Activating the Need to Know in Reading Instruction: One Teacher Educator's Practice

Action in Teacher Education, 34:133–145, 2012Copyright © Association of Teacher EducatorsISSN: 0162-6620 print/2158-6098 onlineDOI: 10.1080/01626620.2012.677737

Activating the Need to Know in Reading Instruction:One Teacher Educator’s Practice

Priscilla S. NelsonGordon College

This article examines one teacher educator’s teaching of reading methods at a university that wasrecognized for exemplary reading instruction. Data collected over the course of one semester indi-cated that she modeled the teaching of reading and served as a catalyst in activating preserviceteachers’ need to know about how to teach reading by helping each one make a personal connec-tion to the content through assignments, feedback, class sessions, and field assignments. This teachereducator’s practice can inform others who seek to establish closer and more productive links betweencoursework, fieldwork, and prospective teachers’ teaching.

One of the most damaging myths prevailing in American education is the notion that “goodteachers are born and not made” (Darling-Hammond, 2006, p. ix). Thus begins the prefaceof Darling-Hammond’s (2006) book Powerful Teacher Education: Lessons from ExemplaryPrograms. She also observed that “A companion myth is the idea that good teacher educationprograms are virtually nonexistent and perhaps even impossible to construct” (p. ix).

It stands to reason that preservice teachers enter teacher preparation programs with variedbackground experiences, knowledge, and beliefs about reading (Anders, Hoffman, & Duffy,2000; Hammerness, Darling-Hammond, & Bransford, 2005). Some preservice teachers enter col-lege keenly aware that it is not a simple task to teach children to learn to read, perhaps becausethey or a family member struggled when learning to read (Holt-Reynolds, 1992; Knowles & Holt-Reynolds, 1991). Other preservice teachers, however, had an uneventful experience learning toread; they may enter their teacher preparation program believing that learning to read requiresminimal effort. Present experience fits into what a learner already knows (Ausubel, 1968). In allcases, the professor who prepares future reading teachers must take intentional steps to ensurethat all preservice teachers are well prepared to teach reading. Each preservice teacher must graspthe complexity of the reading process as well as the range of potential difficulties among childrenin an elementary classroom (Mather, Bos, & Babur, 2001; Moats, 1994).

This study explored how one teacher educator designed and delivered a beginning readingmethods course. The study explored the following questions: How was the course designed?How was content delivered? How did the preservice teachers respond to their preparation?Investigation of these questions revealed a snapshot of a professor who deliberately designed

Correspondence should be addressed to Priscilla S. Nelson, Gordon College, 255 Grapevine Road, Wenham, MA01984. E-mail: [email protected]

134 PRISCILLA S. NELSON

a reading methods course that used preservice teachers’ prior experiences, personal connec-tions, and assignments that were carefully planned to activate the preservice teachers’ “needto know.”

LITERATURE REVIEW

Educational research, teacher training, and classroom practice concerning reading methods havechanged substantially over the past 50 years (Rayner, Foorman, Perfetti, Pesetsky, & Seidenberg,2001). Through the mid-1990s, classroom pedagogy was adapted in response to theoretical expla-nations for reading failure (Stanovich, 1994). For example, a child’s lack of progress in readingmight have been attributed to an aptitude/achievement discrepancy or a child’s lack of enrichingexperiences prior to entering school. In the first decade of the 21st century, educational researchmethodology became increasingly scientific in response to the need to know “what works.”Employing empirical research design on reading instructional methods revealed whether specificmethods provided benefits to children. However, a gap persisted between research and classroompractice.

Research about reading documented what mature readers do when they read (Pressley &Afflerbach, 1995) and about effective reading instruction established that teachers need knowl-edge of the automatic skills and instructional strategies that promote beginning readers’development (Anders et al., 2000; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development[NICHD], 2000). Several studies presented evidence that teachers needed to be able to managestudents, differentiate instruction, and utilize student assessment data to plan instruction (Ball,2000; Snow, Griffin, & Burns, 2005). The very title of Moats’ (1999) report, Teaching ReadingIS Rocket Science: What Expert Teachers of Reading Should Know and be Able to do stronglycommunicated that high-quality reading instruction was serious business.

The First Grade Studies (Bond & Dykstra, 1967, 1997) revealed that although many factorsinfluence students’ acquisition of reading skills, the single most important variable in the teach-ing of reading is the teacher. Bond and Dykstra (1967) also concluded that a combination ofapproaches was superior to a single approach; consequently, they recommended that readinginstruction focus on teaching and learning situations rather than materials and methods.

