Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Today’s world requires attention to all aspects of initial literacy teacher preparation, including how and what preservice teachers learn about the component processes of reading. To address this imperative, a review was conducted of articles published from 2000 to 2018 identified through the CITE-ITEL database (https://cite.edb.utexas.edu) that reported findings related to reading processes and initial teacher preparation. After an inductive analytic process, the authors organize findings into five focus areas: (a) definitions and delimitations of reading processes, (b) studies of preservice teachers’ beliefs about teaching reading processes, (c) research identifying preservice teachers’ knowledge gaps and misconceptions, (d) intervention studies aimed at increasing preservice teachers’ knowledge, and (e) studies detailing the application of knowledge about reading processes into contexts of pedagogical practice. The discussion considers the current gaps in how reading processes and literacy are conceptualized and possible areas of inquiry related to preservice teacher education and reading processes.

Keywords

preservice teachers teacher beliefs teacher knowledge reading processes special education/special needs

Views of what constitutes reading, in both classroom teaching and teacher preparation, have been historically, and remain today, highly contested. For example, in her influential book, Chall (1967) reported on the research about the effectiveness of code-breaking versus meaning-making approaches to beginning reading instruction. Giving this argument the iconic name of the “Great Debate,” she concluded that the evidence overwhelmingly supported code-breaking instruction. However, Chall’s conclusion did not settle the question. Instead, in the early 1990s, the debate escalated into the “reading wars,” pitting “whole language” against “phonics” instruction (Goodman, 1998; Pearson, 2004). This tension escalated again with the publication of the National Reading Panel (NRP) report in 2000. Although the NRP report expanded consideration of reading processes beyond code and phonics emphases, the identified elements of effective reading instruction (commonly called the five pillars) still assumed a fairly limited representation of what counted as reading (Kim, 2008). Despite wide-ranging critiques of the NRP’s report and its pillars (e.g., Allington, 2005; Pressley, Duke, & Boling, 2004), state and federal policy initiatives (e.g., No Child Left Behind, Reading First) have embraced the five pillars as the core processes to be addressed in reading instruction.

To be clear, the fact that the five pillars have been mandated in policies has not settled the issue of what counts as reading or the teaching of reading. Pressures to broaden views of reading processes to include purpose, motivation, identity work, and multilingualism, among other factors, have continued. Freebody and Luke’s (1990) four resources model, for example, suggests that reading processes should consider readers’ multiple roles as they engage with texts. Extensions of their model have included attention to the social and cultural dimensions of reading (Luke, Woods, & Dooley, 2011) and to uses of digital and multimodal texts (Serafini, 2012). Far from resolved, the question of what matters in teaching reading processes is still highly contested.

These conflicting positions provide differing implications for reading teacher preparation, some of which have been leveled as critiques of university-based teacher preparation programs. Reports from the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ; Greenberg, McKee, & Walsh, 2013) argued that preservice teachers are not prepared to teach the “science of reading,” and a recent report titled Hard Words: Why Aren’t Kids Being Taught to Read? (produced by American Public Media, 2018; Hanford, 2018) concluded that reading teacher preparation is misguided and fails to produce teachers who get reading results. Although these reports presented little research evidence to support their claims, they, nevertheless, offered prescriptions for how to revise teacher preparation. This literature review is intended to inform such concerns by providing a synthesis of the research that is relevant to university-based reading teacher preparation and reading processes.

Thus, our purpose was to engage in what Suri and Clarke (2009) described as the value-addedness of literature syntheses, or the opportunity to “bring to light new ways of looking at” (p. 406) and across the findings from multiple research contexts, to contribute to the current conversation concerning teacher preparation related to reading processes. The following research question guided this literature review:

What insights into the preparation of preservice teachers to teach reading processes are suggested by the literature?

Method

The studies reviewed here were identified through the CITE-ITEL database (https://cite.edb.utexas.edu). CITE-ITEL is a searchable, curated database of published, peer-reviewed articles reporting on the initial preparation of preservice teachers to teach literacy. (For a description of CITE-ITEL, article selection, and initial analysis, see Maloch & Dávila, 2019). This particular review focused on a subset of articles identified through CITE-ITEL—preparing preservice teachers about reading processes. At the onset of this review, there were 38 articles coded within the database as focused on reading processes.

When initially coding findings within CITE-ITEL, the definition of reading processes was not bound in any particular way (e.g., linked to the five pillars, called “basic processes”). Rather, all studies were included that described their focus in terms of preparation to teach the process of reading, however the authors defined this. The complexities that arose regarding the definitions and interpretations of reading processes led to the first focus area of our findings, the identification of definitional variations.

We note that all studies in the CITE-ITEL database related to preparing preservice teachers to teach students with disabilities were also focused on reading processes and made up a substantial number of our corpus, 13 of 38 articles. We elected not to separate these from the larger body of research on reading processes as they did not seem to report findings unique to preservice special educators, but rather, appeared to align with the larger patterns we found related to learning to teach reading processes. We have, however, indicated these studies with an asterisk in Supplemental Table 1.

The articles reviewed were published in 22 different journals, with the following journals featuring multiple articles: Annals of Dyslexia (seven articles), Journal of Reading Education (four), Teacher Education and Special Education (four), and the Australian Journal of Teacher Education (three). That the Annals of Dyslexia published many of the articles in our data set may highlight how attention to reading processes and attention to learning difficulties are intertwined.

Data Analysis

Having collected the 38 articles (see Supplemental Appendix A for a full reference list of the reviewed articles), we developed a template for analytic review that allowed us to document and analyze the studies and their findings. The template was kept on a shared Google document and included how the authors described the purpose and research questions, theoretical framing (where identified), participants, research contexts, methods of data collection and analysis, and major findings. Because a number of the studies did not explicitly articulate theoretical frameworks, we did not have enough data to consider patterns within this particular attribute.

Once each article had been coded according to the template, we began a process of inductive analysis based on iterative readings of the data (Thomas, 2011). During Phase 1, each member of the author team individually read the entire corpus of data, noting patterns in how the studies addressed strategies or methods for teaching preservice teachers about reading processes (e.g., multimedia) and the component of reading on which the research focused (e.g., vocabulary). After this first phase, six patterns emerged, which became temporary focus areas against which we read the data a second time, again individually, to identify additional examples and possible counterexamples within each area.

