. RCE users can search video clips by schools, themes,
and keywords. Through the program, they can also post papers online and participate in
on-line discussion forums.

RCE website: http//eliteracy.org/rce

Name:

APPENDIX B

Pre Survey

Date

 

 

ED 222 Fall 2002
Pre-Survey

Rate the following and write a comment or twofor each.

1 Strongly agree
2 Agree
3 Neither agree or disagree
4 Disagree
5 Strongly disagree
1) Teachers often expect less from students from the lower socioeconomic
class.
2) Tests, particularly standardized tests. have frequently been used as a basis
for segregating students.
3) Generally, teachers should group students by ability levels.
4) Historically, literacy instruction has been monocultural, reflecting only
one reality and has been biased toward the dominant (European) group.
5) It is more important for immigrants to learn English than to maintain their
first language.
6) Large numbers of students of color are properly placed in special
education classes by school personnel.
7) Students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds typically have fewer

literacy opportunities than their middle-class peers.

SHORT ANSWER:

3)

9)

10)

In a school minority students and students of color consistently score less on the
standardized tests. Why do you think this might occur?

What kind of experiences have you had with diverse groups of people? Please
explain.

(Please include who these people were, why they are “diverse.” and how you
came to have these experiences in your response.)

Have you had any prior experiences working with or teaching children? Explain.

LONG ANSWER. PLEASE ANSWER ON THIS PAGE AND THE ATTACHED
SHEET(S) OF PAPER.

11)

Nian Nian has just recently immigrated to the United States and entered your

-grade (enter your preferred grade) classroom during the middle of the

school year. She appears to be able to understand very general conversations that
occur in the classroom, but her English reading and writing skills are very poor.
You are still trying to assess how well Nian Nian speaks English; however, this is
difficult to do because she doesn’t speak much in class. As far as you know, She
does not use any English at home. A) How do you think you could best support
Nian Nian in acquiring English skills, and what kind of literacy instruction do you
think would best support her learning? B) How might this support be the same of
different from instruction that other students get? Please explain.

You are teaching in an inner city, public school in Detroit and have a very diverse
classroom. Some of your students are gifted; however, many of them are
struggling to work at grade level. You have two learning disabled students, but
you wonder if two more of your students should be tested. You believe a few of
your students might have attention deficit disorder. Many of your students come
from single parent. low-income families, and you have difficulty communicating
with these parents because of their work schedules. You are in the first months of
school and are preparing for the year ahead. What considerations and
accommodations will you need to make when planning literacy lessons for this
group of students? Please explain.

276

Name:

APPENDIX C

Post Survey

Date

 

 

ED 222 Fall 2002
Post-Survey

Rate thefollowing and write a comment or two for each.

1 Strongly agree
2 Agree
3 Neither agree or disagree
4 Disagree
5 Strongly disagree
1) Teachers often expect less from students from the lower socioeconomic
class.
2) Tests. particularly standardized tests. have frequently been used as a basis
for segregating students.
3) Generally, teachers should group students by ability levels. _
4) Historically. literacy instruction has been monocultural, reflecting only
one reality and has been biased toward the dominant (European) group.
5) It is more important for immigrants to learn English than to maintain their
first language.
6) Large numbers of students of color are properly placed in special
education classes by school personnel.
7) Students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds typically have fewer

literacy opportunities than their middle-class peers.

277

 

SHORT ANSWER:

8) In a school minority students and students of color consistently score less on the
standardized tests. Why do you think this might occur?

LONG ANSWER. PLEASE ANSWER ON THIS PAGE AND THE ATTACHED
SHEET(S) OF PAPER

9) Nian Nian has just recently immigrated to the United States and entered your
_ -grade (enter your preferred grade) classroom during the middle of the
school year. She appears to be able to understand very general conversations that
occur in the classroom, but her English reading and writing skills are very poor.
You are still trying to assess how well Nian Nian speaks English; however, this is
difficult to do because she doesn’t speak much in class. As far as you know, she
does not use any English at home. A) How do you think you could best support
Nian Nian in acquiring English skills, and what kind of literacy instruction do you
think would best support her learning? B) How might this support be the same of
different from instruction that other students get? Please explain.

