Preservice Teachers' Perspectives on why Every Teacher is not a Teacher of Reading: A Qualitative Analysis
Abstract
Although content reading courses are mandated in a majority of states for preservice secondary teachers in a variety of teaching endorsement areas, these prospective teachers often resist such courses, viewing them as irrelevant to their future success as teachers. In order to better understand this resistance, dimensions of preservice teachers' resistance to content reading instruction were examined through a discussion of a qualitative analysis of five data sources. The overall analysis indicated that preservice teachers hold misconceptions about content reading common among their practicing peers; such surface misconceptions are easy to counter. However, in addition, we found a dimension of the resistance deeply rooted in beliefs and traditions of school life relating to teachers' roles and allegiance to content disciplines; these complex misconceptions are more resilient. Suggestions are offered for modifying preservice content reading courses so that preservice teachers can confront the deeply rooted beliefs and traditions that run counter to the tenets and pedagogy associated with content reading courses.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Preservice teachers are skeptical about the efficacy of teaching and learning strategies offered by content literacy research, and inservice teachers rarely enact such strategies in their subject area classrooms.
“A significant body of research over the last 20 years has demonstrated that preservice teachers are skeptical about the efficacy of teaching and learning strategies offered by content literacy research, and inservice teachers rarely enact such strategies in their subject area classrooms (Alvermann & Moore, 1991;Holt-Reynolds, 1992;O'Brien & Stewart, 1990;Ratekin, Simpson, Alvermann, & Dishner, 198”
From Foregrounding the Disciplines in Secondary Literacy Teaching and Learning: A Call for Change (2008) · cites this paper as O'Brien & Stewart, 1990
Cites
The Discovery of Grounded Theory; Strategies for Qualitative Research
Glaser, B. G., Strauss, A. L., & Strutzel, E. (1968) · Nursing Research · doi:10.1097/00006199-196807000-00014 · Cited by 39,449 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Foregrounding the Disciplines in Secondary Literacy Teaching and Learning: A Call for Change
Moje, E. B. (2008) · Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy · doi:10.1598/jaal.52.2.1 · Cited by 785 · see citing works
- Authors
- O'Brien, D. G., & Stewart, R. A.
- Affiliations
- Purdue University
- University of Wyoming (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Reading Behavior
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1990-06
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 101-129
- ISSN
- 0022-4111 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2109837989
- Cited by
- 109
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 9
- FWCI
- 13.83
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Reading Behavior (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Teacher Education and Leadership Studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
- Social Sciences › Education › Mathematics Education and Teaching Techniques
- Keywords
- pre-service teachers, teacher preparation, teacher beliefs, teacher role, secondary school teacher training, course design
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review