In Phase 2 of data analysis, as the data suggested more complexity, we disaggregated our focus areas into related subareas (see Supplemental Table 2). For example, we disaggregated the temporary focus area of “sound- and word-level processes” into two subareas: “sound- and word-level processes—knowledge gap” and “sound- and word-level processes—intervention and learning.” We then noticed that “knowledge gap” and “intervention” were also identified under other focal areas, such as “dyslexia” and “comprehension strategies.” This facilitated a reorganization of the code hierarchy such that “knowledge gap” became a focal area and sound- and word-level processes became a subarea. When a focus area did not seem supported by the data, we held consensus discussions regarding dismissing or redefining it. For example, an initial area identified as “deficit perspective of preservice teachers” was dismissed because it seemed to read intent into the researchers’ perspectives not supported in their writing. Ultimately, we were satisfied that the important themes were represented by five focal areas and 13 subareas.

Findings

We report our findings using the five identified focus areas: (a) researchers’ definitions of reading processes, (b) preservice teachers’ beliefs about teaching reading processes, (c) knowledge gaps and misconceptions, (d) intervention studies aimed at increasing preservice teachers’ knowledge, and (e) studies examining preservice teachers’ experiences in contexts of pedagogical practice. Some articles appear in multiple areas because their findings addressed multiple foci.

Focus Area 1: Researchers’ Definitions of Reading Processes

Our first insight in analyzing the articles was that the authors varied in how they conceptualized reading processes and in how explicitly they provided definitions. We saw such variation in how researchers named what reading processes encompassed as key to understanding this body of research, especially as it might allow us to consider what conceptualizations of reading seemed underrepresented and underexamined.

Thus, we explored the researchers’ explicit definitions of reading processes or, where explicit definitions were missing, what we inferred to be the delimitations of the reading process(es) examined. In all, we identified four ways these authors defined reading processes: (a) explicit use of the NRP’s (2000) five pillars; (b) word-level knowledge; (c) problem solving, meaning making, or the integration of skills; and (d) vocabulary development.

Ten studies named the five pillars or explicitly cited the NRP (2000) in their definition, and 14 others named sound- or word-level skills (phonics, phonemic awareness, alphabetic principle) in describing reading processes without specifically referencing the NRP report. Thus, more than 60% of the articles focused primarily on word-level or within-word units that contribute to word recognition.

In several studies, the authors defined reading with language that fell into more than one category. For example, Massey (2003) included writing as part of a reading framework and Barrentine, Waller, and Beck (2011) described the reading process as “a language-based, meaning-making, and problem-solving process,” where readers drew on several cueing systems, such as graphophonics and semantics, to “decode print while simultaneously constructing meaning” (p. 26).

In five studies, we inferred how the researcher(s) defined the reading process. For example, Morgan, Timmons, and Shaheen (2006) stated that in reading methods courses at the researchers’ institution, preservice teachers were taught “theoretical knowledge . . ., instructional methods (read aloud, shared reading, independent reading, guided reading, word study, and phonics), assessments, and strategy instruction” (p. 213). From this, we inferred that the researchers defined reading processes as involving the strategic decoding of words, and that they saw the teaching of reading as including a gradual release of responsibility. In five of the articles, especially those examining preservice teachers’ beliefs, we could not identify definitions of the reading process. For example, Warren-Kring and Warren (2013) examined the change in preservice content area teachers’ attitudes toward “literacy strategies” (p. 78). We saw this as possibly not needing an explicit definition to warrant their argument because the focus of the study was beliefs, not a component of the reading process itself.

Focus Area 2: Preservice Teachers’ Beliefs About Teaching Reading Processes

Our analysis identified 10 studies that examined preservice teachers’ beliefs about the teaching of reading processes. Methodologically speaking, these studies were designed as either survey or interpretive studies, and we noted a difference in the kinds of findings generated from these two approaches. The survey studies predominantly reported on preservice teachers’ beliefs about the teaching of reading processes. Studies with other forms of data, such as observations and interviews, examined experiences that seemed to mediate preservice teachers’ stated beliefs and beliefs in use.

Identifying beliefs

Four of the 10 studies set out to document preservice teachers’ beliefs; the findings in the studies were noteworthy, albeit sometimes contradictory. For example, two studies reported on teachers’ beliefs regarding explicit instruction of phonological awareness, phonemes, phonics, spelling, and syllable counting (Bos, Mather, Dickson, Podhajski, & Chard, 2001; Mather, Bos, & Babur, 2001), and included preservice and in-service general and special education teachers who responded to Likert-type items. Findings were reported as comparisons between preservice and in-service teachers, with no distinction made of special educators’ responses. Preservice teachers’ ratings about “using explicit code-based instruction to teach early literacy skills” fell between mildly agree and agree (Mather et al., 2001, p. 476) and were less positive than were those of in-service teachers. However, the groups did not differ on their perceptions about implicit holistic instruction: Their ratings fell between mildly agree and agree. Bos et al. (2001) reported that “preservice [teachers] agreed with the importance of explicit code instruction” (p. 109). However, Mather et al. (2001) reported that preservice teachers had a “less positive view of using explicit, code-based instruction” (p. 476) for teaching students with disabilities than did in-service teachers.

Examining teachers’ beliefs related to code-based or meaning-based reading instruction, Fielding-Barnsley and Purdie (2005) found differences between special educators and general educators but not between preservice and in-service teachers. Participants had positive attitudes about both code- and meaning-based reading instruction, but special educators were significantly less positive about meaning-based reading instruction.

Knackstedt, Leko, and Siuty (2018) offered some insight into the relationship between teacher preparation programs and preservice teachers’ feelings of preparedness. They found that when teachers reported feelings of satisfaction with their teacher education program and had a course specifically designed to meet the reading needs of students with disabilities, they believed they were prepared to meet the needs of such students. Also, when reading methods courses were taught using a lecture model, preservice teachers felt less prepared when compared with other models, such as “field experience, case-based instruction, tutoring experience, [or] teacher study group” (p. 74).

Beliefs in use and mediated beliefs

Although the above studies provide a snapshot of teachers’ beliefs about the teaching of reading processes, they were not focused on the kinds of experiences that led to these beliefs or how preservice teachers acted on their beliefs. The six studies we review next considered how coursework, discussions between preservice teachers and mentor teachers, and artifacts informed preservice teachers’ beliefs.