In a study spanning 4 years, Lundberg, Frost, and Peterson (1988) found that elementary stu-dents made greater strides in reading if their teachers understood phonological awareness andincluded it in their teaching. Additional studies documented that preservice teachers’ phone-mic awareness training boosted their students’ performance in spelling and reading (Blachman,Ball, Black, & Tangel, 1994; Lundberg et al., 1988; Tangel & Blachman, 1992). In other words,teachers needed sufficient content knowledge in addition to pedagogy.

Teacher preparation programs currently use a variety of methods to prepare preservice teach-ers to teach reading. Only quite recently did researchers investigate the optimal methods for thistype of teacher preparation (Anders et al., 2000; Cochran-Smith & Zeichner, 2005). Such researchtried to answer broad questions. What do preservice teachers need to know to teach reading effec-tively? What do they need to be able to do? What are the best methods for preparing preserviceteachers?

Snow, Burns, and Griffin (1998) identified weaknesses in teacher preparation and made rec-ommendations to improve preservice teachers’ knowledge base and practice. The core message

READING INSTRUCTION: ACTIVATING THE NEED TO KNOW 135

of this report was that reading instruction should integrate three instructional practices andapply them concurrently in classrooms: instruction in the alphabetic principle (content), oppor-tunities for students to develop fluency through reading (practice), and encouragement ofstudents’ construction of meaning as they read (application). Snow et al. (1998) further statedthat to achieve high-quality classroom reading instruction, there must be high-quality teachereducation.

Snow et al. (2005) advocated regular updating of courses taught at schools of education tokeep current with new research. They recommended that teacher preparation programs take timeto address preservice teachers’ personal beliefs about teaching and how their own experiencesshaped those beliefs.

Spear-Swerling and Sternberg (2001) attempted to bridge the research-to-practice gap andconcluded that “Although educators may teach well without knowledge of scientific research,[elementary] students obtain greater benefits from knowledgeable teachers who ensure that sci-entific research is incorporated into their instruction” (p. 51). General agreement emerged withinthe profession that classroom practice would improve if the preparation of preservice teachersincluded coursework in the science of reading instruction (Shavelson & Towne, 2002).

Increased focus on scientific reading research led to the convening of the National ReadingPanel (NRP; as cited in NICHHD, 2000), which was charged to “assess the status of research-based knowledge, including the effectiveness of various approaches to teaching children to read”(p. 1). The NRP’s review was limited to research that used experimental or quasi-experimentaldesign with a control group or multiple-baseline measure (as cited in NICHD, 2000, p. 5). Thefindings of the NRP revealed that effective reading instruction included the following com-ponents: development of phonological awareness, instruction in systematic phonics, fluency,vocabulary, and comprehension. These findings came to be referred to as the five componentsof reading.

The National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) conducted a study of reading teacher prepa-ration (Walsh, Glaser, & Wilcox, 2006) to find out whether education schools were teachingthe “science of reading” instruction based on the five components of reading identified by theNRP (as cited in NICHD, 2000): phonological awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, andcomprehension. Based on examination of course syllabi, the NCTQ found that only 15% of72 randomly selected schools of education provided teachers with even minimal exposure tothose five components of reading.

METHOD

This qualitative research study explored the teaching practice of one professor who taught inone of the schools that the NCTQ report identified as exposing students to the science of read-ing. The case study was conducted at a public research university located in the southeasternUnited States. The university housed several research centers, including a reading research cen-ter. To maintain confidentiality, it is referred to by the pseudonym Mendon University. Followinginternal review and administrative approval, the professor agreed to participate in this study andsigned the Informed Consent or Agreement to Participate.

The pedagogical context for this study was the introductory reading methods course. It isreferred to as Reading 1. This course met for 21/2 hours, weekly, for a 14-week semester.


Participants

Seven respondents participated in the study. They were the professor who taught the course andsix preservice teachers enrolled in Reading 1.

Professor. Professor Jones (a pseudonym) held a bachelor’s degree in political science andsociology and a master’s degree in elementary education from Mendon. She had more than20 years of combined teaching experience in Kindergarten, Grade 1, and Grade 4 at the timeof the study; she taught general education and special education in public and private schools inthe United States and abroad. She was certified in early childhood education, elementary educa-tion, and social sciences. She was a National Board Certified Teacher. At the time of the study,she was in her 10th year on the Mendon faculty and had taught 10 different courses for elementaryeducation majors.

