Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This review of literacy education scholarship examines the ways that children’s literature is used as a resource within literacy methods courses in the preparation of preservice teachers (PTs) as transformative intellectuals. The research indicates that the use of children’s literature in literacy methods courses has served two distinct purposes: (a) to engage PTs in learning literacy instructional practices and (b) to engage PTs in building sociocultural knowledge and learning transformative (e.g., culturally relevant) pedagogies. This review is framed by Giroux’s call for educators to disrupt technocratic approaches to instruction. The findings emphasize the importance of using children’s literature with PTs to broaden PTs’ understandings of their future student’s lives, so they might engage in transformative pedagogies as future K-12 literacy educators.

Keywords

children’s literature preservice teachers teacher education transformative intellectuals sociocultural knowledge social justice

In this review of the scholarly literature, we examine the ways in which children’s literature has been used as a resource within literacy methods courses to encourage preservice teachers (PTs) incorporate active literacy teaching practices (e.g., read aloud). The methods typically taught within literacy teacher preparation programs, and particularly the use of children’s literature as a tool and resource within those practices, do not align with today’s culture of accountability, where standardized curriculum and practices are increasingly present in classrooms and schools (e.g., Milner, 2013; Yoon, 2013). Teachers are often handed scripted, mandated curriculum by their school or district to ensure high test scores and accountability ratings. Giroux (2012) refers to this phenomenon as the “deadening pedagogy of memorization, teaching to the test and classroom practices that celebrate mindless repetition and conformity” and argues that teachers and students feel the negative consequences of these mandates. According to Davis and Vehabovic (2017), students’ “excitement withers” when teachers allow “test preparation instruction to sneak into reading comprehension lessons” (p. 579) by using standardized passages written by textbook publishers as the primary resource for teaching literacy. One way to disrupt this deadening pedagogy (Giroux, 2012) is for teachers to use high-quality children’s literature to maintain students’ engagement with and excitement toward literacy.

These authors build on the work of scholars in the field of literacy who have advocated for the recentering of reading instruction on quality literature through the introduction of trade books into the classroom (e.g., Arya, 2005; Huck, 1992; Short, Day, & Schroeder, 2016). The research reported in the Handbook of Research on Children’s and Young Adult Literature (Wolf, Coats, Enciso, & Jenkins, 2011) indicates that pedagogies that engage readers in experiencing stories together through enactment, creative responses, and dramatization are “promising responses to [the reader’s] disengagement” (p. 2), and highlights the ways in which children’s literature can serve as a transformative tool, both in terms of comprehension and in supporting children in reading the world through reading the word (Freire, 1970/2000).

For teachers, integrating children’s literature means making decisions that require a deep understanding of curriculum, learning processes, social context, and literature. These decisions require risk taking on the part of the teacher who is stepping away from a prescribed curriculum and into topics and content that may disrupt the values represented in the traditional curriculum. How can teachers be prepared for this role? Not surprisingly, the work and research in teacher education programs around supporting novice teachers in the use of children’s literature has developed alongside the emergence and integration of children’s literature in classrooms. In the field of literacy education, many teacher educators (TEs) work to prepare future teachers to be transformative intellectuals (Giroux, 1985)—teachers who design curriculum and select resources that “prepare learners to be active and critical citizens” (p. 376). Toward this end, children’s literature can be a primary tool in both literacy methods courses and field experiences (e.g., Mosenthal, 1994).

Furthermore, there is a growing recognition of the possibilities of children’s literature to serve as a tool for culturally responsive pedagogies (e.g., Brooks, 2006; Haddix & Price-Dennis, 2013). The demographics of U.S. student populations have become increasingly racially, culturally, and linguistically diverse, as indicated in reports by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), whereas the majority of teachers continue to be White females (NCES, 2018). At the turn of the 21st century, attention turned toward children’s literature as a resource that could serve as cultural “windows, mirrors, and sliding glass doors” for students (e.g., Bishop, 1990; Cai & Bishop, 1994; Thomas, 2016). Bishop (1990) argued that books could offer readers “views of worlds that may be real or imagined, familiar or strange”; she observed that “a window can also be a mirror . . . [by which] we can see our own lives and experiences as part of the larger human experience” (p. 1). In response, and as we show in this review, many TEs in the field of literacy have used children’s literature as a way of teaching about diversity and culturally responsive pedagogical practices.

In this review, we used the term children’s literature as an operational name for reading materials used in K-12 classrooms, particularly what Wadham and Young (2015) refer to as “trade books,” or

books published by commercial publishers that are intended for a wide audience. Trade books do not have an intended instructional component nor are they designed exclusively for classroom use. Trade books contrast with textbooks that are designed for a specific purpose and audience inside a classroom. (p. 39)

Our review reports on 27 studies published between 2000 and 2018 focused on the use of children’s literature to prepare K-12 teachers in university methods courses in the field of literacy instruction, guided by the following question:

In what ways have TEs used children’s literature in literacy education methods courses to disrupt technocratic approaches to literacy instruction?

We framed our analysis and review of this research with the work of Giroux (2012), with an eye toward the ways in which children’s literature affords opportunities to resist a standardized curricula and deadening pedagogy of literacy instruction.

Conceptual Framework

We situate our work in Giroux’s (1985) theory of teachers as transformative intellectuals. According to Giroux (1985, 2012), the influence of capitalism and neoliberalism has caused an ideological shift regarding the purpose of public education. Policy makers at a national level have argued for public school to follow a corporate model that in Giroux’s (2005) opinion “would make them adjuncts of the workplace” dedicated to preserving the “cultural uniformity of the classical canon” (p. 172). This model suggests a return to banking education (Freire, 1970/2000) and a one-size-fits-all instructional approach. As a result, only those who have resources and access to the knowledge that school offers (e.g., members of the dominant sociocultural group) would succeed and further the ambitions of neoliberal ideology. In this scenario, teachers, students, and communities are stripped of agency, democracy, and justice.

By viewing teachers as transformative intellectuals (Giroux, 1985), we highlight teaching as intellectual labor that cannot be separated from thought, reflection, or critique. Giroux (1984/2010) proposes that when the practice of teaching is recognized as transformative work, power and agency are placed in the hands of teachers and students. Together, teachers and students have the capacity to dismantle a “technocratic approach” to public education, which has controlled and silenced individuals by mandating a “standardization of knowledge” that reinforces conformity (Giroux, 1984/2010, p. 2). Giroux (1984/2010) argues that as transformative intellectuals, educators must take “active responsibility for raising serious questions about what they teach, how they are to teach, and what the larger goals are for which they are striving” (p. 3).