Leko, Kalukarni, Lin, and Smith (2015) gathered data from 11 preservice special education teachers who were enrolled in a reading methods course. The researchers examined both expressed beliefs and what they called “beliefs-in-use,” or how beliefs might materialize through pedagogy. Data included interviews, journal entries, lesson plans, and responses to questions (written and in interviews). Beliefs in use were ascertained from preservice teachers’ responses to videos and scenarios during interviews and in writing. The researchers found that preservice teachers’ expressed beliefs about reading instruction fell into three categories: (a) It should start at home with children’s families, (b) it should be individualized to meet students’ particular needs, and (c) it should be fun and motivating for students with disabilities. However, despite instruction around “specific ways of motivating students with disabilities” (p. 194), the preservice teachers did not specify how they might attempt to make reading instruction more enjoyable. On items designed to elicit beliefs in use, the participants drew more on what they had learned in their reading courses, which included describing instruction that was “systematic, explicit, [and] comprised of multiple opportunities for student practice with error correction and positive reinforcement” (p. 195).

Some studies examined the kinds of field experiences that seemed to inform preservice teachers’ beliefs about the teaching of reading processes. Examining preservice teachers’ learning alongside their mentor teachers, Hughes, Parker-Katz, and Balasubramanian (2013) found that structured, collaborative discussions, stimulated by specific literacy artifacts, between small groups of mentor teachers and preservice special education teachers supported the preservice teachers’ beliefs that they were prepared to teach reading to students with disabilities. These discussions allowed the mentors to unpack the teaching practices that resulted in particular literacy artifacts, including student work and teacher-made materials such as anchor charts. The preservice teachers reported feeling “quite positive about these discussions . . . and stated that they learned a great deal about instructing students with disabilities from these literacy artifacts” (p. 554).

Al Otaiba (2005) and Warren-Kring and Warren (2013) each reported on how tutoring opportunities informed preservice teachers’ beliefs about the teaching of reading processes. In both studies, the preservice teachers reported believing that opportunities to practice teaching reading processes helped them feel more confident about using teaching strategies effectively (Warren-Kring & Warren, 2013) and helped to broaden their assessment repertoires (Al Otaiba, 2005). Similarly, Ness (2015) reported that preservice teachers believed they had deeper knowledge of comprehension-related reading strategies after having multiple opportunities to plan and read aloud to students. Participants “seemed somewhat surprised” to realize that quality comprehension instruction required planning and did not “simply emerge naturally and spontaneously” (p. 266).

As an example of a survey study addressing factors that seemed to mediate beliefs, Helfrich and Clark (2016) reported on the relationship between the number of literacy courses taken during teacher education programs and feelings of self-efficacy. Data came from a scale measuring self-efficacy collected from preservice teachers who had completed coursework from one of two programs. Program A required preservice teachers to take five literacy courses (phonics, children’s literature, emergent literacy, methods, and assessment), whereas Program B required two literacy courses (classroom reading instruction and assessment and instruction for struggling readers). The researchers found that the preservice teachers from Program B reported significantly higher self-efficacy, suggesting that quantity of coursework does not necessarily translate to self-efficacy beliefs about one’s teaching.

Focus Area 3: Gaps in Preservice Teachers’ Knowledge About Reading Processes

In 14 studies, part of the research design involved identifying preservice teachers’ “gaps” in knowledge related to reading processes and disabilities. Data were collected at different points in preservice teachers’ programs—sometimes early, which suggested that preservice teachers had not yet had the opportunity to learn the information. For example, Purvis, McNeill, and Everatt (2016) and Washburn, Joshi, and Binks-Cantrell (2011) collected data in the initial year of a preparation program and prior to literacy-related courses, respectively. By contrast, Bos et al. (2001) and Meeks and Kemp (2017) collected data toward the end of their participants’ programs of study. Researchers described preservice teachers as having “low levels” of specific knowledge related to reading processes (e.g., Purvis et al., 2016; Spear-Swerling & Brucker, 2003), as “fail[ing] to demonstrate explicit knowledge” (Washburn et al., 2011, p. 21), and as having “significant difficulty responding to higher order questions” (Modla, McGeehan, & Lewinski, 2014, p. 22). As such, researchers argued that there was “a lot of room for improvement” (Aro & Björn, 2016, p. 122).

Although the goal of some of the research was to “begin to close the gap” (Pufpaff & Yssel, 2010, p. 495), other articles merely described the knowledge gaps. Several studies used survey data to draw comparisons between the knowledge of preservice and in-service teachers, thereby highlighting what was not known, particularly by preservice teachers. Fielding-Barnsley and Purdie (2005) found that in-service teachers knew significantly more than preservice teachers about metalinguistic elements, or the structure of spoken and written language. Similarly, Mather et al. (2001) found that in-service teachers demonstrated greater understanding of “the structures of language” (p. 476) than did preservice teachers, who answered only 50% of the test items correctly, a finding also supported by Bos et al. (2001). In a more recent study, Aro and Björn (2016) found that “inservice teachers outperformed preservice teachers in actual knowledge of phonology and phonics, as well as morphology” (p. 122), although the differences between the two groups in knowledge of morphology were slight. In addition, Meeks and Kemp (2017) found that “more than 76% of preservice teachers were ranked as having skills [regarding phonological awareness and phonics] that were minimal to very poor” (p. 6).

In terms of knowledge related to teaching reading to students with disabilities, Copeland, Keefe, Calhoo, Tanner, and Park (2011) interviewed nine teacher educators, who taught both general education and special education preservice teachers, about

their perceptions of what works well and what presents difficulty in this particular area of teacher preparation, what additional research and practice knowledge is needed in this area, and how they view literacy instruction for students with extensive support needs fitting into the current national debate on reading methodology. (p. 129)

The teacher educators reported that preservice teachers lacked the knowledge and skills needed to teach reading to students with disabilities. Furthermore, preservice teachers had difficulties planning instruction, collecting and using assessment data to inform instructional decisions, and connecting literacy instruction to Individual Education Plan goals.