Preservice teachers. The junior-level preservice teachers were randomly selected. At theclose of the first class session and with permission from Professor Jones, a recruitment flyer andan envelope were distributed to each preservice teacher. Each preservice teacher indicated his orher choice of whether to participate in this study and returned the flyer anonymously. Those whowere interested in participating provided contact information.

From those who expressed interest in participating, six were randomly selected and contactedto schedule the first interview, which occurred prior to the second class session. They were rep-resentative of the class as a whole: White, female, and the first in their family to attend college.Pseudonyms appear in the brief descriptions that follow. Fran became interested in Mendon whenProfessor Jones spoke to her community college class about the teaching program at Mendon;she aspired to teach hearing-impaired children. Donna had a state law enforcement certificate butsaid she had probably always wanted to be a teacher; she was considering teaching either Grade 2or middle school science. Cassie decided to become a teacher because her husband was in themilitary, and as she put it, “It is easy to move with that major, and then it is easy to have kids,too.” She planned to continue her studies after completing her B.S. at Mendon, taking advantageof educational benefits from her husband’s military service. Evie said she had always wanted tobe a teacher; she candidly shared about her own experiences with test anxiety and expressed greatappreciation for an encouraging high school English teacher. Barbara reported that her desire toteach dated back to high school. She taught prekindergarten for 8 years and taught children frominfants to age 12 in after-school programs and music programs; she aspired to open her ownpreschool. Barbara declared that she reentered college “for the long haul.” Abby had a daughterin first grade at the time of this study, and her kindergarten-age son had been diagnosed withautism. She volunteered in their classrooms. Abby’s older brother had dyslexia.

Course Description

The overarching goal of this 14-week undergraduate course for preservice teachers was todevelop knowledge of the reading process and the skills to teach beginning reading in a classroomsetting with diverse learners. Upon successful completion of Reading 1, the preservice teacherswere expected to identify and apply knowledge and research-based strategies when planninglessons based upon informal and formal assessments. Course topics included each of the com-ponents of reading (NICHD, 2000), decoding and encoding, classroom management, first- and


second-language acquisition, high-quality children’s literature, classroom management, mate-rials and resources, content-area reading, experiential and interactive activities, and becomingacquainted with professional journals and organizations. Students were required to completesome assignments in a first-grade class at a local public school.

Assignments

There were three major assignments: readings, an assessment, and a videotaped lesson presen-tation. Preservice teachers were assigned readings and reflective weekly journals from threerequired texts: the summary of Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning about Print (Adams,1990), CORE: Teaching Reading Sourcebook (Honig, Diamond, & Gutlohn, 2008), and FiftyStrategies for Teaching English Language Learners (Herrell & Jordan, 2008). They also read andsummarized two professional research articles. Weekly reading assignments in Adams (1990)and the CORE (Honig et al., 2008) were aligned by content topics. Students were instructed toread the CORE (Honig et al., 2008) book first because of its emphasis on practical application,followed by Adams’ (1990) book.

Professor Jones taught her students how to administer and score the Diagnostic Assessmentof Reading (DAR) (Roswell, Chall, Curtis, & Kearns, 2005). Each preservice teacher thentested a student identified as a struggling reader; this took place in the class to which thepreservice teacher was assigned for field experience. Using the test results, the preservice teacherwrote a test report detailing the student’s strengths and weaknesses and created a plan forinstruction.

Each preservice teacher prepared and taught a small-group reading lesson. The first-gradeteacher in whose classroom the preservice teacher was assigned for field experience provideda decodable text containing a phonic generalization on which the preservice teacher based thereading lesson. The preservice teacher designed the lesson following the model Professor Jones’laid out. The lesson was videotaped. The preservice teacher viewed the video, completed a self-analysis of his or her teaching, and submitted the video and self-analysis to Professor Jones.

Data Collection

Data were collected from multiple sources over the span of one semester while the reading meth-ods course was being taught. Interviews were central to data collection because they elicited datathat were not evident from documents or observation alone. Interviews provided access to mul-tiple perspectives and allowed in-depth discovery of the beliefs and feelings of Professor Jonesand the preservice teachers. The data collection methods chosen for this research provided richdata specifically focused on the research questions and are summarized in Table 1.

Data Analysis

This study employed QSR NVivo (Version 8) software as a database for analysis. An NVivo“shell” was used to store, organize, and manage the data. Six case nodes organized data thatwere collected from the preservice teachers’ interviews, observations, and student documents.Assigning attributes to each of these case nodes facilitated asking questions and splitting andsorting data.


