Transcript Preservice Teachers* Knowledge and Self

Preservice Teachers’ Knowledge
and Self-efficacy Beliefs Related
to Implementing Reading
Instructional Strategies in the
Content Areas
Meagan Caridad Arrastia, Erik S. Rawls, Laura M. Jakiel, Lynn Bowens Turner, Eric Christesen,
Alysia D. Roehrig, Annamaria Deidesheimer & Ashley DeGracia
Florida State University
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to explore
preservice secondary teachers’ (PTs) knowledge
and self-efficacy beliefs related to implementing
content-area reading instruction in their future
practice.
Why is this important? High Stakes Tests in
Florida
 FCAT 2.0
 Reading (less narrative texts): Grades 3-10
 Math: Grades 3-8
 Science: Grades 5 & 8
 Writing: Grades 4, 8, & 10
 End of Course Exams
 Algebra 1
 Geometry
 U.S. History
 Biology
Content-area Reading
Content-area reading is “the ability to use reading and
writing for the acquisition of new content in a given
discipline” (McKenna & Robinson, 1990, p. 184).
The focus is on learning from text
The idea is not to read like a chemist, but to know how
to study books (including chemistry books)
Different from disciplinary literacy
Theoretical Framework
 Self-efficacy is a teacher’s belief that he or she possesses both the ability and
competence to complete a task (Bandura, 1977).
 From a social cognitive point-of-view, self-efficacy affects PTs’ goals and behaviors,
which in turn are influenced by their environment (i.e., teacher-education program,
internship, etc.) (Schunk & Meece, 2006).
 These beliefs affect how instructional opportunities and barriers are perceived
(Bandura, 2006) and subsequently implementation of instruction, as well as the
amount of effort is spent in preparation of the instruction, and perseverance in the
face of obstacles (Pajares, 1997).
Previous Research on PTs
 Nourie and Lenski (1998) found that PTs had a generally positive attitude towards
content-area reading.
 But PTs generally admitted to using the strategies in a limited manner in the field
(Akyol & Ulusoy, 2009).
 They feel inadequately prepared to teach their content area’s reading material to
their students (Kane, 2007; McCoss-Yergian & Krepps, 2010; Stewart & O’Brien, 1989).
 Despite varying state requirements for content reading training (Come Romine,
McKenna & Robinson, 1996), we identified no research on PTs’ perceived self-efficacy to
implement reading strategies in their future content-area classrooms.
Previous Research on Inservice Teachers
 A recent study (Cantrell & Callaway, 2008) found that practicing content-area teachers
who included reading instruction in their curriculum reported significantly higher
levels of personal efficacy
efficacy (that he or she had the ability to influence student
learning; Ashton & Webb, 1982), as well as collective
collective efficacy
efficacy (Goddard, Hoy, & Hoy,
2000) than their counterparts who hardly implemented reading instruction.
 High implementers more willing to overcome any barriers in order to deliver the
instruction
 Through coaching and collaboration, the efficacy of both high and low implementers
increased, but those that started out with higher efficacy were more likely to
implement the new strategies in their classrooms (Cantrell & Hughes, 2008).
Methods
 Convenience sample from 2 courses
 IRB approval & teacher permission
 Interviews: 12 junior/senior PTs
 Semi-structured protocol with both
closed- and open-ended questions
(Creswell, 2005)
 Questions about literacy instruction,
implementation, reader biography,
reflection, and the course
 Class Observations
 3 hours/week for 1 month
 Course artifacts
 Final exams
 Grounded Theory
 Open Coded by 4 graduate students
 5 interviews double-coded for inter-rater
reliability calculated with Pearson
correlation
 Constant comparison method
 Triangulation between observations,
interviews, & exams
Context
 Data collected at a large Southeastern university
 Required course for secondary PTs (English/Language Arts, Math, Science, and
Social Studies) Course met once a week and included an online component (i.e.,
Blackboard discussion boards)
 Discussion posts/responses, journal entries/reflections, a midterm, and a final
 According to the syllabus: The goal is to help PTs focus on understanding the role of
reading in their particular content areas, while developing the knowledge, skills, and
attitudes to meet the reading needs of their future students. Reading strategies
covered in the course:
 creative problem solving, reciprocal teaching, SQ3R, graphic and visual organizers,
brainstorming, think alouds, mapping, journaling, etc. (e.g., Anderson & Pearson, 1984; Eanet
& Manzo, 1976; Ogle, 1986; Rosenblatt, 1995).
Results: Overview