10) You are teaching in an inner city, public school in Detroit and have a very diverse
classroom. Some of your students are gifted; however, many of them are
struggling to work at grade level. You have two learning disabled students, but
you wonder if two more of your students should be tested. You believe a few of
your students might have attention deficit disorder. Many of your students come
from single parent, low-income families, and you have difficulty communicating
with these parents because of their work schedules. You are in the first months of
school and are preparing for the year ahead. What considerations and
accommodations will you need to make when planning literacy lessons for this
group of students? Please explain.

11) During this semester in TE 40], you engaged in a variety of activities that were
designed to support your learning to teach literacy to diverse students. Please
comment on the following and discuss in detail how they did or did not support
this learning:

a) Writing about various personal experiences that you have had in and out
of school;

b) Reading and responding to written cases (ex. The case of Christine and her
sister Alice, Good Night Moon, Peace Takes Practice, etc.);

o) Viewing hypermedia video-based cases (ex. Anne Hemmeter video, Dawn
Harris Martin video, various RCE clips, etc.) and posting messages on the
RCE discussion forum.

278

APPENDIX D

“Goodnight Moon” Case

A few years ago, a colleague of mine. Mary Asper, worked in the Alaskan Bush
as an early childhood consultant. As part of her job, she would fly into communities and
coach early childhood teachers to improve their practice. She would be in contact with
the teachers in advance by phone and Internet to help them plan the lesson that she would
observe on her visits. One day while having coffee with Mary. she told me about a visit
she made to observe Kae, a young, native Alaskan teacher who was working towards her
teacher certification. Mary said that she had been looking forward to observing Kae’s
interactions with the class of all native children because it was quite rare. even in Alaska,
for teachers to be native Alaskans.

Mary explained that Kae had seemed quite nervous about having her come
observe. Because of this, she spent some extra time helping Kae plan her lesson. Mary
has been working in Alaska for a few years and is familiar with some of the native
customs. She told me that native Alaskan culture is a very old. largely oral culture. Native
Alaskan elders frequently use story telling as a way to convey messages, information, and
knowledge to the young. and the culture is passed on from one generation to the next
through these stories. Stories, Mary told me, are viewed as a way to keep the culture in
tact. Mary thought about this as She helped Kae plan her lesson, and She thought that it
might be nice if Kae could base her lesson on a children’s literature story. After talking
together, they selected the story Goodnight Moon to read to the class of preschoolers.
Mary figured that since this book is one of the best beloved books in early education
settings and homes all over, her young teacher would find easy success using it.

Mary arrived to Kae’s school on her scheduled date and found a lovely classroom
with attentive children surrounding the visibly nervous Kae. Mary didn’t want to distract
the students during the lesson. so she sat in the back of the room to observe and listen to
the reading of Goodnight Moon. As Kae read the story, however, Mary noticed that her
tone was becoming increasingly agitated. Mary realized that the teacher’s inflections had
the story sounding more like it was written by Poe than the soothing bedtime story Mary
was familiar with. Mary noticed that the children were looking terrified. As Kae finished
reading the book, she began to ask her students questions about what she had just read.
She asked, “Can you imagine going to sleep ALL BY YOURSELF? Without your
parents? Without your brothers and sisters? Did you notice that it was dark? How might
this little bunny feel?” To Mary’s dismay, children were all crying by the end of the
lesson.

Think About
What are your initial thoughts, feelings, or reactions after reading this case?

Why might the children have reacted in this way? What didn’t Mary and the teacher
consider?

What do you think a teacher should consider when planning lessons for his/her students?