In this article, we adopt Giroux’s (1985) view of teachers as transformative intellectuals who are dedicated to “the values of intellect and the enhancement of the critical powers of the young” (p. 378) and to the resistance of technocratic approaches to literacy instruction, which facilitate the “dictates and objectives decided by the ‘experts’ far removed from the everyday realities of classroom life” (p. 377). Here, we define technocratic approaches to literacy instruction as following scripted lessons and programs, the use of standardized assessment measures, and predetermined curriculum that take away teacher autonomy and do not account for the sociopolitical or historical context of the realities of students’ lives. We argue that some TEs include children’s literature in their literacy methods courses as tools to enhance PTs’ critique and critical evaluation of the classical children’s literature canon and technocratic approaches to literacy instruction. We also propose that some TEs use children’s literature to support PTs in facilitating transformative pedagogies (Giroux, 1985) that engage students’ intellect and agency. We see that transformative pedagogies are inclusive of culturally relevant (Ladson-Billings, 1995) and culturally sustaining instruction that “seeks to perpetuate and foster—to sustain—linguistic, literate, and cultural pluralism as part of schooling for positive social transformation” (Paris & Alim, 2017, p. 1), by attending to the cultural, racial, gendered, and linguistic experiences of students. As Giroux (1984/2010) asserts, pedagogy must begin with a deep understanding of the sociocultural backgrounds of students; this knowledge is crucial for the cultivation of agentic learners and is “emancipatory in nature” (p. 4).

Method

Researcher Positionalities

Given the significance of our own cultural, racial, and gendered identities as TEs, as well as the lack of researcher positionality statements in several studies included in this review, we explicitly describe our identities and what brought us to this project. Flores is a second-generation Chicana with 8 years of teaching experience in Arizona and currently an assistant professor in language and literacy studies (LLS). She did not grow up speaking Spanish but learned to speak, read, and write it in school and through teaching and community work. Vlach, a Pakistani American, Muslim, multilingual woman, has 17 years of experience teaching elementary school and is currently a PhD candidate. Lammert, a White, monolingual English speaker, has 5 years of experience as an elementary and middle school teacher and reading specialist and is currently a PhD candidate. Collectively, we teach literacy methods courses in the early childhood through sixth-grade cohorts in a university-based teacher education program at a large public institution in the U.S. Southwest. As TEs, we share a commitment to preparing PTs to be “transformative intellectuals” (Giroux, 1985, 2005) working with and for all students, families, and communities in ways that challenge current policies, mandates, and stagnant practices that marginalize students and reproduce oppressive structures.

Article Identification

The articles in this review were identified through the CITE-ITEL database, a web-based and constantly updated literature review of research on literacy teacher preparation (https://cite.edb.utexas.edu/). See Maloch and Davila (2019) for a full explanation of the CITE-ITEL database and article selection process. Following Cooper’s (1988) guidelines for an integrative review, we began with a subset of the articles identified through CITE-ITEL—articles that included children’s literature, trade books, or young adult (YA) literature as a part of the study. We further bounded our search by narrowing the review to those articles that reported on studies that occurred within literacy methods courses, inclusive of reading and writing methods courses, English language arts methods courses, and methods courses for English language learners. We narrowed the corpus of scholarship in this way to help ensure, as best as possible, that the studies were facilitated under a common umbrella of teacher preparation. In doing so, we have excluded studies that focus on stand-alone children’s literature courses. Only empirical articles were included; however, some articles stood alone as reports of research on new data, whereas others involved the secondary analysis of existing data. Our review spanned the years 2000 to 2018 and included those 2018 articles accessible at the time of the review. Ultimately, we analyzed 27 articles that reported on studies in which children’s literature was used in literacy education methods courses for prospective elementary and secondary school teachers (K-12). Some of the articles were written by the same teams of scholars and report on varying elements of the same research projects (e.g., Escamilla & Nathenson-Mejía, 2003; Nathenson-Mejía & Escamilla, 2003).

Analysis

We conducted a directed content analysis (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005), in which our coding process was guided by our conceptual framework (Bishop, 1990; Giroux, 1985; Ladson-Billings, 1995; Paris & Alim, 2017). We read each article to identify the TEs’ goals for introducing certain texts to PTs and TEs’ pedagogical framing of those texts and related field experiences that corresponded with disrupting technocratic approaches to literacy instruction. Through a process of iterative readings and discussions, we identified two broad categories relative to the instructional goals of TEs’ use of children’s literature in literacy education methods. In the first category, TEs used children’s literature as a tool for understanding literacy instructional practices such as read-aloud or writers’ workshop—instructional practices we saw as working to disrupt technocratic practices in schools. Within this category, we identified three overlapping foci: reading instruction, writing instruction, and text selection. In the second broad category, TEs used diverse children’s literature as a tool for building PTs’ understandings of culture, race, and ethnicity as well as for teaching transformative pedagogies (e.g., culturally relevant pedagogy) that resist the “standardization of knowledge” (Giroux, 1984/2010, p. 2). This category of studies was distinct from the first, in that there was a more explicit focus on the use of diverse children’s literature as a way of building sociocultural knowledge (K. D. Brown, 2013) and broad, more all-encompassing pedagogical approaches (in contrast to specific instructional practices such as read aloud) that build on and honor such knowledge (e.g., culturally sustaining pedagogy). The seven studies that overlapped the two categories (e.g., Hill, 2012; Shelton & McDermott, 2010) included a focus on both literacy instructional practices and using diverse literature for the purposes of building sociocultural knowledge and culturally sustaining pedagogies.

Finally, we also coded the studies for research design features such as study duration, PTs’ and researchers’ positionalities, persons responsible for the selection of children’s books, titles and authors of children’s literature used, and the descriptions of PTs’ interactions with texts. We identified whether a face-to-face or digital field practicum experience was included as part of each study. As context for our discussion of the two broad categories, we first provide this descriptive information about research design features.