TABLE 1Overview of Data Collection

Topic of Inquiry Method of Data Collection Time

Professor Interviews 1 and 2: Overview ofcourse objectives and design, programphilosophy, course content, and personalexperience

Individual interview (before and after theclass session)

90 minutes each

Preservice Teacher Interviews: Content beinglearned, methods for their instruction, fieldexperience, collaboration, and personalexperience

Three individual interviews with each of sixpreservice teachers enrolled in the course(Week 1, Week 7, and Week 14)

60 minutes each

Professor Interview 3: Detailed focus oncourse methods and content, assignments,collaboration, and field experience

Individual interview with the professormidway through the course (Week 7)

90 minutes

Preservice Teacher Group Interview Group interview (focus group) of the sixpreservice teachers in Week 14 for datachecking

90 minutes

Professor Interview 4: Focus on any opentopics or unanswered questions

Individual interview with the professorWeek 14

90 minutes

Course Session Observation Visited course classroom four times while theclass was in session (Class Sessions 1, 2, 7,and 14)

2.5 hours per session

Documents and Artifacts • Syllabus and course outline Ongoing collection• Textbooks• Student work• Lesson plans• Field experience documents

Data coding took place as each piece of data was collected. The initial list of codes wasprompted by research questions and literature. Preliminary analytic categories included the fivecomponents of reading: program features, the role of research, reading process, reading methods,standards, field experiences, relationships and collaboration between Professor Jones and thepreservice teachers, opinions, course materials, feelings, assessments, and preservice teachers’evaluation, curriculum, and administrative influences. Throughout the analysis process, cate-gories were refined and new categories were added: reason to know, goals and aspirations, currentpublic school practice, format of class, assignments, elementary student assessment, attendance,and completed readings.

The NVivo search tool was used to locate words and phrases relating to specific categoriesor nodes as a way to check that nothing was missed. This process helped to locate similarities,note cross references, and record thoughts and reflections in memos. The recursive cycle of code,explore, relate, and study supported a chain of evidence that revealed meaning in the data.

FINDINGS

My first inkling of the notion need to know occurred in the review of the transcript of the firstinterview with Professor Jones. She shared many examples of times she experienced a personal


need to know in her teaching and explained how these influenced her design and delivery of thisreading methods course. Two early examples were particularly relevant to this research.

First, Professor Jones described her own need to know during her elementary teaching expe-rience. She saw that the instructional methods she was using to teach reading to fourth gradersdid not work for all of them, especially not for those who struggled with reading. She wonderedabout the origin of the struggle that some of her students experienced. She was highly motivatedto find out why her instruction was not “working” with some children whereas it appeared towork well with others. She needed to know how to help her struggling readers.

Professor Jones provided a second illustration of needing to know as it pertained to her methodof reading instruction. After realizing that her teaching strategies were ineffective for some stu-dents, she began to read research extensively, hoping to determine what methodologies wouldwork with all students. She found answers in reading research that followed experimental design.These studies applied a specific strategy or method (treatment) to one of two similar groups ofchildren and measured each groups’ learning with pre- and posttesting. In her own classroom,she applied strategies that researchers had found to yield a positive benefit for children, and thesestrategies did indeed work. Her struggling students and her normally progressing students showedimprovement.

Class Sessions That Supported Activating the Need to Know

During the first class session, Professor Jones allotted time for getting acquainted and a carefulreview of every section of the syllabus. She told her own story as a beginning teacher, humblysharing what she did not know about teaching reading when she started out in the professionand how she needed to find out so she could help all of her students make reading progress.She shared how she learned to read and apply research and told the preservice teachers that sheexpected they would learn to do the same. When reviewing the syllabus, she provided explicitdetail about the content of each textbook while conversing extensively and making meaningfulconnections with the preservice teachers.

Professor Jones packed a great deal into the first class session. She addressed Adams’ (1990)reading processes, scientifically based reading research, and phonological and phonemic aware-ness. She explained, “Understanding the phonological processor and phonemic awareness is justthe beginning of understanding how we make sense out of the squiggly lines that form our alpha-bet.” The term and concept phonemic awareness appeared to be new to the preservice teachers;Professor Jones explained it slowly and precisely. She modeled good instruction when she iden-tified confusion, modeled again, and provided the preservice teachers with corrective feedback.Early on it was obvious that Professor Jones could cover a lot of material because she couldanticipate her students’ questions and keep a steady momentum.