Goodnight Moon Dehriefing

After Mary and Kae discussed the Goodnight Moon lesson, they realized that they had
not considered the following factors when selecting their text and planning the lesson:

0 Children in this community Slept in family beds where they enjoyed the comfort
of being able to reach out and touch a family member at all times. They slept like
“torn cod” line up in the ocean head to tail and tail to head.

Children were never left in the dark.
Rooms were small and snuggly not large and vacuous.
Comfort and discomfort are culturally influenced!

Questions:

1) Are there any connections between this story and the quick-write you did earlier?
Explain.

2) Does this story make you think differently about teaching diverse learners and
creating an inclusive learning community? Explain.

280

APPENDIX E

Instructor Interview Protocol

Pre-Semester Instructor Interview Protocol

1)

2)
3)
4)
5)

6)
7)

8)

Please describe your goals this year’s ED 222 class.

Explain how you plan to accomplish these goals.

Describe the major assignments that you will give your students and the purposes
or goals for these assignments.

Explain how you have used narratives and cases in previous classes. Describe
what you wanted to accomplish from using them.

Explain whether or not you were successful in meeting these goals.

Explain how you have or have not used technology when teaching.

When we first discussed my research it appeared to me that you were interested in
using technology, or more specifically, RCE with your students. Can you explain
why this interests you? What would you say is your comfort level for using
technology?

Explain how you think technology can be used to support your teaching and
learning and/or your students’ teaching and learning.

General Prompts Related to ED 222 Students:

1) Describe how this particular group of students compares to previous
classes that you have taught.

2) Describe the strengths of this particular group of students.

3) Describe the weaknesses of this particular group of students.

General Prompts Related to Course Activities and Sessions:

1) Explain what seems to be working well with this group of students as
you are trying to prepare them for teaching diverse learners. Describe
what has contributed to this success.

2) Explain what is not working with these students. Explain why this is so
and what you would do differently.

3) Explain how you think students are interpreting and making sense of
the narrative and hypermedia cases that you are using in your class.

4) Describe any “surprises” that you or your students have had while
engaged in these case-based activities.

Mid-Semester Instructor Interview Protocol

1)

7)

~

3)
4)
5)

6)

7)

8)

9)

What were some of your greatest successes last semester? Why do you think you
were so successful in these areas?

What were your greatest challenges last semester? Why do you think these were
your greatest challenges? ’

I’m going to describe some things that you said you wanted to accomplish this
year in ED 222. Describe whether or not you accomplished these things and why
you think you did/did not accomplish them.

You said that last year you found yourself avoiding difficult issues and questions.
Did you find that happening this year? (why/why not?)

How did your use of cases this year compare to last year?

At the beginning of the semester you were hesitant to have students put together
portfolios. Describe how you are now thinking about the use of portfolios in ED
222.

At the beginning of the semester you said that you saw that technology could be
used as another way to model an inclusive learning community. You liked the
idea that students can follow their themes and interests when watching videos
instead of your own. What are your thoughts and impression on how technology
can be used in ED 222? What were your struggles & successes?

Do you think RCE impacted the way you think about technology/ teaching/
learning?

Talk about your first impression of RCE and how these impressions may or may
not have changed throughout the period of its use.

10) Describe the impact. if any, that RCE had on your teaching.
11) Describe what you think the greatest limitations are for Using RCE.
12) Is there anything that you plan to change or do the same in next year’s ED 222

class? (Why?)

APPENDIX F

Teacher Candidate Interview Protocol

Mid-Semester Interview Protocol

4)
5)

6)
7)
8)

9)

Tell me a little about your early literacy experiences in school

Tell me how things are going for you in ED 222.

Describe which things in ED 222 seem to have had the most impact on you and
your learning and your learning about teaching diverse learners.

Describe the class activities or assignments that have influenced this learning.
Describe any people who have influenced your thinking and learning in this
course.

Dialogue Journals: Tell me how your dialogue journal writing is coming along
and what that experience is like.

Response Groups: Tell me about your response group and how work on your
philosophy / conceptualization of literacy is coming along.