Research Design Features

Course format

Of the 27 studies, the majority spanned one academic course or semester. Eight of the 27 articles reported on methods courses that included field experiences (e.g., Barnes, 2006; Escamilla & Nathenson-Mejía, 2003; Hill, 2017). Some researchers mentioned that practicum experiences were part of the larger teacher education program but did not include data collected on field experiences as part of these articles (e.g., Rogers & Mosley, 2008).

Description of children’s literature

Across the articles, children’s literature was described using terms such as multicultural literature (e.g., Szecsi, Spillman, Vázquez-Montilla, & Mayberry, 2010), Latino and African American children’s literature (Nathenson-Mejía & Escamilla, 2003), critical texts (Riley & Crawford-Garrett, 2016), urban fiction (Haddix & Price-Dennis, 2013), YA literature (e.g., Stallworth, 2001), and culturally relevant texts (e.g., Hill, 2017). Furthermore, 23 of the articles listed either all or some of the children’s literature titles, but in four articles, the researchers did not name particular authors or titles of the children’s literature they selected (e.g., Barnes, 2006; Zimmerman, Morgan, Kidder-Brown, & Batchelor, 2012). A list of children’s literature titles used in each study is included (see Table 1 in the supplementary material).

Researchers’ description of participants

Most researchers (25/27) provided sociocultural descriptions (e.g., race, gender, class) of the PT participants in their studies. Across these studies, the majority of the PTs were identified as White females. This racial identity of the PTs was often the rationale for the need for the project to center on using children’s literature to learn sociocultural knowledge (K. D. Brown, 2013) and related pedagogical frames (e.g., culturally relevant pedagogy, racial literacy). In two articles, no sociocultural description of the PTs was offered (Hammett & Bainbridge, 2009; Shelton & McDermott, 2010).

Researchers’ description of themselves

Despite the explicit naming of PTs’ identities in these articles, many authors did not include information regarding their own researcher positionality or TE positionality in terms of race, gender, and linguistic background (e.g., Morgan, Zimmerman, Kidder-Brown, & Dunn, 2011). This absence is problematic because qualitative researchers serve as human instruments of data collection, and an interrogation of one’s values, beliefs, cultural background, political stances, and biases is an important methodological consideration (Creswell, 1994). Only five articles included detailed statements regarding the researchers’ and TEs’ own sociocultural positionality.

Findings

In our review, we employed Giroux’s (1985) conceptualization of teachers as transformative intellectuals to investigate how TEs used children’s literature in literacy methods courses to teach practices that disrupted technocratic approaches to literacy instruction. We have organized the findings in two major conceptual areas, as outlined above.

Children’s Literature as a Tool for Learning Literacy Instructional Practices

We identified 13 articles in which the TEs used children’s literature within coursework and/or field experiences to facilitate PTs’ learning about literacy instructional practices (Barnes, 2006; Batchelor, Morgan, Kidder-Brown, & Zimmerman, 2014; Hill, 2012, 2017; Lewis & Petrone, 2010; Mathis, 2000; Morgan, 2010; Morgan et al., 2011; Nathenson-Mejía & Escamilla, 2003; Shelton & McDermott, 2010; Stallworth, 2001; Zimmerman, Morgan, & Kidder-Brown, 2014; Zimmerman et al., 2012).

Writing instruction

The use of children’s literature as mentor texts within writing process pedagogy and genre units of study was a focus in five articles (Batchelor et al., 2014; Morgan, 2010; Morgan et al., 2011; Zimmerman et al., 2014; Zimmerman et al., 2012). The genres studied most commonly were poetry and memoir, but one study also included “how-to” and “all about” books (Morgan, 2010). In these studies, a common approach was for TEs to create experiences where PTs could engage in writing instruction from the perspective of students so that they could explore their own beliefs about writing. Morgan (2010) focused exclusively on the perceptions that PTs had of themselves as writers before and after engaging in studying and writing different genres. Zimmerman et al. (2012) described how engagement in a poetry-centered experience might expand writing identities and prepare PTs with the tools and relevant experiences to teach poetry to their future early elementary students.

Reading instruction

Children’s literature as a tool for reading instruction was a major focus in six articles (Barnes, 2006; Hill, 2012, 2017; Nathenson-Mejía & Escamilla, 2003; Shelton & McDermott, 2010; Stallworth, 2001). Some TEs emphasized read aloud as an entry point to engage students in discussion. For example, Nathenson-Mejía and Escamilla (2003) reported on a study that spanned 3 years, in which a predominantly White, monolingual group of PTs enrolled in a fieldwork experience and related monthly seminar during which they engaged in a literature study group, reading and discussing books about Latinx cultures and traditions. Following this initial year of the study, TEs moved beyond discussions of Latinx children’s literature within the seminar to requiring PTs to design and implement formal lessons using similar texts. Shelton and McDermott (2010) drew on drama-based instructional practices as they emphasized the uses of children’s literature. They argued that by engaging PTs in dramatic methods, they hoped to further their understanding of concepts such as equality, democracy, and racism, as well as provide them with a practice they could use with students. PTs experienced these workshops taking the perspective of students, and there was no associated field component where PTs could immediately enact drama-based teaching, although TEs expressed hope that PTs might take this model into schools.

In other studies, TEs focused on the uses of children’s literature for comprehension and reading strategy development. Barnes (2006) asked PTs to use children’s literature as they designed balanced and explicit reading lessons for young students in a field experience. At the school site, which was described as “high performing, high poverty” (p. 87), teachers typically used Houghton Mifflin’s basal reading program. However, PTs in this study were positioned more actively. Rather than execute methods decided by “experts far removed from the everyday realities of classroom life” (Giroux, 1985, p. 377), PTs used a range of culturally diverse trade books as they learned to conduct reading assessments. Findings suggested that despite clashing expectations and TE frustrations, PTs learned to use culturally responsive teaching approaches as well as various pedagogical and assessment strategies that relied on the use of children’s literature. Similarly, Hill (2012, 2017) examined the uses of children’s literature within cognitive strategy instruction as a pathway to improved reading comprehension.