Two articles specifically discussed preservice teachers’ misunderstandings or misconceptions about dyslexia (Ness & Southall, 2010; Washburn et al., 2011). Misunderstandings about reading disabilities, such as dyslexia, are different from so-called gaps in knowledge because misconceptions may be accompanied by a feeling that one knows more than one does, which, as research on knowledge revision through refutational texts suggests (Kendeou, Walsh, Smith, & O’Brien, 2014), can cause problems if it leads to ill-informed decisions and strong resistance to new ideas. Ness and Southall (2010) found that preservice teachers misunderstood the nature of dyslexia, and through their survey of 91 teachers, Washburn et al. (2011) found that even after a tutoring experience and a number of reading courses, the preservice teachers maintained common misconceptions about dyslexia.

Focus Area 4: Increasing Preservice Teachers’ Knowledge of Reading Processes

Although a large number of the reviewed studies identified gaps in preservice teachers’ knowledge, 14 went beyond acknowledging such gaps and studied the effect of a specific intervention on knowledge growth. These studies drew data from varying preintervention and postintervention assessments. Six studies used control or comparison groups to measure the effectiveness of the respective interventions on preservice teachers’ learning, whereas the other eight intervened with all participants and measured learning only after the intervention. Overall, the studies highlighted growth in preservice teachers’ knowledge when measured after they were taught through the interventions. We present these studies by how the interventions were enacted: through lecture, modules, or some type of multimedia designed to enhance learning about a topic related to the reading processes.

Through coursework

Of the 14 studies, seven were situated within some type of university course. These studies examined literacy pedagogies for students with disabilities, comprehension strategies, and sound- and word-level processes. For example, using a pretest/posttest design, Pufpaff and Yssel (2010) tested preservice teachers in special education methods courses on their knowledge of the NRP’s (2000) five pillars, with a 6-week unit on phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. They found that the preservice teachers scored significantly higher from pretest to posttest, and described their results as supporting previously stated ideas that “teacher candidates can improve their knowledge of scientifically based literacy instruction” (p. 496). We note that the “gold standard” of intervention research is the random assignment of participants to treatment or control groups and a pretest/posttest assessment. Without a control group, the claim that students learned what they were taught is unsurprising.

Other studies in this subarea documented specifically how preservice teachers’ understandings of effective comprehension instruction increased through focused coursework. Barrentine and colleagues (2011) measured preservice teachers’ knowledge growth using a pre–post course assessment focused on text analysis and on preservice teachers’ descriptions of the comprehension instruction they would provide. The researchers concluded that preservice teachers who acquired knowledge of reading strategy instruction were more equipped to plan lessons aimed at teaching children to become strategic readers. Modla et al. (2014), however, raised the question of “whether those increases in knowledge translate into more effective teaching” (p. 26), and called for studies that examine how increases in documented knowledge translate into classroom practice.

The remaining studies involving course content as interventions focused on the isolated instruction of sound- and word-level processes. Purvis et al. (2016) studied 121 preservice elementary teachers taking a course in which 7 hours were dedicated to teaching metalinguistic concepts. Initial assessment showed that participants entered their teacher training program lacking explicit meta-understandings of the English language. With explicit course instruction, all participants made significant gains in phoneme, morpheme, and orthographic knowledge. Spear-Swerling and Brucker (2003, 2006) approached their studies with a similar intervention design, examining preservice teachers’ understanding of word structure drawing on three tasks: graphophonic segmentation, classification of pseudowords by syllable type, and classification of real words as phonetically regular or irregular. The authors studied the effects of specific instruction on word-level knowledge and found that the experimental group showed a statistically significant level of improvement over the control group. Similarly, Sayeski, Earle, Eslinger, and Whitenton (2017) worked with 52 preservice teachers enrolled in special education methods courses to study how two different approaches to teaching phoneme–grapheme correspondence and phoneme production might affect knowledge growth. Within each of two courses, instructors either delivered phoneme–grapheme instruction in a “massed practice condition” (one session for 60 min) or a “distributed practice condition” (four 15-min sessions; p. 30). Preservice teachers in each group demonstrated increases in knowledge, and preservice teachers in the “distributed practice condition” grew “44% more than participants in the massed practice group” (p. 36), suggesting some benefit for this approach.

In an assessment of preservice teachers’ knowledge about reading processes and coursework, Clark, Helfrich, and Hatch (2017) explored the relationship between the number of literacy methods courses and preservice teachers’ instructional knowledge. They surveyed preservice teachers at two institutions who had completed their coursework and were preparing for their student teaching experiences (same data set as Helfrich & Clark, 2016). Program A required five reading methods courses, and Program B required only two (courses listed in Focus Area 1). Clark et al. assessed preservice teachers’ instructional knowledge, and to their surprise, the students from Program B scored significantly higher on the “overall knowledge assessment and on each of the individual sub-scales measuring phonological awareness, phonics, fluency, comprehension and vocabulary content and pedagogical knowledge” (pp. 226–227), with large effect sizes in four of the areas. We offer that among the many reasons that might explain these findings, it seems worth considering what the additional coursework might displace. It may be that students in Program A had more exposure but fewer opportunities to practice and integrate knowledge in ways that transferred to the assessment.

Through modules

Five studies used modules as interventions. Gormley and Ruhl (2007) used a “pretest-posttest control group design” (p. 85) to examine how their self-designed video module and accompanying study guide supported letter–sound knowledge. Results on the posttest suggested that preservice teachers “can improve their language structure knowledge” (p. 88) in a relatively short amount of time. Similarly, Martinussen, Ferrari, Aitken, and Willows (2015) found gains in preservice teachers’ knowledge of word-level elements with the use of a one-time, hour-long guest lecture module and then random assignment of preservice teachers to participate in either “activity-based” or “discussion-based activities” (p. 148).

Westerveld and Barton (2017) studied 158 preservice teachers’ understanding of word- and sound-level processes after completing two online modules focusing on orthographic awareness, phonological awareness, and phonics. End-of-course posttest results suggested that all preservice teachers showed an increase in their understanding of the skills the modules covered with a “relatively simple change to existing coursework” (p. 106). The researchers also compared posttest results with the previous year’s cohort that had not taken the online modules and found that the online modules group significantly outperformed the previous cohort.