Goodnight Moon: Tell me about the Goodnight Moon case and your thoughts
about doing activities with the case

Hemmeter Video - Tell me about the Hemmeter Video and your thoughts about
doing the activities in class.

10) Tell me about your field placement and your experiences in this classroom.
11) Revisit and ask questions about coursework.

End of the Semester Interview Protocol

1)
2)
3)
4)
5)

What has made the largest impact on your learning this semester?

Where have you experienced the greatest growth?

Where have you experienced the greatest change?

Ask for further explanation/discussion on self-assessment responses.

Select written work and comments that are related to case activities and ask
teacher candidates to provide further explanation and detail.

283

REFERENCES

284

REFERENCES

American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE) Major Forum #386.
(2002, February). AERA consensus panel on teacher education: Presentation and
town meeting. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the American Association
of Colleges for Teacher Education. New York.

The American Educational Research Association (AERA) Consensus Panel on Teacher
Education. (2003, April). A closer look: Presidential invited session. Symposium
conducted at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
Chicago, Illinois.

Anyon. J. (1981). Social class and school knowledge. Curriculum Inquiry, 12(1), 3-42.

Artiles, A. J ., Trent, S. C., & Kuan, L. I. (1996, April). The preservice education of
teachers for student diversity: An analysis of the special education empirical
literature. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, New York.

Barnett, C., & Tyson, P. (1993, April). Case methods and teacher change: Shifting
authority to build autonomy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Atlanta.

Barnett, C., & Tyson, P. (1999). Case methods and teacher change: Shifting authority to
build autonomy. In M. A. Lundeberg, B. B. Levin & H. 4L. Harrington (Eds),
Who learns what from cases and how? The research base for teaching and
learning with cases (pp. 53-69). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.

Bartolome, L. (1994). Beyond the methods fetish: Toward a humanizing pedagogy.
Harvard Educational Review, 64(2), 173-194.

Behar-Horenstien, L. S. (1995). Narrative research, teaching, and teacher thinking:
Perspectives and possibilities. Peabody Journal of Education, 70(2), 139-161.

Belenky, M., Clinchy, B., Goldberger, N., & Tarule, J. (1986). Women ’s ways of
knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. New York: Basic Books.

Boling, E. C. (2001, December). Literacy instruction and preservice teacher
understanding Paper presented at the 51st Annual Meeting of the National
Reading Conference (NRC), San Antonio, Texas.

Boling, Erica C. (in press). The transformation of instruction through technology:

Promoting inclusive learning communities in teacher education courses. Action in
Teacher Education, 14(4).

285

Boling, E., & Roehler, L. (2002, February). Preparing educators for diverse classrooms:
Teacher candidates investigate written and hypermedia cases Symposium
conducted at the meeting of the American Association of Colleges of Teacher
Educators (AACTE), New York City.

Borko. H., & Putnam. R. T. (1996). Learning to teach. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee
(Eds). Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 673-708). New York:
Macmillan.

Bourdieu, P. (1983). Education: culture. economy. society. Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.

Britzman, D. P. (1986). Cultural myths in the making of a teacher: Biography and social
structure in teacher education. Harvard Educational Review, 56(4), 442-456.

Britzman, D. P. (1991). Practice makes practice. New York: State University of New
York Press.

Brown, Margaret Wise. (1991). Goodnight Moon. New York: Harpercollins Juvenile
Books.

Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Calderhead, J ., & Robson, M. (1991). Images of teaching: Students teachers' early
conceptions of classroom practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 7(1). 1-8.

Carter, K. (1993). The place of story in the study of teacher education. Educational
Researcher, 22(1), 5-12.

Carter, K. (1999). What is a case? What is not a case? In M. A. Lundeberg, B. B. Levin
& H. L. Harrington (Eds), Who learns whatfiom cases and how? The research
base for teaching and learning with cases (pp. 165-175). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Earlbaum.