In one study (Stallworth, 2001), TEs facilitated virtual field experiences by connecting PTs and students in literature groups. PTs engaged in shared reading and writing experiences with high school students around the popular text Ironman (Crutcher, 1995). After reading the book, the groups’ final projects included dramatic productions, multimedia presentations, and rap songs created to convey the novel’s main ideas. Pre- and posttest measures suggested the 10th-grade students developed a concrete understanding of the book’s themes, and the PTs reported increased understanding of the ways secondary students made sense of YA literature.

Finally, expository or informational texts (Duke, 2000), and the strategies and practices associated with reading them, were rarely mentioned in literature. In one study (Hill, 2012), a combination of narrative (e.g., The Watsons Go to Birmingham—1963 (Curtis, 1995)) and expository texts (e.g., the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute website and a social studies textbook) was used to build critical conversations. In the methods course and field placement, both the TE and the cooperating teachers modeled what they called “innovative strategies,” such as KWL charts and Venn diagrams, to support the use of expository and informational texts for young readers. These strategies offered opportunities to build more engaged and active stances toward reading.

Text selection

Although all TEs selected some type of children’s literature for teaching purposes, in six articles (Barnes, 2006; Hill, 2012, 2017; Lewis & Petrone, 2010; Mathis, 2000; Nathenson-Mejía & Escamilla, 2003), the TEs’ focus was on supporting PTs’ knowledge of how to select their own children’s literature for classroom instruction. PTs in these studies transcended the “cultural uniformity of the classical canon” (Giroux, 2005, p. 172) as they made decisions about the literature that they would include and the representations of lives and experiences that those selections would invite. Although these studies overlap with the other two focus areas, we identify here the studies that paid explicit attention to helping PTs decide what literature to include.

Some researchers focused on helping PTs develop practices for selecting texts in relation to sociocultural issues and topics that PTs viewed as controversial or had not experienced personally. In a 3-year study (Nathenson-Mejía & Escamilla, 2003), TEs paid particular attention to authors’ nationality as they selected Latino children’s literature written by Mexican and Mexican American authors, as well as authors from other Mesoamerican countries such as Guatemala. They selected children’s literature based upon PTs’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds and their limited experiences working with Latinx populations. Then, in course discussions, TEs made their thought processes and criteria for text selection explicit to help PTs better understand the implications of choosing different texts. Similarly, Mathis (2000) explained that an important part of her course was reading and discussing multicultural children’s literature. She encouraged PTs to reflect on their personal memories with popular children’s literature titles such as Goodnight Moon (Wise Brown, 1947), Where the Wild Things Are (Sendak, 1963), and the works of Dr. Seuss, while also encouraging them to critically examine less familiar texts. Students debated the cultural authenticity of Tar Beach (Ringgold, 1991) and had strong emotional reactions to texts such as The Middle Passage (Feelings, 1995) that portrayed racial injustice. Mathis found that PTs made connections to books even if they represented a different culture from their own.

In a secondary methods course, Lewis and Petrone (2010) helped PTs rethink their assumptions about adolescence as they learned to select adult fiction and YA literature for students. They found that PTs had two ways of conceptualizing adolescence: as a dangerous time and as a time of identity development. PTs tended to select texts with teen protagonists who fit these preconceived conceptualizations, perhaps because they viewed them as relatable and authentic representations of adolescent lives. This finding underscores the importance of engaging PTs in explicit discussions about how texts are selected, and in the process, working to disrupt deficit notions PTs sometimes bring to their practice.

Summary

Collectively, these studies emphasized the literacy instructional practices that TEs drew upon to engage PTs in the work of disrupting technocratic approaches to teaching. Through discussing, modeling, and engaging in text selection and instructional practices for teaching reading and writing, PTs made sense of the role and purpose of children’s literature in their future classrooms. In these studies, PTs had opportunities to learn about teaching practices with children’s literature as a means of “assuming their full potential as active, reflective scholars and practitioners” (Giroux, 1985, p. 379). The studies in the second broad category, discussed next, pushed even further toward transformative pedagogies by inviting PTs to build their sociocultural knowledge about students and learn about broader pedagogical approaches such as culturally relevant pedagogy (Ladson-Billings, 1995).

Children’s Literature as a Tool for Learning Sociocultural Knowledge and Transformative Pedagogies

In our review, we identified 21 articles that reported studies in which TEs included children’s literature to provide PTs, as the majority-White future teaching force, opportunities to engage in the important intellectual labor of meeting the needs of diverse student populations. In these studies, TEs supported PTs in their work as transformative intellectuals (Giroux, 1985) by challenging them to critically engage in conversations that centered marginalized voices and challenged technocratic approaches to literacy instruction. They encouraged PTs to examine their own biases and assumptions in relation to their sociocultural backgrounds to understand the influence this may have on their teaching. The work in this category fell into three broad focus areas: using children’s literature to build understandings about culture (broadly defined), using children’s literature to build understandings about race and ethnicity specifically, and using children’s literature as a way to learn broader transformational pedagogies.

Children’s literature and culture

In 12 studies, TEs worked to expose PTs to diverse cultures and issues (e.g., bullying) that may be a part of their future students’ lives (Barnes, 2006; Hammett & Bainbridge, 2009; Heineke, 2014; Lohfink, 2014; Mathis, 2000; Nathenson-Mejía & Escamilla, 2003; Pytash, 2013; Riley & Crawford-Garrett, 2016; Shelton & McDermott, 2010; Stallworth, 2001; Strong-Wilson et al., 2014; Szecsi et al., 2010). For example, Riley and Crawford-Garrett (2016) invited PTs to engage in literacy practices “in the context of meaningful inquiry that challenged them to see the world from multiple perspectives, especially those that were not mainstream” (p. 100). PTs read and responded to children’s and YA literature—Rosa (Giovanni, 2005) and The Circuit (Jiménez, 1997), respectively—that addressed immigration, stereotypes, and racial justice. Findings revealed that PTs were hesitant about introducing “critical texts” in their own classrooms due to their own acknowledged learning gaps and a fear of being wrong.

In methods courses designed for PTs working toward a bilingual or English as a Second Language (ESL) endorsement, Heineke (2014) implemented literature circles and dialogue around “culturally relevant” texts. She selected texts such as Friends From the Other Side (Anzaldúa, 1993) and Shota and the Star Quilt (Bateson-Hill & Fowler, 2001) that “portray the nuance[d] lives of linguistically diverse children and families” (p. 117). She found that participation in literature circles and the reading of culturally relevant texts about culturally and linguistically diverse characters opened space for PTs to “co-construct knowledge about the unique and diverse nature of ELs [English learners] in the classroom” (p. 134).