 Four general themes emerged:
1. Medium efficacy for implementing strategies
2. Multiple barriers for developing efficacy and hardly any supports perceived
3. Various plans for implementing strategies in the future
4. Many perceived barriers for implementation and few known supports
 Inter-rater reliability: r = .70 for 5 interviews double-coded
Results: Medium Efficacy
 Medium efficacy was defined as demonstrating efficacy for some strategies and
reading instruction, but not others OR a stated average confidence for
implementation.
 Different degrees of efficacy for different strategies, or for working with struggling
students, and some were more specific in their descriptions and evaluations of their
own abilities
 Ability to implement content-area strategies:
 “Comfortable. (laughs) Um, it’s going to be pretty difficult, but if I am using the strategy
presented in the text, then I’ll be fine. Just like using echo—I mean echo reading or the
reader theatre. I think those are techniques that can be used to, uh, help those students
in reading orally or silently.” –P25 interview
Results: Barriers for Developing Efficacy
 Barriers to Developing Efficacy
 Courses taught by English Education Instructors
 Focused on using trade books and graphic novels
 Focused on running records
 Completed instruction as students, not teachers
 Did the class prepare them?
 “It was interesting, but I don’t think it was focused on anything outside of English. I
could see history or psychology in which you do a lot of reading. I mean everyone does
a lot of reading in class, but having enough time to deal with all the reading. There were
some strategies that would help students become better readers in the content area,
but the running record and vowel games… I just don’t see myself taking the time to do
that in my classes” –P1 interview
Results: Future Implementation
 At least 1 strategy mentioned:
 P8 explained that he would use Tolkien’s The Hobbit in his 8th grade World History course
and use “the SQ3R strategy and the use of embedded questions in a Socratic seminar-style
discussion during and between lectures.”
 Another PT stated, “I think the pre-reading strategy is going to be pretty helpful… like giving
out reading guides and ask[ing] students to retell the story after they finish…” –P2 interview
 “I plan to teach students to use context clues and reference materials…” –P7 final
 At times PTs could not express verbally the instructional strategies, but planned to help
struggling students with reading:
 “If I see a student having a difficult time in my class, and my few strategies aren’t working,
then I will alert the English teacher and say hey this kid needs extra help…” or “I can offer to
help the kid after class, so we can work on reading and Biology at the same time.” –P7
interview
Results: Barriers for Future Implementation
 Barriers to Implementation
 Instruction seems time consuming
 Unsure about explaining the reading process
 Anticipated diversity in reading instruction
 Easier to summarize material for struggling readers
 “Primarily the time issue. It would be really time consuming trying to get people
who may be struggling with reading up to par with other students without
sacrificing the rest of the class' learning gains with the actual content.” –P2
interview
Discussion
 Spencer, Carter, Boon and Garcia-Simpson (2008) indicated that there is not enough
being done to help content-area teachers “understand their role as teachers of
reading” (p. 2).
 Taking a content-area reading undergraduate course may have a positive influence
on their future students’ reading achievement (Bean & Readence, 1996; Kane, 2007).
 However, if PTs leave their teacher-education programs without the self-efficacy to
implement reading strategies in the content areas, it is not likely that they will try to
implement them, even if they value them
 Better understanding of how teacher-education programs can increase the literacy
instruction efficacy of future content-area teachers
 Target identified barriers and bolster supports to develop self-efficacy for
implementing content-area reading instruction
Future Research
 Program Evaluation
 Longitudinal Research
 Sequencing of content-area reading course
 Efficacy to implement content-area reading instruction during first year of teaching
and beyond
 Disciplinary Literacy
 Program Variables
 Who teaches the course?
 Who takes the course?
 When do they take the course?
Thank you!
 Meagan Caridad Arrastia
 [email protected]
References

Anderson, R. C., & Pearson, P. D. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading
comprehension. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 255–292). New York: Longman.