Carter, K., & Doyle, W. (1996). Personal narrative and life history in learning to teach. In
J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2"d ed., pp. 120-142).
New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.

Christensen, C.R., & Hansen, A.J. (1987). Teaching and the case method. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Clark, C., & Medina, C. (2000). How reading and writing literacy narratives affect

preservice teachers’ understandings of literacy, pedagogy, and multiculturalism.
Journal of Teacher Education, 51(1), 63-76.

286

Cochran-Smith, M. (1995). Uncertain allies: Understanding the boundaries between race
and teaching. Harvard Educational Review, 56(1), 541-570.

The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (CTGV). (1990). Anchored
instruction and its relationship to situated cognition. Educational Researcher.
19(6). 2-10. '

C onle, C. (2002). An anatomy of narrative curricula. Educational Researcher, 32(3). 3-
15.

Connelly, F. M. & Clandinin, D. J. (1990). Stories of experience and narrative inquiry.
Educational Researcher, 19(5), 2-14.

Conway, J. K. (1989). The roadfrom Coorain. New York: Departures Vintage Books.

Delpit, L. (1995). Other people '5 children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York:
New Press.

Duke, N. & Pearson, P. D. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading
comprehension. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds), What research has to
say about reading instruction (3rd ed., pp. 205-242). Newark, DE: International
Reading Association.

F eiman-Nemser, S. (1983). Learning to Teach. In L. Shulman & G. Sykes (Eds),
Handbook of teaching policy (pp. 150-170). New York: Longman.

F eiman-Nemser, S. ( 1990). Teacher preparation: Structural and conceptual alternatives.
In W. R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 212-
233). New York: Macmillan.

Feiman-Nemser, S. & Buchmann, M. (1987). When is student teaching teacher
education?” Teaching and Teacher Education, 3 (4). 25 5-273.

Feiman-Nemser, S., & Buchmann, M. (1989). Describing teacher education: A
framework and illustrative findings from a longitudinal study of six students. The
Elementary School Journal, 89(3), 365-377.

Feiman-Nemser, S., & Remillard, J. (1996). Perspectives on learning to teach. In F.
Murray (Ed.), The teacher educator’s handbook: Building a knowledge base for
the preparation of teachers (pp. 63-91). Washington, DC: American Association
of Colleges for Teacher Education.

Florio-Ruane. Susan. (2001). Teacher education and the cultural imagination:

Autobiography, conversation, and narrative. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

287

Gavelek, J. R., & Raphael, T. E. (1996). Changing talk about text: New rolesfor teachers
and students, 73, 182-192.

Gee, J. P. (1989). The social mind: Language. ideology. and social practice. New York:
Bergin and Garvey.

Giroux. H. (1989). Teachers as intellectuals. Granby, MA: Bergin and Garvey.

Giroux. H., & McLaren. P. (1986). Teacher education and the politics of engagement:
The case for democratic schooling. Harvard Educational Review. 5 6( 3), 213-38.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1965). Awareness of dying. Chicago: Aldine.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss. A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for
qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.

Gomez, M. L. (1996). Prospective teachers’ perspectives on teaching ‘other people’s
children.’” In K. Zeichner, S. Melnick & M. L. Gomez (Eds), Currents of reform
in preservice teacher education (pp. 1 09-132). New York: Teachers College Press.

Goodlad, J. (1990). Teachersfor our nation ’s schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Goodwin, L. A. (1997). Multicultural stories: Preservice teachers' conceptions of and
responses to issues of diversity. Urban Education, 32(1), 117-145.

Grant, C. A., & Secada, W. G. (1990). Preparing teachers for diversity. In W. R. Houston
(Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 403-422). New York:
Macmillan.

Greenwood, G.E. & Parkay, F. W. (1989). Case studies for teacher decision making.
New York: Random House.