TEs described a range of multicultural literature selected for inclusion in their methods courses to engage PTs in the experiences of different cultures. TEs selected texts to inform PTs about the contextual factors in students’ lives and to encourage them to consider approaches to literacy instruction that attended to students’ realities. Hammett and Bainbridge (2009) invited PTs to examine a variation of cultures in Canada through Canadian multicultural books, including This Land is My Land (Littlechild, 1993) and Nana’s Cold Days (Badoe, 2002). Nathenson-Mejía and Escamilla (2003) selected Latino children’s literature, such as Me llamo María Isabel/My Name is María Isabel (Ada, 1993), to create opportunities for PTs to learn more about diverse cultures, specifically Mexican American culture. Across these studies, through engagement with these texts, TEs were providing PTs with the opportunity to build knowledge about students’ sociocultural backgrounds as the “pedagogical starting point” (Giroux, 1984/2010, p. 4) from which curriculum emerges.

Two studies conducted in secondary methods courses (Pytash, 2013; Stallworth, 2001) focused on the uses of YA literature to engage PTs in discussions around their future students’ lives. In Stallworth’s study (2001), as described earlier, PTs engaged in email literature discussions with high school students, and through that experience gained insight into the uniqueness of all youth, even those who shared their same cultural and socioeconomic background, while also gaining confidence in their work with future students. Pytash (2013) engaged PTs in literature groups of Hate List (J. Brown, 2009) and Thirteen Reasons Why (Asher, 2011), which addressed bullying and suicide, and found that reading and discussing YA literature supported PTs’ ability to envision their role as teachers in supporting students who may be facing similar experiences as the characters.

Children’s literature and race and ethnicity

In this section, we discuss the ways that TEs engaged PTs in learning about racial and ethnic diversity with children’s literature. In six articles (Glenn, 2012, 2014; Haddix & Price-Dennis, 2013; Hill, 2012, 2017; Mosley & Rogers, 2011), TEs engaged PTs in reading, discussing, reflecting on, and examining texts that featured predominantly African American and Latinx characters of color. By centering race and ethnicity in their pedagogy, TEs challenged PTs to problematize taken-for-granted knowledge and discourses to create a better world for all people (Giroux, 1984/2010).

Mosley and Rogers (2011) framed their work with PTs within a racial literacy framework to engage PTs in critical conversations of race, racism, and antiracism within the context of book clubs. They described how PTs tracked passive and active racist and antiracist behaviors by characters as they interrogated racial issues and “dilemmas” to develop racial literacy. Although the children’s literature featured White and African American characters (e.g., Darby by Fuqua, 2002), the authors of the children’s books were White.

In Hill’s (2012, 2017) studies, PTs received support from their cooperating teachers on teaching reading strategies with texts focusing on issues of race (e.g., civil rights and biracial identity). For example, as described earlier, Hill (2012) modeled and provided mentorship to PTs on book selection and comprehension strategies as she paired fiction and expository texts focused on civil rights. In a later study, Hill (2017) introduced and implemented “culturally responsive reading pedagogies” in her reading methods course to focus on preparing PTs to work with biracial students. Specifically, she focused on the selection and implementation of “culturally relevant texts with interracial themes, in the endeavor of supporting the reading and identity development of her biracial student . . . and the student’s response to the culturally relevant text” (p. 490). Both studies highlighted the value of consistent mentoring, reflection, and feedback, with the support of cooperating teachers and the TE. In addition, they pointed to the necessity of providing PTs with ample opportunities to reflect upon and critically examine varying discourses and literature about race.

In two studies conducted in secondary methods courses, Glenn (2012, 2014) examined the use of YA counternarratives as tools to engage PTs in discussions about race and to “expose [them] to unfamiliar voices but also challenge existing constructions of race” (Glenn, 2012, p. 330). PTs in Glenn’s (2012) study read Mexican WhiteBoy (de la Peña, 2008) and After Tupac and D Foster (Woodson, 2008) and participated in discussions and activities centered on culturally and linguistically responsive teaching. In small groups, PTs created and presented a 3-day lesson plan focused on one of the two books, followed by a written reflection. Glenn (2012) found that in reading and discussing YA counternarratives, PTs began to challenge their own biases and assumptions, reconsider and question stereotypes, and recognize the flaws in their own perceptions. In a related study, Glenn (2014) engaged PTs in conversations of the literary aesthetics of texts from “ethnically unfamiliar literature” to support them in intentionally attending to culture, ethnicity, and race. Prior to their reading of YA counternarratives, PTs read two articles that explained literary aesthetics and traditions of Latina/o and African American literature, providing them with new language and ways to see, examine, and read ethnically unfamiliar literature. This engagement supported PTs to “expand their repertoire to texts and analytic approaches that extend beyond canonical titles and Eurocentric frames that comprise the bulk of their content area teaching” (p. 112).

Finally, Haddix, and Price-Dennis (2013) described working with PTs in a teaching adolescent literature course and a student teaching experience (middle school) to examine how urban and multicultural texts were used by PTs as a tool to engage in conversations about race, gender, sexuality, class, and language in youth lives and immigration. They argued for the importance of intentional selection and inclusion of such texts by TEs and the potential of these texts to transform teachers through critical reflection.

Transformative pedagogies

In five studies, authors specifically named and drew upon asset-based or transformative pedagogies when using children’s literature with PTs (Barnes, 2006; Lohfink, 2014; Mathis, 2000; Shelton & McDermott, 2010; Szecsi et al., 2010). These frameworks, and the children’s literature that accompanied them, provided tools for PTs to explore their own sociocultural backgrounds and examine the world at the intersection of culture, equity, and justice, thus beginning to consider ways to disrupt the “standardization of knowledge” (Giroux, 1984/2010, p. 2) in their future classrooms. For example, Shelton and McDermott (2010) invited PTs to embody and perform the children’s book Just Like Josh Gibson (Johnson, 2004). TEs facilitated PTs’ experiences and discussions around drama-based activities and supported their examination of their own perceptions of oppressive issues faced by marginalized groups and how these perceptions may influence their future teaching practice. They found that connecting drama with children’s literature supported PTs’ realization that an injustice experienced by one person affects all people, including themselves.