Preservice Teachers’ Reflections

When the six preservice teachers were interviewed as the semester began, only two expressed apersonal connection and high level of interest in acquiring knowledge about how reading acquisi-tion took place: Abby mentioned her brother’s experience with dyslexia, and Barbara mentionedthat her child was learning to read. These two preservice teachers used phrases such as “I wantto know” (Abby), “parents need to know” (Barbara), and “the teacher needs to know” (Abbyand Barbara). The other four preservice teachers (Fran, Donna, Evie, and Cassie) gave no sign


of natural stirrings of the need to know at the beginning of the semester. When asked how theylearned to read, four of the six preservice teachers (Fran, Donna, Cassie, and Abby) did not recallexplicit instruction; they spoke of parents reading to them, a favorite book or teacher, or a readingworkbook. Learning to read appeared to have come easily to most of them, almost naturally.

One of the preservice teachers (Evie) had a very different experience. She vividly rememberedstruggling to read. She recalled that the commercial program Hooked on Phonics finally helpedher “crack the code.” An aunt bought the instructional program for her and a cousin who alsostruggled with reading. She felt positive about that program, which she said helped her and hercousin learn to read. “I don’t think I know anything about phonics any more, though,” she said.“If I am going to teach it [reading], I need to know it. I need a refresher. I want to help the kidswho are like me.”

Increasing Engagement

As the semester progressed, the preservice teachers showed signs of increasing engagement withthe course content in response to the deliberations of class sessions and assignments. From thefirst class session, Professor Jones’ teaching style was interactive. For a portion of the class time,she employed rhetorical questions and answers that seemed to get at exactly what her studentsmight be thinking. For example, after demonstrating a phonics lessons she proceeded to askand answer several questions such as these: “You may be wondering how I knew to teach thatgeneralization and not another. Let me show you how I decided” and “Do you wonder how I willknow if my first graders mastered this? Let me show you what I will do.”

Professor Jones often asked rhetorical questions including phrases such as “Do you wonder,”“what if,” and “how will I know.” The preservice teachers responded audibly. In an interviewmidway through the course, Fran said, “She [Professor Jones] teaches differently: I am not justsitting writing notes for the entire class, I am thinking about what she is talking about and makingconnections, and that is what I am writing about.”

Professor Jones placed student assessment early in the list of course topics. At the beginningof the semester, Cassie commented on the course topics, “It seems too early to be learning aboutassessment when I don’t even know how to teach reading yet! Shouldn’t I learn what to dofirst [how to teach reading] before we decide if it’s working?” Seven weeks later, Cassie said,“If I didn’t have the assessment on [child’s name] I would not know what to teach in my lesson.I am so glad that we administered the DAR [Diagnostic Reading Assessment] right away.”

Assignments That Supported Activating the Need to Know

Professor Jones created assignments that encouraged her students to relate coursework to theirpersonal experiences and what they were observing in their field assignments.

Weekly journal. The weekly journal was a personalized learning tool that Professor Jonesutilized to activate preservice teachers’ need to know. The preservice teachers valued this assign-ment because it allowed them to share personal connections in a nonpublic manner and to askquestions. What made this especially powerful was that it was an ongoing discourse; ProfessorJones responded to each student every week and built upon each preservice teacher’s questionsand comments.


The journal writing was guided by the required readings, which addressed course topics. For10 of the 14 class sessions, each preservice teacher brought to class a journal entry containingnotes and reflections about the assigned reading. Preservice teachers also entered class notes intheir journals. This provided a means for Professor Jones to see what the preservice teachersregarded as important information from their readings and class sessions, as well as questionsthat arose from the readings or a class session. At the end of each class session, time was allottedfor them to make final entries; Professor Jones encouraged them to write down questions andareas of confusion. She graded each week’s entries and responded in writing. She kept a runninglist of preservice teachers’ questions and areas of confusion or concern, and at the start of thenext class session, she worked through the list responding to each item. The journals also gaveProfessor Jones insight into the connections preservice teachers were making between coursecontent and their own lives.

In interviews, preservice teachers’ comments about the journal assignment were all positive.Several expressed relief that they could ask questions privately that they might not have askedaloud in class for fear that they might ask about things they should already have known orthat were obvious to others in the class. One preservice teacher (Donna) noted that writing toProfessor Jones about connections and personal experiences resulted in fewer comments aboutthese matters during class; in other words, it freed up valuable class time. It seemed as if thejournal provided a safe, private vehicle for preservice teachers to admit lack of knowledge orupdate the professor about particular successes in the field experience without seeming to boastto classmates.