Hadaway, N., F lorez, V., Largke. P., & Wiseman, D. (1993). Teaching in the midst of
diversity: How do we prepare? In M. J. O’Hair & S. J. Odell (Eds), Diversity and
teaching: Teacher education yearbook 1 (pp. 60-70). New York: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich College Publishers.

Hargreaves, A., & Jacka, N. (1995). Induction or seduction? Postmodern patterns of
preparing to teach. The Peabody Journal of Education, 70(3), 41-63.

Harrington, H. (1995). Fostering reasoned decisions: Case-based pedagogy and the
professional development of teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(3).
203-214.

Hollingsworth, S. (1989). Prior beliefs and cognitive change in learning to teach.
American Educational Research Journal, 26, 160-189.

Hollingsworth, S. (1992). Learning to teach through collaborative conversation: A
feminist approach. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 373-404.

Hollingsworth, S.. Dybdahl, M., & Minarek, L. (1993). By chart and chance and passion:
The importance of relational knowing in learning to teach. Curriculum Inquiry.
23(1), 5-35. '

Hollins. E. R. (1996). Culture in school learning: Revealing the deep meaning. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Holt-Reynolds, D. (1992). Personal history-based beliefs as relevant prior knowledge in
coursework: Can we practice what we teach? American Educational Research
Journal, 29, 325-349.

Hughes, J ., Packard, B, & Pearson, P. D. (1999). The role of hypermedia cases on
preservice teacher’s views of reading instructional. CIERA report 3-005.

Jackson, D. & Ormrod, J. (1998). Case studies: Applying educational psychology. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Jackson, P. (1990). Life in classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.

Jonassen, D. (1991). Evaluating constructivistic learning. Educational T echnology. 31(9),
28-33.

Joram, E., & Anthony G. (1998). Preservice teachers’ prior beliefs: Transforming
obstacles into opportunities. Teaching and Teacher Education. 14(2), 175-191.

Kagan, D. M., & Tippins, DJ. (1991). How student teachers describe their pupils.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 7, 455-466.

Kennedy, M. (1999). The role of preservice teacher education. In L. Darling-Hammond
& G. Sykes (Eds), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and
practice (pp. 54-85). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities: Children in America ’s schools. New York: Harper
Perennial.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American
children. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1999) Preparing teachers for Diversity: Historical perspectives,

current trends, and future directions. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds),
Teaching as the learning profession (pp. 86-123). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

289

Laframboise, K. & Griffith, P. (1997). Using literature cases to examine diversity issues
with preservice teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13(4), 369-382.

Laframboise, K. & Klesius, J. (1993). Using literature cases studies to help preservice
teachers develop a knowledge base for decision making. The Teacher Educator.
29(2). 26-31. ‘

Lampert, M., & Ball, D. (1998). Teaching multimedia. and mathematics: Investigations
of Real Practice. New York: Teachers College Press.

Lampert, M., & Ball, D. (1999). Aligning teacher education with contemporary K-12
reform visions. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds), Teaching as the
learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 33-53). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Lather, P. (1986). Research as praxis. Harvard Educational Review, 56(3), 257-277.

Laurillard, D. (1996). Learning formal presentations through multimedia [Electronic
version]. In N. Entwistle, D. Hounsell, & F. Marton (Eds), The experience of
learning (2nd ed.). Scottish Academic Press. Retrieved June 8, 2003, from
http://www2.open.ac.uk/ltto/lttoteam/Diana/lfonnrep.htm

Laurillard, D. (1998). How can interactive multimedia enhance learning? Conference
plenary paper presented at the IV Congresso RIBIE, Brasilia. Retrieved June 8,
2003, from
http://www.c5.cl/ieinvestiga/actas/ribie98/001_DIANA_~_LAURILLARD.html

LeCompte, M., & Schensul, J. (1999). Analyzing and interpreting ethnographic data.
Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.

Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Lundeberg, M. A. (1999). Discovering teaching and learning through cases. In M. A.
Lundeberg, B. B. Levin & H. L. Harrington (Eds), Who learns what fi'om cases
and how? The research base for teaching and learning with cases (pp. 3-23).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.