Szecsi et al. (2010) described a “multicultural literature project” for PTs enrolled in a course focused on second language acquisition, culture, and family and school relationships. This project engaged PTs in reading and discussions of multicultural literature. PTs read three books from a culture that differed from their own, kept a journal of their critical reflections, and wrote a paper that highlighted their changing understandings of the culture. From analysis of PTs’ work, researchers found that when PTs “have opportunities to experience multicultural literature, to reflect on it, and discuss the narratives, transformative thinking clearly emerges in their discourse” (p. 47), and the discourse of PTs and in-service teachers must “unite the language of critique with the language of possibility” (Giroux, 1984/2010, p. 4) to move critique and reflection into action.

Similarly, Lohfink (2014) engaged PTs in learning and implementing culturally responsive teaching pedagogies through planning and conducting multicultural read alouds with elementary school children. PTs’ reflections pointed to how multicultural read alouds helped them to understand themselves, different cultures, and their students. Although PTs noted that multicultural read alouds supported their pedagogical understandings, Lohfink argued that “culturally responsive pedagogy is challenging for most novice and practicing teachers and will require more than one assignment in literacy methods courses to reflect effective implementation” (p. 45).

Barnes (2006), described earlier, reported on a study in which PTs learned about culturally responsive instruction via a structured field experience. TEs supported PTs in the design and implementation of lesson plans, including the use of multicultural children’s literature, while also conducting more traditional reading assessments. In her findings, Barnes noted that PTs resisted this focus on diversity, “quietly” voicing their desire to learn content and pedagogical knowledge without focusing on issues of diversity.

Summary

Collectively, these studies highlight the pedagogical practices and frameworks that TEs drew upon to engage PTs in the intellectual work of literacy teaching. Through children’s literature, TEs engaged PTs in reflection, exploration, and discussions that brought race, culture, linguistic varieties, gender, and “hard topics” from the margins of the curriculum to the center. In these studies, the pedagogy was “rooted in the practice of ethical and political formation of both self and the broader social order” (Giroux, 1984/2010, p. 3).

Discussion and Implications

In our review of studies published between 2000 and 2018, we examined the ways children’s literature within literacy methods courses worked toward the disruption of technocratic approaches to literacy instruction. Our analysis revealed that in the preparation of PTs, children’s literature functions as a resource for learning about literacy instructional practices and transformative pedagogies in separate and intersecting ways.

First, studies that focused on literacy instructional practices that PTs might use with their future students demonstrated how children’s literature can be used to cultivate agentic writers and readers. In the area of writing instruction, children’s literature served as a tool in demonstrating the conventions of different genres (e.g., poetry). However, within these studies on writing, little or no attention was paid to racial or cultural diversity. TEs often omitted any description of the texts they used (e.g., Zimmerman et al., 2014; Zimmerman et al., 2012) or included authors’ names without particular titles (e.g., Batchelor et al., 2014). Given the importance of attending to the diversity of text selection in literacy instruction, specifically in the teaching of writers, these omissions are concerning, and we call on scholars to conduct and publish studies framed around culturally relevant pedagogies (Ladson-Billings, 1995) and the use of such texts for inspiring writers.

In the area of reading instruction, the use of children’s literature provided TEs with a way to help PTs conceptualize how to teach reading using a variety of practices (e.g., read alouds) with some attention to diversity, race, and culture (e.g., Barnes, 2006; Shelton & McDermott, 2010). Some studies focused on supporting PTs’ learning practices for text selection by TEs engaging in active discussions about their own criteria for text selection. These studies illustrated how TEs worked to create learning opportunities for PTs to understand the underlying principles of various practices for using children’s literature as a tool for teaching readers. By providing PTs with access to these methods for literacy instruction, TEs actively supported them in expanding their teaching repertoires as a way of pushing back on the belief that knowledge must be controlled and that all students learn in the same way (Giroux, 1984/2010).

Second, in a majority of the studies, TEs used children’s literature as a tool to engage PTs in learning or experiencing transformative pedagogies (e.g., culturally relevant pedagogy) that recognize the race, ethnicity, and linguistic resources of students. In several studies, TEs drew upon transformative pedagogies that included culturally relevant and culturally responsive pedagogies to support PTs in examining their assumptions and biases while beginning to critique the larger systems that marginalize and silence students from nondominant backgrounds. In these studies, TEs selected children’s literature for PTs to engage with, which served as resources to open “windows, mirrors and sliding glass doors” (Bishop, 1990) into the sociocultural backgrounds and material realities of their future students. Across these studies, TEs used these pedagogies along with children’s literature as a framework to create learning opportunities that centered discussions of culture and race and ethnicity in their literacy methods courses. These learning opportunities can help PTs to construct new knowledge about culture and race that could inform their own classroom practices. In these studies, through reading and discussion of children’s literature, some TEs challenged PTs to engage as transformative intellectuals.

At a time when communities from nondominant backgrounds are living in vulnerable situations with little, if any, support from the current government administration, it is urgent that PTs enter classrooms with the knowledge of literacy teaching practices and transformative pedagogies necessary to serve their future students (Kitzmiller, 2018). We as TEs have a responsibility to prepare PTs to “work against the fundamental grain of an unequal society” (Gomez, 1994, p. 324) while building on the cultural and linguistic resources of students’ homes and communities. We can start by using children’s literature to support PTs as they (re)imagine literacy instruction and a just society—for all. Teacher education programs can begin to critique and shift current practices, policies, and discourses to advance transformative instruction, or they can sustain the kinds of structures and practices that have undermined the diverse population of children they seek to educate. In preparing PTs to step into their power as transformative intellectuals, we must support them to “develop a discourse that unites the language of critique with the language of possibility” (Giroux, 1985, p. 379) so they may realize their potential to be agents of change. This places TEs in a powerful position to develop future generations of teachers to question, and resist technocratic approaches to literacy instruction while advocating for a reframing of schooling in which all students can truly be challenged and successful.

