Based on the assumption that teachers' instructional practices are guided by beliefs that are consistent with identifiable theoretical orientations, this study describes the predominant beliefs and practices of kentucky's k-6 chapter 1 reading teachers (n = 1,279) and the extent to which their beliefs and practices are related. In light of the hawkins-stafford amendments, which have mandated the teaching of advanced skills, it was hypothesized that the teachers would have difficulty implementing this instruction if it were not supported by their underlying beliefs about reading problems. The results indicate that most of the teachers do not engage in practices that match their beliefs, but that those whose beliefs and practices are consistent with an advanced skills orientation to reading problems are generally more professionally involved. Several recommendations for facilitating teachers' professional development are provided.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Advanced Technology. (1990). Thinking about reading about thinking about reading about thinking: Advanced skills in Chapter 1: Workshop: Leader's guide. Indianapolis: Author.
2.
Barr, R., & Duffy, G. (1978, March). Teacher conceptions of reading: The evolution of a research study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Toronto.
3.
Calfee, R. (1986, June). Curriculum and instruction: Reading. Paper presented at the Conference on the Effects of Alternative Designs in Compensatory Education, Washington, DC.
4.
Clark, C. M., & Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teachers' thought processes. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 255–296). New York: Macmillan.
5.
DeFord, D. (1985). Validating the construct of theoretical orientation in reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 351–367.
6.
Duffy, G. G., & Metheny, W. (1979). Measuring teachers' beliefs about reading. Research Series No. 41. East Lansing: Michigan State University, Institute for Research on Teaching.
7.
Everitt, B. S. (1977). The analysis of contingency tables. London: Chapman & Hall.
8.
Hollingsworth, S. (1989). Prior beliefs and cognitive changes in learning to teach. American Educational Research Journal, 26, 160–190.
9.
Howlett, N., & Weintraub, S. (1979). Instructional procedures. In R. C. Calfee & R. A. Drum (Eds.), Teaching reading in compensatory classes (pp. 87–103). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
10.
Johnson, K. E. (1992). The relationship between teachers' beliefs and practices during literacy instruction for non-native speakers of English. Journal of Reading Behavior, 24, 83–108.
11.
Kinzer, C. K., & Carrick, D. A. (1986). Teacher beliefs as instructional influences. In J. A. Niles & R. V. Lalik (Eds.), Solving problems in literacy: Learners, teachers and researchers. Thirty-fifth yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 127–134). Rochester, NY: The National Reading Conference.
12.
Knapp, M. S., Shields, P. M., & Turnbull, B. J. (1992). Academic challenge for the children of poverty: Study of academic instruction for disadvantaged students (Summary report). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Policy and Planning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 353 355)
13.
Knapp, M. S., Turnbull, B. J., & Shields, P. M. (1986). New directions for educating the children of poverty. Educational Leadership, 48(1), 4–8.
14.
Munby, H. (1984). A qualitative study of teachers' beliefs and principles. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21, 27–38.
15.
Richardson, V. (1990). Significant and worthwhile change in teaching practice. Educational Researcher, 19(7), 10–18.
16.
Richardson, V., Anders, P., Tidwell, D., & Lloyd, C. (1991). The relationship between teachers' beliefs and practices in reading comprehension instruction. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 559–586.
17.
Romberg, T. A. (1986, June). Mathematics for compensatory school programs. Paper presented at the Conference on the Effects of Alternative Designs in Compensatory Education, Washington, DC.
18.
Rupley, W. H., & Logan, J. W. (1986). Relationship between teachers' beliefs about reading and their reported use of questioning and engagement strategies. In J. A. Niles & R. V. Lalik (Eds.), Solving problems in literacy: Learners, teachers and researchers. Thirty-fifth yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 165–170). Rochester, NY: The National Reading Conference.
19.
U.S. Department of Education. (1990). Chapter 1 policy manual. Washington, DC: Author.
20.
U.S. Department of Education. (1992). National assessment of the Chapter 1 program: The interim report. Washington, DC: Author.
21.
Wixson, K. K., & Lipson, M. Y. (1991). Perspectives on reading disability research. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 539–570). New York: Longman.
22.
Zumwalt, K. K. (1986, June). Curriculum and book: Reactions. Paper presented at the Conference on the Effects of Alternative Designs in Compensatory Education, Washington, DC.