Articles. Professor Jones assigned an article about why learning to read did not developnaturally (Lyon, 1998). The preservice teacher wrote a reflection on the article’s implications forreading acquisition and instruction. This prompted their need to know how to implement Lyon’sideas. Their reflections made it clear they found the assignment challenging. However, Abbyrecognized that her prior experiences contributed to her need to know and caused her to connectpersonally with course content:

This article really spoke to me because learning to read was not natural for my brother. He thoughthe was retarded. Now we know that he is dyslexic, but he was not diagnosed until he was an adult.Now he reads, has a job, and functions very well. His trouble with reading was about poor teaching.It didn’t have to happen the way it did. His teachers did not know how to help him.

Assessment. Professor Jones gave the preservice teachers two assignments during the firstclass. As was mentioned above, each preservice teacher was assigned to administer a diagnos-tic reading test to one struggling beginning reader in a local public school and submit a writtenreport on the assessment to Professor Jones. The elementary student had been identified by theclassroom teacher as having a reading deficit. Each preservice teacher was also instructed todesign, teach, and videotape a reading lesson to the reading group in which that child partici-pated. The preservice teachers immediately had a need to know what to teach. Partnering thediagnostic assessment with the lesson proved prudent because before designing a lesson eachpreservice teacher understood the deficit areas that made it difficult for this particular child (andhis or her reading group members) to experience reading success. The professor’s emphasis onpreinstructional assessment also raised the preservice teachers’ awareness of the potential dangerof making assumptions about students’ prior knowledge and likely increased their insight into


what caused variation in students’ reading achievement. Professor Jones’ decision to have herclass assess and teach struggling readers was also significant because focusing preservice teach-ers’ attention on students who may have been at risk for reading failure early on in their programof teacher preparation may have helped them grasp the complexity of the reading process. It ben-efitted preservice teachers to know how to help struggling readers from the beginning of theirtraining. In subsequent interviews, preservice teachers indicated they found the diagnostic read-ing assessment a useful tool for determining the specific needs of struggling readers. Barbara,who chose to administer the reading assessment to additional children, remarked, “I could seewhat the kids needed help with . . . Now I can pick out the problem and see what comes next.”

All six participating preservice teachers reported at the end of the semester that assessing,designing a lesson for, and then teaching a struggling reader personalized the academic contentof the course and dramatically heightened their awareness of the importance of planning readinginstruction that was based on student assessment. In other words, this assignment gave thema sense that they needed to know precise assessment information about each student, and theyneeded to know more about reading instruction in order to learn and apply effective methods ofreading instruction for beginning readers.

Videotaping. The preservice teachers were assigned to videotape the small group readinglessons described above. They needed to know what a high-quality lesson looked like, so beforethey began planning their lessons, Professor Jones modeled the expected outcome in the collegeclassroom. In the second class session, she showed a previous preservice teacher’s videotapedlesson. It was not flawless in design or delivery; Professor Jones used the video as a teachingtool to point out high-quality features and what could have made the lesson more effective. In thefollowing weeks, each preservice teacher videotaped his or her lesson, reviewed the videotapedlesson, evaluated it in writing, and submitted the self-evaluation with the videotape to the pro-fessor. The professor reviewed them and provided affirmation and, more importantly, correctivefeedback. The participating preservice teachers spoke favorably of this assignment. The professorprovided detailed language and instructional suggestions to improve each preservice teacher’slesson. One preservice teacher (Evie) voluntarily chose to design and prepare a second lessonbased upon Professor Jones’ feedback. In a subsequent interview, Evie said, “My second lessonwas the best! I knew what I was talking about and what I needed to do. I could focus on my stu-dents’ responses instead of what I was going to say next.” This assignment successfully providedpreservice teachers with varied opportunities to assimilate new content.

Professor Jones deliberately acted as a catalyst in activating the need to know within eachpreservice teacher by fostering a personal connection to the course content through carefulcourse design. The personal connection to the content advanced their learning experience beyondan intellectual exercise; it promoted higher student engagement. This was evidenced throughnumerous sources such as course assignments, feedback on assignments, and class deliberations.

CONCLUSION

There are numerous times when one experiences a sudden need to know. For example, one mayhave little interest in plumbing, but if water is rising quickly in a clogged sink, the need to knowis activated. One needs to know how to prevent the water from overflowing. At other times, theneed to know is less urgent. One might simply be curious about why the moon is orange at times.