Collectively, if we want to model ourselves as transformative intellectuals, we must reflect on, question, and critique our own work in preparing PTs to enter today’s schools as critical, reflective educators. Our positionalities as TEs and researchers are important as we work to make visible our own biases and assumptions to transform our practices in the service of students and their communities. The types of children’s literature that we select and introduce to PTs play an important role in shaping PTs’ use of children’s literature in their future classrooms. If we seek to dismantle technocratic approaches to literacy instruction, to strengthen our understanding of one another, and to improve our connections as a global community, we must select books that challenge assumptions and speak of possibilities for change. We need to make visible our goals for using or rejecting certain titles, while providing PTs with opportunities to engage with reading and writing practices, and supporting them in developing the abilities and dispositions needed to implement transformative pedagogical frameworks to ensure equitable literacy and language experiences for all youth.

Supplemental Material

OL_SUPP_TB_1_Flores – Supplemental material for The Role of Children’s Literature in Cultivating Preservice Teachers as Transformative Intellectuals: A Literature Review

Supplemental material, OL_SUPP_TB_1_Flores for The Role of Children’s Literature in Cultivating Preservice Teachers as Transformative Intellectuals: A Literature Review by Tracey T. Flores, Saba Khan Vlach and Catherine Lammert 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

Ada

A. F.

(1993). Me llamo María Isabel [My name is María Isabel] ( Thompson

K. D.

Illus.). New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Anzaldúa

(1993). Amigos del otro lado [Friends from the other side] ( Mendez

Illus.). San Francisco, CA: Children’s Book Press.

Arya

(2005). Reclaiming literacy instruction: Evidence in support of literature-based programs. Language Arts, 83, 63-71.

Asher

(2011). Thirteen reasons why. New York, NY: Penguin Random House.

Badoe

(2002). Nana’s cold days. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Groundwood Books.

Barnes

C. J.

(2006). Preparing preservice teachers to teach in a culturally responsive way. Negro Educational Review, 57, 85-100.

Batchelor

K. W.

Morgan

D. N.

Kidder-Brown

M. K.

Zimmerman

B. S.

(2014). Investigating the unit of study approach as a way to teach writing to early childhood education preservice teachers. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 35, 276-289. doi:10.1080/10901027.2014.936073

Bateson-Hill

Fowler

(2001). Shota and the star quilt. Norwich, UK: Zero to Ten.

Bishop

R. S.

(1990). Mirrors, windows, and sliding glass doors. Perspectives, 6(3), 1-2.

10.

Brooks

(2006). Reading representations of themselves: Urban youth use culture and African American textual features to develop literary understandings. Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 372-392.

11.

Brown

(2009). Hate list. New York, NY: Little Brown.

12.

Brown

K. D.

(2013). Trouble on my mind: Toward a framework of humanizing critical sociocultural knowledge for teaching and teacher education. Race Ethnicity and Education, 16, 316-338. doi:10.1080/13613324.2012.725039

13.

Cai

Bishop

R. S.

(1994). Multicultural literature for children: Towards a clarification of the concept. In Dyson

A. H.

Genishi

(Eds.), The need for story: Cultural diversity in classroom and community (pp. 57-71). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

14.

Cooper

H. M.

(1988). Organizing knowledge syntheses: A taxonomy of literature reviews. Knowledge in Society, 1, 104-126.

15.

Creswell

J. W.

(1994). Research design: Qualitative & quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

16.

Crutcher

(1995). Ironman. New York, NY: Greenwillow Books.

17.

Curtis

C. P.

(1995). The Watsons go to Birmingham—1963. New York, NY: Delacorte Books.

18.

Davis

D. S.

Vehabovic

(2017). The dangers of test preparation: What students learn (and don’t learn) about reading comprehension from test-centric literacy instruction. The Reading Teacher, 71, 579-588. doi:10.1002/trtr.1641

19.

de la Peña

(2008). Mexican whiteboy. New York, NY: Delacorte Press.

20.

Duke

N. K.

(2000). 3.6 minutes per day: The scarcity of informational texts in first grade. Reading Research Quarterly, 35, 202-224.

21.

Escamilla

Nathenson-Mejía

(2003). Preparing culturally responsive teachers: Using Latino children’s literature in teacher education special issue: Partnering for equity. Equity & Excellence in Education, 36, 238-248.

22.

Feelings

(1995). The middle passage: White ships/Black cargo. New York, NY: Penguin Books.

23.

Freire

(2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed (Rev. ed.). New York, NY: Continuum. (Original work published 1970)

24.

Fuqua

J. S.

(2002). Darby. Somerville, MA: Candlewick Press.

25.

Giovanni

(2005). Rosa ( Collier

Illus.). New York, NY: Henry Holt.

26.

Giroux

H. A.

(1985). Teachers as transformative intellectuals. Social Education, 49, 376-379.

27.

Giroux

H. A.

(2005). Schooling and the struggle for public life: Democracy’s promise and education’s challenge. New York, NY: Routledge.

28.

Giroux

H. A.

(2010). Teachers as transformative intellectuals. In Cooper

Ryan

J. M.

(Eds.), Kaleidoscope: Contemporary and classic readings in education (12th ed., pp. 35-40). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. (Original work published 1984)

29.

Giroux

H. A.

(2012, December 17). The war against teachers as public intellectuals in dark times. Truthout. Retrieved from http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/13367-the-corporate-war-against-teachers-as-public-intellectuals-in-dark-times

30.

Glenn

W. J.

(2012). Developing understandings of race: Preservice teachers’ counter-narrative (re)constructions of people of color in young adult literature. English Education, 44, 326-353.

31.

Glenn

W. J.

(2014). To witness and to testify: Preservice teachers examine literary aesthetics to better understand diverse literature. English Education, 46, 90-119.

32.

Gomez

M. L.

(1994). Teacher education reform and prospective teachers’ perspectives on teaching “other people’s” children. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10, 319-334.

33.

Haddix

Price-Dennis

(2013). Urban fiction and multicultural literature as transformative tools for preparing English teachers for diverse classrooms. English Education, 45, 247-283.

34.

Hammett

Bainbridge

(2009). Pre-service teachers explore cultural identity and ideology through picture books. Literacy, 43, 152-159.

35.

Heineke

A. J.

(2014). Dialoging about English learners: Preparing teachers through culturally relevant literature circles. Action in Teacher Education, 36, 117-140.

36.

Hill

K. D.

(2012). Cultivating pre-service teachers towards culturally relevant literacy practices. Issues in Teacher Education, 21(2), 43-66.