Lundeberg, M. A., & Fawver, J. E. (1994). Thinking like a teacher: Encouraging
cognitive growth in case analysis. Journal of Teacher Education, 45, 289-297.

Lundeberg, M. A., Levin, B. B., & Harrington, H. L. (1999). Who learns what from cases
and how? The research for teaching and learning with cases. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Lundeberg, M. A. & Scheurman, G. (1997). Looking twice means seeing more:

Developing pedagogical knowledge through case analysis. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 13(8), 783-797.

290

Lynn, Laurence J r. (1999). Teaching and learning with cases: A guidebook. New York:
Chatham House Publisher.

Mastropieri. M., & Scruggs, T. (2000). The inclusive classroom: Strategiesfor effective
instruction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

McAninch, A. R. (1993) Teacher thinking and the case method: Theory and, future
directions. New York: Teachers College Press.

McDiarmid, G. W., & Price, J. (1993). Preparing teachers for diversity: A study of
student teachers in a multicultural program. In M. J. O’Hair & S. J. Odell (Eds),
Diversity and teaching: Teacher education yearbook I (pp. 31-58). New York:
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.

McGee, L. M., & Tompkins, G. E. (1995). Literature-based reading instruction: What’s
guiding the instruction? Language Arts, 72(6), 405-414.

McNergney, R., Ducharme. E., & Ducharrrre, M. (1999). Educating for democracy:
Case-method teaching and learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Merseth, K. & Lacey, C. (1993). Weaving stronger fabric: The pedagogical promise of
hypermedia and case methods in teacher education. Teacher and Teacher
Education, 9(3). 283-299

Moje, E., & Wade, S. (1997). What case discussions reveal about teacher thinking.
Teaching and Teacher Education. I3( 7), 691 -712.

Moorfield, J. (1987). Implications for schools of research findings in bilingual education.
In W. Hirsch (Ed.), Living languages (pp.31-43). Auckland, New Zealand:
Heinemann.

National Center for Research on Teacher Education. (1988). Teacher education and
learning to teach: A research agenda. Journal of Teacher Education, 39(6), 27-32.

National Center for Research on Teacher Education. (1991). Final report: The teacher
education and learning to teach study. East Lansing, MI: College of Education,
Michigan State University.

Nieto, Sonia. (2002). Language, culture, and teaching: Critical perspectives for a new
century. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Olson, M. (2000). Linking personal and professional knowledge of teaching practice
through narrative inquiry. The Teacher Educator, 35 (4), 109-27.

291

Orion, N.. & Thompson, D. B. (1995, April). Changes in perceptions and attitudes of pre-
service post-graduate secondary school science teachers. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching,
San Francisco.

Paine, L. (1989). Orientations toward diversity: What'do prospective teachers bring?
(Report). East Lansing. MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Education.

Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy
construct. Review of Educational Research, 62, 307-332.

Pardo, L, Rosaen, C. & Lantz, T. (2002, February). Preparing educators for diverse
classrooms: Teacher candidates explore differences from multiple perspectives.
Paper presented at the meeting of the American Association of Colleges of
Teacher Education (AACTE), New York.

Peacock, T., Keller, C., & Rallis, H. (1999). A case of freedom to learn: Balancing the
needs and rights of all children. In R. McNergney, E. Ducharrne & M. Ducharrne
(Eds), Educating for democracy: Case—method teaching and learning (pp. 159-
173). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Perkins, D. N. (1991). What constructivism demands of the learner. Educational
T echnology, 31(9), 19-21.

Pohan, C. A., & Aguilar, T. E. (2001). Measuring educators’ beliefs about diversity in
personal and professional contexts. American Educational Research Journal,
38(1), 159-182.

Posner, G., Strike, K., Hewson, P., & Gertzog, W. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific

conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2),
211-227.