Through multimedia

Another component of intervention studies was their use of multimedia presentation formats, including video, podcasts, and electronic media, to promote preservice teachers’ knowledge of reading processes. Ely, Pullen, Kennedy, Hirsch, and Williams (2014) compared results from assigning 101 participants to two conditions: engagement with either a content acquisition podcast (CAP) or a PDF packet with the same content. The study found that those exposed to the CAP showed greater gains on posttests. The researchers called for interventions to “utilize multimedia tools that have empirical backing to support learning” (p. 49).

Although the majority of studies asserted that multimedia interventions yielded greater learning outcomes, two studies questioned the utility of teaching using only multimedia. Yadav, Bouck, Fonte, and Patton (2009) contrasted the effects of a video case-based presentation with a more traditional lecture with discussion in support of learning about phonemic awareness and comprehension. Preservice teachers in the traditional lecture demonstrated more learning and a more positive response to preparation. The authors explained these findings as the result of few structures to support preservice teachers’ use of the videos as learning tools. Larson (2012) also noted the complexities accompanying the use of digital e-books, noting that despite structured exposure to e-books, some participants still preferred printed texts.

Focus Area 5: Practice Contexts for Applying Knowledge of Reading Processes

The studies included in this area shared a focus on learning environments beyond methods courses where preservice teachers practiced their developing understanding of how to teach reading processes. We identified two such practice contexts, tutoring and classroom settings.

Tutorial contexts

Nine studies examined preservice teachers’ knowledge and skills growth through the tutoring of students one on one or in small groups. These settings seemed to offer preservice teachers opportunities to apply and test the limits of their knowledge. For example, Massey (2003) examined preservice teachers’ development across 2 years of tutoring experiences and found growth in their understanding and teaching of phonemic awareness, of comprehension strategies, and use of assessment practices as they transferred what was learned from methods courses into tutoring settings. What the tutoring context provided was a way for preservice teachers to appreciate how the teaching of reading processes is often more complex than they had expected. In addition, Al Otaiba (2005) found a positive impact on preservice teachers’ understanding of the structure of language after they taught 15 code-based tutorials, improving from 57.5% to 99.3% on a pretest/posttest measure of word-level structures.

Some studies gathered evidence of preservice teachers’ growth in their knowledge and pedagogy of reading processes by measuring the reading skills of the K-12 students with whom they worked. Al Otaiba (2005) reported that as the preservice teachers’ knowledge of language structure grew, so did their multilingual students’ raw scores on subtests measuring word attack, passage comprehension, and sound matching. In comparing groups of preservice teachers taking a course with attention to word structure knowledge and tutoring opportunities, Spear-Swerling and Brucker (2006) reported that there were no statistically significant differences in knowledge between preservice teachers who tutored and those who did not. Yet, the tutored children showed significant growth from pretest to posttest on measures of reading and spelling skills. Both these studies are limited by the fact that there was no comparison group of children who did not receive tutoring, and, therefore, the growth that was reported may have been due to other factors.

Most of the studies in this area focused on preservice teachers’ learning across one semester; however, two studies took a more longitudinal view to examine preservice teachers’ learning (Massey, 2003; Morgan et al., 2006). Morgan et al. (2006) studied the learning of preservice teachers across multiple tutoring experiences and reported findings around three themes: learning from working closely with a child, growing as decision makers in planning for tutoring sessions, and application of tutoring strategies to student teaching.

Although the tutorial context appeared to be a positive space for developing preservice teachers’ knowledge, several studies also pointed to the challenges preservice teachers encountered when applying their knowledge to practice. Dawkins, Ritz, and Louden (2009a, 2009b) studied the learning of preservice teachers in an 8-week tutorial experience. The tutorials focused on teaching practices related to reading processes that included increasing fluency, measuring progress using running records, providing feedback regarding self-corrections, and story discussion (i.e., comprehension). Dawkins et al. (2009a) found that preservice teachers implemented effective reading instruction to varying degrees. Not unexpectedly, those who were further along in the teacher education program employed a more expansive repertoire of literacy instructional practices (Dawkins et al., 2009b). Many, Taylor, Wang, Sachs, and Schreiber (2007) examined the scaffolding strategies (e.g., chunking and self-monitoring) used by preservice teachers to support students in whole-class and small-group settings through observations and debriefing sessions. Although there were many positives associated with the use of scaffolding, the preservice teachers found it difficult to differentiate between what should be addressed and what should be ignored, and there was little evidence of consistent use of scaffolding strategies over time.

Classroom contexts

Six studies explored the connections between the instruction offered in university courses and preservice teachers’ classroom practices. These studies further identified challenges experienced by preservice teachers as they moved to transfer knowledge of and skills in teaching reading processes into whole-class settings. Findings indicated that enhancing knowledge of literacy instruction is more readily achieved than improving pedagogy. Luttenegger (2012) followed preservice teachers from their methods courses into their practicum settings to examine how they explicitly taught comprehension strategies. Luttenegger’s case study of four teachers drew on observations, interviews, and artifacts to assess the level of appropriation of explicit instruction, using Grossman, Smagorinsky, and Valencia’s (1999) continuum of appropriation, from lacking appropriation to achieving mastery. No preservice teacher reached mastery during the observation semester, and three remained at the same level of appropriation before and after their practicum experience. Luttenegger stressed the importance of two (possible) mediating factors. First was the time necessary for preservice teachers to understand and develop awareness of their own use of comprehension strategies. Second was the importance of mentor teachers who had a similar philosophy and approach to the teaching of reading comprehension.

Similarly, documenting the challenges of appropriation, Lohfink and Adler (2017) found that although preservice teachers employed literacy instructional practices to support elementary students’ comprehension of informational texts, none of their 18 preservice teachers demonstrated mastery of strategy instruction. The authors noted that the most frequently appropriated instructional strategy was recognizing and using students’ background knowledge.

Ness (2015) observed preservice teachers as they learned to use teacher-led think-alouds to teach comprehension strategies. She examined changes in how reading strategies were incorporated into the think-alouds across one semester. With 97 participants and data sources that included questionnaires, lesson plans, lesson transcripts, and written reflections, Ness reported significant growth in the quantity and quality of comprehension strategies used during think-alouds. She also reported several challenges the preservice teachers experienced. Among the most difficult were determining appropriate stopping points, choosing the logically aligned strategy, and balancing between too many and too few stopping points. In the end, Ness reported that preservice teachers came to recognize the importance of careful planning when using think-alouds in comprehension instruction.