37.

Hill

K. D.

(2017). A pre-service teacher’s use of a culturally relevant text with interracial themes. Teacher Education and Practice, 30, 487-500.

38.

Hsieh

H.-F.

Shannon

S. E.

(2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15, 1277-1288.

39.

Huck

C. S.

(1992). Literacy and literature. Language Arts, 69, 520-526.

40.

Jiménez

(1997). The circuit. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin.

41.

Johnson

(2004). Just like Josh Gibson ( Peck

Illus.). New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

42.

Kitzmiller

(2018). Educating educators in the age of Trump. Radical Teacher, 111, 65-79.

43.

Ladson-Billings

(1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 465-491.

44.

Lewis

M. A.

Petrone

(2010). “Although adolescence need not be violent . . .”: Preservice teachers’ connections between “adolescence” and literacy curriculum. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 53, 398-407.

45.

Littlechild

(1993). This land is my land. San Francisco, CA: Children’s Book Press.

46.

Lohfink

(2014). The impact of a school-university multicultural read-aloud project on pre-service teachers’ pedagogical understandings. School-University Partnerships, 7(2), 34-47.

47.

Mathis

J. B.

(2000). Preservice teachers explore culturally responsive instruction: Affirmation and resistance. In Linder

Linek

W. M.

Sturtevant

E. G.

Dugan

J. R.

(Eds.), Literacy at a new horizon (pp. 226-239). Readyville, TN: College Reading Association.

48.

Milner

H. R.

(2013). Scripted and narrowed curriculum reform in urban schools. Urban Education, 48, 163-170.

49.

Morgan

D. N.

(2010). Preservice teachers as writers. Literacy Research and Instruction, 49, 352-365.

50.

Morgan

D. N.

Zimmerman

B. S.

Kidder-Brown

M. K.

Dunn

(2011). From writing methods to student teaching: Vision development and the implementation of conceptual and practical tools by preservice teachers. In Dunston

P. J.

Gambrell

L. B.

Headley

Fullerton

S. K.

Stecker

P. M.

Gillis

V. R.

Bates

C. C.

(Eds.), 60th literacy research association yearbook (pp. 100-112). Oak Creek, WI: Literacy Research Association.

51.

Mosenthal

(1994). Constructing knowledge and expertise in teaching: Portfolios in undergraduate teacher education. In Kinzer

C. K.

Leu

(Eds.), Multidimensional aspects of literacy research, theory, and practice: Forty-third yearbook of the national reading conference (pp. 407-417). San Diego, CA: National Reading Conference.

52.

Mosley

Rogers

(2011). Inhabiting the “tragic gap”: Pre-service teachers practicing racial literacy. Teaching Education, 22, 303-324.

53.

Nathenson-Mejía

Escamilla

(2003). Connecting with Latino children: Bridging cultural gaps with children’s literature. Bilingual Research Journal, 27, 101-116.

54.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2018). Adult training and education survey [Data file]. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/nhes/pdf/ates/2016_ates.pdf

55.

Paris

Alim

H. S.

(Eds.). (2017). Culturally sustaining pedagogies: Teaching and learning for justice in a changing world. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

56.

Pytash

K. E.

(2013). Using YA literature to help preservice teachers deal with bullying and suicide. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 56, 470-479.

57.

Riley

Crawford-Garrett

(2016). Critical texts in literacy teacher education: Living inquiries into racial justice and immigration. Language Arts, 94, 94-107.

58.

Ringgold

(1991). Tar beach. New York, NY: Knopf Books for Young Readers.

59.

Rogers

Mosley

(2008). A critical discourse analysis of racial literacy in teacher education. Linguistics and Education, 19, 107-131.

60.

Sendak

(1963). Where the wild things are. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

61.

Shelton

N. R.

McDermott

(2010). Using literature and drama to understand social justice. Teacher Development, 14, 123-135.

62.

Short

Day

Schroeder

(2016). Teaching globally: Reading the world through literature. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.

63.

Stallworth

B. J.

(2001). Using e-mail to facilitate dialogue between high school students and preservice English methods students. In Hoffman

J. V.

Schallert

D. L.

Fairbanks

C. F.

Worthy

Maloch

(Eds.), 50th yearbook of the national reading conference (pp. 572-583). Chicago, IL: National Reading Conference.

64.

Strong-Wilson

Johnston

Wiltse

Burke

Phipps

Gonzalez

(2014). Reverberating chords: Implications of storied nostalgia for borderland discourses in pre-service teacher identity. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 20, 394-409.

65.

Szecsi

Spillman

Vázquez-Montilla

Mayberry

S. C.

(2010). Transforming teacher cultural landscapes by reflecting on multicultural literature. Multicultural Education, 17(4), 44-48.

66.

Thomas

E. E.

(2016). Stories still matter: Rethinking the role of diverse children’s literature today. Language Arts, 94, 112-119.

67.

Wadham

R. L.

Young

T. A.

(2015). Integrating children’s literature through the common core state standards. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.

68.

Wise Brown

. (1947). Goodnight moon ( Hurd

Illus.). New York, NY: Harper & Brothers.

69.

Woodson

(2008). After Tupac and D Foster. New York, NY: Penguin Books.

70.

Wolf

Coats

Enciso

P. A.

Jenkins

(Eds.). (2011). Handbook of research on children’s and young adult literature. New York, NY: Routledge.

71.

Yoon

(2013). Rewriting the curricular script: Teachers and children translating writing practices in a kindergarten classroom. Research in the Teaching of English, 8, 148-174.

72.

Zimmerman

B. S.

Morgan

D. N.

Kidder-Brown

M. K.

(2014). The use of conceptual and pedagogical tools as mediators of preservice teachers’ perceptions of self as writers and future teachers of writing. Action in Teacher Education, 36, 141-156.

73.

Zimmerman

B. S.

Morgan

D. N.

Kidder-Brown

M. K.

Batchelor

K. E.

(2012). Exploring poetry writing in a methods course: Changes in preservice teachers’ identities as teachers of writing. In Dunston

P. J.

Fullerton

S. K.

Bates

C. C.

Headley

Stecker

P. M.

(Eds.), The 61st yearbook of the literacy research association (pp. 145-157). Oak Creek, WI: Literacy Research Association.

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

0.03 MB