Preservice and Inservice Secondary Teachers' Orientations Toward Content Area Reading

This study examined preservice and inservice secondary teachers' orientations toward content area reading and instruction. Instruments included two sets of belief statements and three sets of lesson plans; for comparison, each instrument incorporated three explanations of the reading process. Based on their selection of statements and plans, preservice teachers favored an interactive model of reading but a reader-based instructional approach, whereas inservice teachers held reader-based beliefs in both areas. In addition, both groups selected primarily reader-based vocabulary and comprehension lessons but varied in their choices of decoding lessons. Further, only teachers holding reader-based beliefs consistently chose corresponding vocabulary and comprehension plans. During the past 15 years, research on teacher effectiveness has shifted its focus from just observing behaviors in the classroom to examining the relationship between the way teachers think and what they practice (Clark & Peterson, 1986; Shavelson & Stern, 1981; Shulman, 1986). The underlying assumption is that teachers' thoughts about different components of the instructional process can influence their classroom plans and actions (Armour-Thomas, 1989). As one in a series of investigations on the belief-practice relationship, we attempted to determine the theoretical orientations of preservice and inservice secondary teachers regarding content area reading and instruction. By focusing on these two groups, we examined how academic and professional experience might influence teachers' thoughts and decisions as a basis for future research on classroom practices. Research on teaching was once dominated by a unidirectional, process-product approach that focused on classroom behaviors and achievement; current research has developed a broad, recursive approach involving teachers' beliefs, decision making, and interactions with students (see Clark & Peterson, 1986, for a review). In particular, teachers' beliefs regarding 220 teaching and learning are considered critical components supporting the planning and implementation stages of instruction. By examining these beliefs, researchers can address their influence on, and how they are influenced by, classroom events. In reading education, the extent to which teachers' thoughts influence instructional decision making and behavior has been debated. One position suggests that teachers do possess theoretical beliefs toward reading and that their plans and subsequent actions are filtered through these understandings. As Harste and Burke (1977) stated "Despite atheoretical statements, teachers are theoretical in their instructional approach to reading" (p. 32). Subsequent research (Richardson, Anders, Tidwell, & Lloyd, 1991; Rupley & Logan, 1984; Stern & Shavelson, 1983) supported this premise, indicating that methods and materials are selected or ignored based on teachers' beliefs about reading and learning processes. As an illustration, Richardson et al. found that upper elementary teachers' beliefs, as assessed in ethnographic interviews, were consistent with their reading comprehension instruction; for example, teachers who believed reading involved learning a set of skills regularly used basal texts and focused on different word-attack approaches. However, other investigators (Duffy & Ball, 1986; Lampert, 1985) emphasized factors external to the teacher, which can be even more influential. Here, the focus was on the sociocultural and environmental realities of the classroom that can constrain the implementation of belief-supported instruction. As Duffy and Anderson (1982) noted, although teachers can state theoretical aspects related to reading and instruction, their practice is actually governed by complex, contextual variables. For example, Hoffman and Kugle (1982) found that teachers' verbal feedback to students during Address correspondence to Bonnie C. Konopak, Office of the Dean, Louisiana State University, 221 Peabody Hall, Baton Rouge, LA 70803-4707. Copyriqht © 2001. All Riqhts Reseved. MarchiApril 1994 [Vol. 87(No. 4)] reading instruction was not consistent with their beliefs about the reading process and concluded that decisions made regarding instruction were generally situational. To further examine this issue, Kinzer (1988) compared the beliefs and instructional choices of preservice and inservice elementary teachers regarding the reading process. He hoped to discern how experience affected these teachers' beliefs, as well as the consistency between their beliefs and choices of instruction. For comparison, he used two written instruments (Kinzer & Carrick, 1986): (a) two sets of belief statements on how reading takes place (theoretical model) and how reading develops (instructional approach) and (b) three sets of lesson plans on syllabication, vocabulary, and comprehension (specific application). Each set was constructed to incorporate three divergent explanations of the reading process: text based (Gough, 1985); reader based (Goodman, 1985), and interactive (Rumelhart, 1985). According to Leu and Kinzer (1987), these three explanations represent different points on a continuum of explanations; text-based and reader-based plans are situated near the ends, and interactive plans are situated "somewhere in the middle" (p. 39) and related to both. (Note that although Kinzer used different labels for explanations in different instruments, for the purposes of this study, we used one set of labels across instruments.) The explanations for how reading takes place differed by source of meaning and role of the reader. That is, (a) text-based plans assumed that meaning resides in the text for the reader to attain, (b) reader-based explanations assumed that meaning resides in the reader who encounters the text, and (c) interactive plans assumed that meaning resides in the text and in the reader who uses both written and experiential information to make meaning. The explanations for how reading develops differed by the nature and delivery of instruction. That is, (a) text-based plans assumed that instruction focuses on mastery of separate, sequential skills; (b) readerbased explanations assumed that instruction holistically involves all language processes; and (c) interactive plans assumed that instruction is differentially delivered depending on different stages of development. Aspects of both how reading takes place and develops were represented for the three sets of lesson plans. That is, text-based plans focused on a teacher-directed, discrete skills lesson; reader-based plans emphasized a studentcentered, whole language lesson; and interactive plans emphasized a teacher-directed lesson based on individual student differences. Based on his subjects' choices of statements and lessons, Kinzer (1988) found that the two groups were similar in their beliefs about the reading process, but to different degrees. That is, preservice teachers primarily chose reader-based explanations, whereas the inservice teachers were more equally distributed between readerbased and interactive explanations. In addition, in ex221 amining the correspondence between the teachers' beliefs and lesson choices, Kinzer found that teachers in both groups who held reader-based beliefs were generally consistent in choosing corresponding lesson plans, although preservice teachers were more consistent than inservice teachers across all instruments. He concluded that, similar to Duffy and Anderson's (1982) findings, the practicing teachers' responses and inconsistencies may have been influenced somewhat by their actual experiences in the classroom, whereas the preservice teachers' views may have been more unified because of their lack of experience. In the present study we attempted to determine the beliefs and decisions of preservice and inservice secondary teachers regarding content area reading and instruction. By addressing this population, we hoped not only to extend Kinzer's (1988) findings but also to develop a basis for future research on the relationship between theoretical beliefs and actual practice. The major questions addressed were: (a) Do preservice and inservice teachers hold different theoretical orientations concerning reading and instruction in the content areas? and (b) Are preservice and inservice teachers consistent in their theoretical orientations concerning the reading process and instructional decision making?