In this case, one does not have an urgent need to know, but learning about that phenomenonenriches one’s knowledge base. The information may prove valuable in the future.

Activating the need to know can be a valuable strategy in reading teacher preparation. It helpsengage preservice teachers, particularly those without prior classroom experience. A senseof the need to know may be triggered by personal or familial experience with learning toread or by a preservice teacher’s firsthand experiences working with struggling readers. Thefindings of this study suggest that activating preservice teachers’ need to know often resultedin their deeper engagement with course content. It was as if the activation of the need to knowprovided the preservice teacher with a hook on which to hang the content. Activating preserviceteachers’ need to know may stir their desire to provide what each child needs to move forwardin measureable ways. This applies not only to students who struggle with reading but also tostudents who appear to read effortlessly because these students also need appropriate instructionin the teaching of reading.

This study provides a model of what a teacher educator can do to deepen engagement in coursecontent. Professor Jones took great care to design a reading course that activated the interest ofher students. Professors in teacher preparation programs have the opportunity to critically assessboth the content they teach their preservice teachers and how the content is delivered. Heighteningpreservice teachers’ awareness through activation of their need to know applies not only to con-tent areas. It also applies to other facets of teacher training such as classroom management,developing critical thinking skills, and parent communication.

REFERENCES

Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning reading: Thinking and learning about print (summary). Chicago, IL: University ofIllinois Press.

Anders, P. L., Hoffman, J. V., & Duffy, G. G. (2000). Teaching teachers to teach reading: Paradigm shifts, persistentproblems, and challenges. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of readingresearch, (Vol. 3, pp. 719–742). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.Ball, D. L. (2000). Bridging practices: Intertwining content and pedagogy in teaching and learning to teach. Journal of

Teacher Education, 51(3), 241–247.Blachman, B., Ball, E., Black, R., & Tangel, D. (1994). Kindergarten teachers develop phoneme awareness in low-income,

inner city, classrooms: Does it make a difference? Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–18.Bond, G., & Dykstra, R. (1967). The cooperative research program in first-grade reading instruction. Reading Research

Quarterly, 2(4), 5–142.Bond, G., & Dykstra, R. (1997). The cooperative research program in first-grade reading instruction. Reading Research

Quarterly, 32(4), 348–427.Cochran-Smith, M., & Zeichner, K. M. (Eds.). (2005). The AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education: Context

and Goals. In Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp.37–68). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Powerful teacher education: Lessons from exemplary programs. San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.

Hammerness, K., Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (2005). How teachers learn and develop. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world (pp. 358–389). San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.

Herrell, A. L., & Jordan, M. (2008). Fifty strategies for teaching English language learners (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River,NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.

Holt-Reynolds, D. (1992). Personal history-based beliefs as relevant prior knowledge in course work. AmericanEducational Research Journal, 29(2), 325–349.

Honig, B., Diamond, L., & Gutlohn, L. (2008). CORE: Teaching reading sourcebook. Novato, CA: Arena.


Knowles, J. G., & Holt-Reynolds, D. (1991). Shaping pedagogies through personal histories in preservice teachereducation. Teachers College Record, 93(1), 87–113.

Lundberg, I., Frost, J., & Peterson, O. (1988). Effectiveness of an extensive program for stimulating phonologicalawareness in preschool children. Reading Research Quarterly, 23(3), 263–284.

Lyon, G. R. (1998). Why learning to read is not natural. Educational Leadership, 55(6), 14–19.Mather, N., Bos, C., & Babur, N. (2001). Perceptions and knowledge of preservice and inservice teachers about early

literacy instruction. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34(5), 472–482.Moats, L. C. (1994). The missing foundation in teacher education: Knowledge of the structure of spoken and written

language. Annals of Dyslexia, 44, 81–101.Moats, L. C. (1999). Teaching reading IS rocket science: What expert teachers of reading should know and be able to do

(Item No. 372). Washington, DC: American Federation of Teachers.National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching

children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its impli-cations for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government PrintingOffice.

Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Rayner, K., Foorman, B. R., Perfetti, C. A., Pesetsky, D., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2001). How psychological science informsthe teaching of reading. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 55, 31–74.

Roswell, F. G., Chall, J. S., Curtis, M. E., & Kearns, G. (2005). Diagnostic assessment of reading (DAR, 2nd ed.). RollingMeadows, IL: Riverside.

Shavelson, R., & Towne, L. (2002). Scientific research in education: Report of the National Research Council’sCommittee on Scientific Principles in Education Research. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington,DC: National Academy Press.