These studies offered insights into teacher preparation. Both tutorial and whole-class settings seem to provide preservice teachers opportunities to apply and develop their knowledge of reading processes and to negotiate the complexities of learning to teach reading. Overall, these studies indicated that supported opportunities to practice are potentially fruitful experiences.

Discussion

Our review of research into teacher preparation about reading processes revealed several insights:

Preservice teachers believe that knowledge of reading processes is important.

Measures identify that there are "gaps" in their foundational knowledge.

When taught about reading processes and methods for meeting the needs of students, including those with disabilities, preservice teachers make knowledge gains, although questions remain about the quality and quantity of the coursework and instruction required to support their growth.

Some evidence supports the use of tutorial and classroom-based practice to facilitate that learning.

We would caution, however, that the evidence in support of these insights is more suggestive than conclusive. Certainly, this literature does not support the claims and warrants for radical reform of teacher preparation found in reports such as those offered by the NCTQ and in Hard Words (Hanford, 2018). It is ironic that such reports demand attention to scientific research to guide practice and yet make claims for reform without a robust research base. Instead, we see these insights as creating opportunities for teacher educators and researchers to think about course content and experiences in reflective, reflexive, and self-critical ways. What seems clear is that preservice teachers benefit from instruction about reading processes and opportunities to practice teaching in tutorial and classroom contexts. Given this finding, what kinds of research questions and study designs might propel the field forward? For example, what might be learned from a design-based collaboration between researchers, teacher educators, mentor teachers, school communities, and preservice teachers around preparing to teach reading processes, acknowledging what preservice teachers already know, as well as what they have yet to understand? It is important, we believe, that just as teacher educators frequently encourage their preservice teachers to avoid approaching students from a deficit perspective (focused only on what is not known), that they themselves not fall into a similar mind-set about preservice teachers.

Another insight we draw from reviewing this body of research relates to how reading processes are defined by the researchers (our Focus Area 1). Noteworthy is that 24 of 38 studies operationalized reading in ways that heavily favor word-recognition processes. Although undoubtedly such processes are important components of reading, they do not represent all reading processes. This word-level focus highlights one of the “major limitations in the presentations of the scientific evidence” (Castles, Rastle, & Nation, 2018, p. 6) around the teaching and learning of reading, that “there has not been a full presentation of evidence in a public forum about reading instruction that goes beyond the use of phonics” (p. 6). The complexity of reading, as a process that requires readers to integrate literacy knowledge, skills, and practices to make sense of text for a variety of purposes and contexts, is not recognized in the work we have reviewed. With only a handful of studies taking an integrated perspective when defining reading, much remains to be addressed that would consider how to best prepare reading teachers in ways that encompass the complexity of what it means to read.

Another area of research ripe for inquiry is cultural and linguistic diversity (in preservice teachers and the students with whom they work). With the exception of Al Otaiba (2005), there was little that explored contexts mediated by cultural or linguistic diversity or the implications these might have for the teaching and learning of reading processes. Similarly, considering the neurodiversity of learners in all classrooms, but in particular in inclusion and special education classrooms, we believe it is important to recognize how few studies, only 13, within the context of literacy teacher education broadly, addressed the preparation of preservice teachers to teach reading to students with disabilities. Given the number of children in U.S. schools who receive services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act—which, according to the National Center for Educational Statistics (n.d.), was about 13% of public school students in 2015 to 2016—we believe this area is ready for rigorous exploration. We recognize that often children with additional support needs in reading, sometimes identified as struggling, dyslexic, or learning disabled, benefit from code-based reading instruction. We also believe that phonics alone does not make for readers who love to read and who engage in reading for their own purposes. We strongly believe that there are preparation programs where preservice teachers, with both general and special education foci, are being prepared well to meet the needs of these learners. How might the wisdom of practice (Shulman, 2004) around preparing preservice teachers to teach literacy to students with increased support needs, including disabilities, be documented and shared?

We hope that by drawing attention to the relative silences in this body of research, we have challenged the research community to critically interrogate what preservice teachers are being prepared to value and to do, and not jump to conclusions or actions that are not research based. There is no doubt that the content of what preservice teachers learn about reading processes for all readers, including those identified with disabilities, will continue to be debated in academic and public spheres. The questions now involve how best to proceed in an informed and purposeful way. In his book Explaining Reading, Duffy (2009) reiterated an important point: The activities undertaken in classrooms during “reading time” are what students come to believe reading to be. We argue that teacher educators and researchers could benefit from being (re)reminded of this axiom. That is, what preservice teachers do during their literacy preparation is what they believe the teaching of reading to be. So, what is it that literacy researchers and teacher educators want teachers to believe and understand about the teaching and learning of reading? The notion of what currently counts as reading processes is largely a product of research that has been affirmed, indeed one might say fossilized, in the framing of the five pillars from the NRP report (Allington, 2005; Cassidy, Valdez, & Garrett, 2010). By providing diverse and complex perspectives, the theoretical literature might raise questions about what counts as literacy.

One promising perspective emphasizes the interaction of language processes (reading, writing, listening, and speaking) in literacy development and what might be called identity work or personhood. Street (1994) posited that to be considered fully human in many cultural contexts, one must be able to engage with literacy in particular ways at particular times, and that these literacy skills and practices mark access to important life activities. More than simply being a set of technical skills, Street argued, literacy can serve as a gatekeeper to one’s rights and humanity. What might this mean for how teacher educators prepare preservice teachers to be in relationship with students and text during classroom literacy instruction?

Ideologies that assign value to particular ways of reading can also be found in education policy. Many such policies currently focus on the “science of reading” and codify the content related to reading, and phonics more specifically, that teacher education programs are responsible for providing to preservice teachers (e.g., Ohio Revised Code §3319.24, 1996). Yet, there are rarely such policies for other processes of reading, such as comprehension, for example. How might a broader view of reading be expanded for policy makers? What implications might that have for literacy teacher education?

Another promising perspective is to consider the radical transformation of literacy practices through technology. Texts and meaning are now found in the forms of papers and books and in multimodal representations (Jewitt, 2008). Also underrepresented are critical perspectives to teaching reading processes that invite readers to question relationships of power and social–historical context as part of the comprehension process. Finally, like Kinloch, Larson, Orellana, and Lewis (2016), among others, we encourage research stances that humanize the inquiry processes and maintain a sensitivity to the complexity and cultural embeddedness of literacy and literacy learning.