Preskill, S. (l 998). Narratives of teaching and the quest for the second self. Journal of
Teacher Education, 4 9(5). 344-357.

Reinking, D., McKenna, M., Labbo, L., & Kieffer R (Eds). (1998) Handbook of literacy
and technology: Transformations in a post-typographic world. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitude and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. Sikula,
T. Buttery & E. Guyton (Eds), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd
ed., pp. 102—119). New York: Macmillan.

Richardson, V. (Ed.). (1997). Constructivist teacher education: Building a world of
understanding. London: Falmer Press.

292

 

Richardson. V., Casanova, U., Placier. P. & Guilfoyle, K. (1989). School children at risk.
London, England: F almer.

Rodriguez, R. (1982). Hunger of memory: The education ofRichard Rodriguez. New
York: Bantam.

Rosaen, C. (in press). Preparing teachers for diverse classrooms: Creating public and
private spaces to explore culture through poetry writing. Teachers College
Record.

Skutnabb-Kangas. T. (1988). Multilingualism and the education of minority children. In
T. Skutnabb-Kangas & J. Cummins (Eds), Minority education: From shame to
struggle (pp.9-44). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

Spiegel, D. L. (1998). Silver bullets, babies, and bath water: Literature response groups in
a balanced literacy program The Reading T eacher, 52, 114-124.

Spiro, R. J., Coulson, R. L., Feltovich, P. J., & Anderson, D. K. (1988). Cognitive
flexibility theory: Advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. In

Tenth annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 375-3 83). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.

Sykes, G. (1989). Learning to teach with cases Colloquy, 2(2), 7-13.

Sykes, G. & Bird, T. (1992). Teacher education and the case idea. National Center for
Research on Teacher Learning (NCRTL) Special Report. East Lansing, MI:
Michigan State University.

Tatto, M. T. (1996). Examining values and beliefs about diverse students: Understanding
the challenges for teacher education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
18, 155-180.

Taylor, M. (1991). Roll of thunder, hear my cry. New York: Puffin Books.

Teaching Tolerance Project. (1997). Peace takes practice. Starting small: Teaching
tolerance in the preschool and early grades. Montgomery, AL: Southern Poverty
Law Center.

Tillema, H. H., & W. E. Knol. (1997). Promoting student teacher learning through
conceptual change or direct instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13(6).
579-595.

Tippins, D., Nichols, S., & Thomas, D. (1999). Exploring novice and experienced
elementary teacher’s science teaching and learning referents through videocases.
Research in Science Education, 29(3), 331-352.

293

Tompkins, Gail E. (2003). Literacyfbr the 213’ century (3'd ed.). Upper Saddle River. NJ:
Merrill Prentice Hall.

Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. (2002). Educating culturally responsive teachers: A
coherent approach. Albany, NJ: State University of New York Press.

Wade, S. (Ed.). (2000). Preparing teachers for inclusive education: Case pedagogies and
curricula for teacher educators. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Weinstein, C. S. (1990). Prospective elementary teachers' beliefs about teaching:
Implications for teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 6(3), 279-
290.

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
[Electronic version}. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 130-178.

Zeichner, K. M. (1991). Action research and reflective teaching in preservice teacher
education: A case study from the United States. Teaching and Teacher Education,
7(2), 119-136.

Zeichner, K. M., & Gore, .1. M. (1990). Teacher socialization. In W. R. Houston (Ed.),
Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 329-348). New York:
Macmillan.

Zeichner, K. M., & Hoeft, K. (1996). Teacher socialization and cultural diversity. In J.
Sikula, T. Buttery & E. Guyton (Eds), Handbook of research on teacher
education (2nd ed., pp. 525-547). New York: Macmillian.

Zulich, J., Bean, T. W., & Herrick, J. (1992). Charting stages of preservice teacher
development and reflection in a multicultural community through dialogue
journal analysis. Teaching and Teacher Education, 8(4), 345-360.

 
    

IlllilllllllIlll’lllllllllil I

40629 2349