Akyol, H., & Ulusoy, M. (2009).Pre-service teachers' use of reading strategies in their own readings and
future classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 878-884.

Ashton, P. T., & Webb, R. B. (1982). Teacher's sense of efficacy: Toward an ecological model. Paper
presented at the Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review,
84(2), 191-215. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191

Bandura, A. (2006). Adolescent development from an agentic perspective. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.),
Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 1-43). Greenwich, Connecticut: Information Age Publishing.

doi:10.3102/00028312037002479

Kane, S. (2007). Literacy and learning in the content areas. 3rd ed. Scottsdale, AZ: Holcomb Hathaway.

McCoss-Yergian, T., & Krepps, L. (2010). Do teacher attitudes impact literacy strategy implementation in
content area classrooms? Journal of Instructional Pedagogies, 4, 1-18. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/759652468?accountid=4840

Nourie, B., & Lenski, S. (1998). The (in)effectiveness of content area reading instruction. Clearing House,
71(6), 372-374. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?hid=9&sid=b3a44a68-1c9a-4b729af28dae9cbe1da1%40sessionmgr14&vid=1&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=7527
73

Bean, T., & Readence, J. (1996). Content area reading: The current state of the art. In Lapp, D., Flood, J.,
& Farnan, N. (Eds.), Content area reading and learning strategies (pp. 15-24). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn
& Bacon.

Ogle, D. M. (1986). K-W-L: A teaching model that develops active reading of expository test. The Reading
Teacher, 39(6), 564-570.
Pajares, F. (1997). Current directions in self-efficacy research. In H. W. Marsh, R. G. Craven, & D. M.
McInerney (Eds.), International advances in self research (pp. 1-49). Greenwich, Connecticut: Information
Age Publishing.

Cantrell, S. C., & Callaway, P. (2008). High and low implementers of content reading instruction: Portraits
of Teacher Efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(7), 1739-1750.

Cantrell, S. C. & Hughes, H. K. (2008). Teacher efficacy and content literacy implementation: An
exploration of the effects of extended professional development with coaching. Journal of Literacy
Research, 40, 95-127.

Come Romine, B. G., McKenna M. C., & Robinson, R. D. (1996). Reading coursework requirements for
middle and high school content area teachers: A U.S. survey. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Reading, 40(3), 
194-198.

Commeyras, M., Bisplinghoff, B.S., & Olson, J. (Eds.). (2003). Teachers as readers: Perspectives on the
importance of reading in teachers' classrooms and lives. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Stewart, R. A., & O’Brien, D. G. (1989).Resistance to content area reading: A focus on preservice teachers.
Journal of Reading, 32(5), 396-401.

Common Core. (2011). Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/the-standards/english-language-arts- 
standards
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 17(7), 783-805. doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00036-1

Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and
qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Eanet, M.G., & Manzo, A.V. (1976). REAP--A strategy for improving reading/writing/study skills. Journal of
Reading, 19, 647-652.

Florida Department of Education. (2006). Legislative Requirements for Content Area Reading Professional
Development. Retrieved from http://www.justreadflorida.com/CAR-PD/car-pd.pdf

Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning, measure, and
impact on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 37(2), 479-507.

Rosenblatt, L. M. (1994). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary work.
Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

Schunk, D. H., & Meece, J. L. (2006). Self-efficacy development in adolescence. In F. Pajares, & T. Urdan
(Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 71-96). Greenwich, Connecticut: Information Age Publishing.
Spencer, V. G., Carter, B. B., Boon, R. T., & Garcia-Simpson, C. (2008). If you teach-you teach reading.
International Journal of Special Education, 23(2), 1-7.