Supplemental Material

OL_SUPP_APP_A_Hikida – Supplemental material for Reviewing How Preservice Teachers Are Prepared to Teach Reading Processes: What the Literature Suggests and Overlooks

Supplemental material, OL_SUPP_APP_A_Hikida for Reviewing How Preservice Teachers Are Prepared to Teach Reading Processes: What the Literature Suggests and Overlooks by Michiko Hikida, Katharine Chamberlain, Susan Tily, Anne Daly-Lesch, Jayce R. Warner and Diane L. Schallert in Journal of Literacy Research

Supplemental Material

OL_SUPP_TB_1_Hikida – Supplemental material for Reviewing How Preservice Teachers Are Prepared to Teach Reading Processes: What the Literature Suggests and Overlooks

Supplemental material, OL_SUPP_TB_1_Hikida for Reviewing How Preservice Teachers Are Prepared to Teach Reading Processes: What the Literature Suggests and Overlooks by Michiko Hikida, Katharine Chamberlain, Susan Tily, Anne Daly-Lesch, Jayce R. Warner and Diane L. Schallert in Journal of Literacy Research

Supplemental Material

OL_SUPP_TB_2_Hikida – Supplemental material for Reviewing How Preservice Teachers Are Prepared to Teach Reading Processes: What the Literature Suggests and Overlooks

Supplemental material, OL_SUPP_TB_2_Hikida for Reviewing How Preservice Teachers Are Prepared to Teach Reading Processes: What the Literature Suggests and Overlooks by Michiko Hikida, Katharine Chamberlain, Susan Tily, Anne Daly-Lesch, Jayce R. Warner and Diane L. Schallert in Journal of Literacy Research

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Supplemental Material

The appendix referenced in this article and abstracts in languages other than English are available at

References

Allington

R. L.

(2005). The other five “pillars” of effective reading instruction. Reading Today, 22(6), 3.

Al Otaiba

. (2005). How effective is code-based reading tutoring in English for English learners and preservice teacher-tutors? Remedial and Special Education, 26, 245-254.

American Public Media. (2018). Hard words: Why aren’t kids being taught to read? Retrieved from https://www.apmreports.org/story/2018/09/10/hard-words-why-american-kids-arent-being-taught-to-read

Aro

Björn

P. M.

(2016). Preservice and inservice teachers’ knowledge of language constructs in Finland. Annals of Dyslexia, 66, 111-126.

Barrentine

Waller

Beck

(2011). Preservice teachers’ development of professional knowledge about strategic comprehension. Journal of Reading Education, 37, 26-32.

Bos

Mather

Dickson

Podhajski

Chard

(2001). Perceptions and knowledge of preservice and inservice educators about early reading instruction. Annals of Dyslexia, 51, 97-120.

Cassidy

Valdez

C. M.

Garrett

S. D.

(2010). Literacy trends and issues: A look at the five pillars and the cement that supports them. Reading Teacher, 63, 644-655.

Castles

Rastle

Nation

(2018). Ending the reading wars: Reading acquisition from novice to expert. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 19, 5-51.

Chall

J. S.

(1967). The great debate. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

10.

Clark

S. K.

Helfrich

S. R.

Hatch

(2017). Examining preservice teacher content and pedagogical content knowledge needed to teach reading in elementary school. Journal of Research in Reading, 40, 219-232.

11.

Copeland

S. R.

Keefe

E. B.

Calhoo

A. J.

Tanner

Park

(2011). Preparing teachers to provide literacy instruction to all students: Faculty experiences and perceptions. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 36(3/4), 126-141.

12.

Dawkins

Ritz

M. E.

Louden

(2009a). Evaluating the practicability and sustainability of a reading intervention programme, using preservice teachers as trained volunteers. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 32, 136-147.

13.

Dawkins

Ritz

M. E.

Louden

(2009b). Learning by doing: Preservice teachers as reading tutors. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 34(2), 40-49.

14.

Duffy

G. G.

(2009). Explaining reading: A resource for teaching concepts, skills, and strategies. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

15.

Ely

Pullen

P. C.

Kennedy

M. J.

Hirsch

S. E.

Williams

M. C.

(2014). Use of instructional technology to improve teacher candidate knowledge of vocabulary instruction. Computers & Education, 75, 44-52.

16.

Fielding-Barnsley

Purdie

(2005). Teachers’ attitude to and knowledge of metalinguistics in the process of learning to read. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 33, 65-76.

17.

Freebody

Luke

(1990). Literacies programs: Debates and demands in cultural context. Prospect: An Australian Journal of TESOL, 5(3), 7-16.

18.

Goodman

K. S.

(Ed.). (1998). In defense of good teaching: What teachers need to know about the “reading wars.” York, ME: Teachers Publishing Group.

19.

Gormley

Ruhl

K. L.

(2007). Language structure knowledge of preservice teachers: Connecting speech to print. Teacher Education and Special Education, 30, 83-92.

20.

Greenberg

McKee

Walsh

(2013). Teacher prep review: A review of the nation’s teacher preparation programs. National Council on Teacher Quality. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2353894

21.

Grossman

P. L.

Smagorinsky

Valencia

S. W.

(1999). Appropriating tools for teaching English: A theoretical framework for research on learning to teach. American Journal of Education, 108, 1-29.

22.

Hanford

(2018). Hard words: Why aren’t kids being taught to read? Retrieved from https://www.apmreports.org/story/2018/09/10/hard-words-why-american-kids-arent-being-taught-to-read

23.

Helfrich

S. R.

Clark

S. K.

(2016). A comparative examination of pre-service teacher self-efficacy related to literacy instruction. Reading Psychology, 37, 943-961.

24.

Hughes

M. T.

Parker-Katz

Balasubramanian

(2013). Learning to teach literacy through collaborative discussions of student work. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 19, 543-558.

25.

Jewitt

(2008). Multimodality and literacy in school classrooms. Review of Research in Education, 32, 241-267.

26.

Kendeou

Walsh

E. K.

Smith

E. R.

O’Brien

E. J.

(2014). Knowledge revision processes in refutation texts. Discourse Processes, 51, 374-397.