Snow, C. E., Griffin, P., & Burns, M. S. (Eds.). (2005). Knowledge to support the teaching of reading: Preparing teachersfor a changing world. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Spear-Swerling, L., & Sternberg, R. J. (2001). What science offers teachers of reading. Learning Disabilities Research &Practice, 16(1), 51–57.

Stanovich, K. E. (1994). Romance and reality. The Reading Teacher, 47, 280–291.Tangel, D., & Blachman, B. (1992). Effect of phoneme awareness instruction on kindergarten children’s invented spelling.

Journal of Reading Behavior, 84, 364–370.Walsh, K., Glaser, D., & Wilcox, D. D. (2006). What education schools aren’t teaching about reading and what

elementary teachers aren’t learning. Washington, DC: National Council on Teacher Quality.

Priscilla S. Nelson is an Associate Professor and Chair of Early Childhood, Elementary, andSpecial Education at Gordon College, Wenham, MA.

Frances Van Tassell’s Tips for Writing For Publication: Phases of Writing

This article is an example of how one turns a dissertation into a published article. Good writersview writing as a process and the development of this article followed much of the writingprocess described below.

The pre-writing phase. A first step in the prewriting stage is to spend sufficient time inthought about what you want to write. Ask yourself if your ideas are worthy of contributingto the literature and if your ideas are important enough that others in your field will findyour work helpful. Then, determine which audience is most appropriate for the topic of yourmanuscript and for the type of research that you may have conducted. For example, if themanuscript that you are working on reports the findings from a research study you conductedrecently (even your dissertation), then your audience will be either researchers or practitioners


in the area of your study. Or, if your writing is on the topic of practice in your field,then, of course, your audience will be practitioners. Knowing your audience is critical forhow you write and for where you submit your manuscript for publication consideration.

The second step in the pre-writing phase is to determine which journal is most appropriatefor the message you want to share. To help you make that decision, look at two or three issuesof any journal that you think is appropriate for your work. See how other authors wrote theirpapers. See how well those authors followed the journal’s stated required form and style. Partof selecting an appropriate journal is to look carefully at the stated theme (if there is one) forthe upcoming issues of the journal that you select. If your topic is not in the area stated as thetheme, you can almost be assured that you will get a rejection. However, at times and in somejournals, the issue is identified as open so there is not a specific theme.

Once you determine the most appropriate journal for your manuscript, take time to readthrough several articles in published issues of that journal. You may even cite some of theauthors from those issues, just to let the editor know that you are very familiar with that journaland that you selected it because it seemed to be a best fit for your work. This is especially trueif you have chosen an international journal. Pay attention to the particulars of that journal andto how the published authors developed their manuscripts.

Look in a recent issue of that journal to find the page that gives specific guidelines for formand style (such as APA, Chicago, or MLA), or for the journal website where that informationis provided. Those guidelines are typically found at the front or the back of a journal issue.It is often a good idea to have your list of references checked by someone with knowledge ofthat required format (this article was checked several times by four different people).

The during-writing phase. This phase is crucial and should take the most time. Avoidthe pitfall that some authors fall into when they feel rushed to get a manuscript in for consid-eration. You also need to give yourself ample time to look for new or better sources for yourreview of related literature. Any writer needs time to reflect on the writing and to considerwhat revisions would make the manuscript stronger. As did the author of this article, you maywell go through four or five revisions of your initial writing. After leaving it for a couple ofdays, go back and read through it to make sure that you have a well-sequenced and logicalflow, accurate information, and well-described and detailed findings.

You may want to use the following questions as a guide. Have you given a strong rationalein the introduction for why you conducted the study? Is it clear to readers that you had astated purpose for your study? Have you provided sufficient related literature that backs up orvalidates the purpose and usefulness of your study? Have you given sufficient detail to ensurethat any reader would readily know how you conducted the study? Have you thoroughlyand accurately labeled all graphics? Are your graphics thorough and able to stand alone, incase a reader has limited time and can’t read your entire article? Have you used appropriatesubheadings to help guide the reader through the various components of your writing? Haveyou given sufficient detail regarding how your study participants were selected and why?Have you adequately explained the research methodology that you used? Have you describedthe strategies or techniques that you used to analyze your data? Have you made any errors inhow you analyzed the data? Do your findings align with the purpose of the study? Have youprovided a clear and concise conclusion to your research report or to your writing about yoursuccessful practice?