27.

Kim

J. S.

(2008). Research and the reading wars. Phi Delta Kappan, 89, 372-375.

28.

Kinloch

Larson

Orellana

M. F.

Lewis

(2016). Literacy, equity, and imagination: Researching with/in communities. Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice, 65, 94-112.

29.

Knackstedt

K. M.

Leko

M. M.

Siuty

M. B.

(2018). The effects of secondary special education preparation in reading: Research to inform state policy in a new era. Teacher Education and Special Education, 41, 70-85.

30.

Larson

L. C.

(2012). It’s time to turn the digital page: Preservice teachers explore e-book reading. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 56, 280-290.

31.

Leko

M. M.

Kalukarni

Lin

Smith

S. A.

(2015). Delving deeper into the construct of preservice teacher beliefs about reading instruction for students with disabilities. Teacher Education and Special Education, 38, 186-206.

32.

Lohfink

Adler

(2017). Teacher candidates’ appropriating reading comprehension strategies. Literacy Practice & Research, Winter, 42(2), 18-26.

33.

Luke

Woods

Dooley

(2011). Comprehension as social and intellectual practice: Rebuilding curriculum in low socioeconomic and cultural minority schools. Theory Into Practice, 50, 157-164.

34.

Luttenegger

(2012). Explicit strategy instruction and metacognition in reading instruction in preservice teachers’ elementary school classrooms. Journal of Reading Education, 37(3), 13-20.

35.

Many

Taylor

Wang

Sachs

Schreiber

(2007). An examination of preservice literacy teachers’ initial attempts to provide instructional scaffolding. Reading Horizons, 48, 19-40.

36.

Martinussen

Ferrari

Aitken

Willows

(2015). Pre-service teachers’ knowledge of phonemic awareness: Relationship to perceived knowledge, self-efficacy beliefs, and exposure to a multimedia-enhanced lecture. Annals of Dyslexia, 65, 142-158.

37.

Massey

(2003). Preservice teachers as tutors: Influences of tutoring on whole-class literacy instruction. In Fairbanks

Worthy

Maloch

Hoffman

Schallert

(Eds.), 52nd yearbook of the national reading conference (pp. 259-271). Oak Creek, WI: National Reading Conference.

38.

Mather

Bos

Babur

(2001). Perceptions and knowledge of preservice and inservice teachers about early literacy instruction. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 472-482.

39.

Meeks

L. J.

Kemp

C. R.

(2017). How well prepared are Australian preservice teachers to teach early reading skills? Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 42(11), 1-17.

40.

Modla

McGeehan

Lewinski

(2014). Swimming in shallow waters promoting deep comprehension through strategy instruction. Journal of Reading Education, 39(3), 22-28.

41.

Morgan

Timmons

Shaheen

(2006). Tutoring: A personal and professional space for preservice teachers to learn about literacy instruction. In Hoffman

Schallert

Fairbanks

Worthy

Maloch

(Eds.), 55th yearbook of the national reading conference (pp. 212-223). Oak Creek, WI: National Reading Conference.

42.

National Center for Education Statistics. (n.d.). Students with disabilities. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=64

43.

National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Pub. No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

44.

Ness

Southall

(2010). Preservice teachers’ knowledge of and beliefs about dyslexia. Journal of Reading Education, 36, 36-43.

45.

Ness

M. K.

(2015). Building preservice teachers’ ability to think aloud in literacy methods courses. The Teacher Educator, 50, 257-271.

46.

Ohio Revised Code §3319.24. (1996). Coursework in teaching reading and phonics required for certain initial provisional license applicants. Retrieved from http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/3319.24

47.

Pearson

P. D.

(2004). The reading wars. Educational Policy, 18, 216-252.

48.

Pressley

Duke

Boling

(2004). The educational science and scientifically based instruction we need: Lessons from reading research and policymaking. Harvard Educational Review, 74, 30-61.

49.

Pufpaff

L. A.

Yssel

(2010). Effects of a 6-week co-taught literacy unit on preservice special educators’ literacy-education knowledge. Psychology in the Schools, 47, 493-500.

50.

Purvis

C. J.

McNeill

B. C.

Everatt

(2016). Enhancing the metalinguistic abilities of pre-service teachers via coursework targeting language structure knowledge. Annals of Dyslexia, 66, 55-70.

51.

Sayeski

K. L.

Earle

G. A.

Eslinger

R. P.

Whitenton

J. N.

(2017). Teacher candidates’ mastery of phoneme-grapheme correspondence: Massed versus distributed practice in teacher education. Annals of Dyslexia, 67, 26-41.

52.

Serafini

(2012). Expanding the four resources model: Reading visual and multi-modal texts. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 7, 150-164.

53.

Shulman

(2004). The wisdom of practice: Essays on teaching, learning, and learning to teach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

54.

Spear-Swerling

Brucker

P. O.

(2003). Teachers’ acquisition of knowledge about English word structure. Annals of Dyslexia, 53, 72-103.

55.

Spear-Swerling

Brucker

P. O.

(2006). Teacher-education students’ reading abilities and their knowledge about word structure. Teacher Education and Special Education, 29, 116-126.

56.

Street

(1994). Cross-cultural perspectives on literacy. In Verhoeven

(ed.). Functional literacy: Theoretical issues and educational implications (pp. 95-111). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

57.

Suri

Clarke

(2009). Advancements in research synthesis methods: From a methodologically inclusive perspective. Review of Educational Research, 79, 395-430.

58.

Thomas

(2011). How to do your case study: A guide for students and researchers. London, England: Sage.

59.

Warren-Kring

Warren

(2013). Changing the attitudes of pre-service teachers toward content literacy strategies. Reading Improvement, 50, 75-82.

60.

Washburn

E. K.

Joshi

R. M.

Binks-Cantrell

(2011). Are preservice teachers prepared to teach struggling readers? Annals of Dyslexia, 61, 21-43.

61.

Westerveld

M. F.

Barton

G. M.

(2017). Enhancing phonological awareness and orthographic knowledge of preservice teachers: An intervention through online coursework. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 42, 98-111.

62.

Yadav

Bouck

Fonte

A. D.

Patton

(2009). Instructing special education pre-service teachers through literacy video cases. Teaching Education, 20, 149-162.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.17 MB

0.11 MB

0.10 MB