Community-Based Placements As Contexts for Disciplinary Learning

Abstract

Community-based field placements have shown promise as a strategy for preparing teacher candidates to work in diverse, high-needs schools, but they have rarely been designed or researched with subject-area methods learning in mind. Drawing on data from observations, interviews, documents, and journals, the author investigated how placements in two case study community-based organizations (CBOs) shaped candidates’ learning about literacy and literacy pedagogy. Using cultural historical activity theory as an analytic framework, the author found that contextual components in CBO activity systems guided teacher candidates to take up more complex theories of literacy, demonstrate unusual proficiency in engaging language-minority students in text-based conversations (a critical strategy for promoting reading and language development), and leverage teacher–student–family relationships in ways that enhanced pupils’ literacy engagement and learning experiences. Findings highlight implications (related to literacy and other skill/subject areas) for prospective pupil learning, course-based mediation of community-based fieldwork, and placement site selection.

Keywords

field experiences urban teacher education literacy/reading teacher education learning environment partnerships

Community-based fieldwork has a long history in teacher education (Flowers, Patterson, Stratemeyer, & Lindsey, 1948) but has never been a widely deployed approach. A small but growing body of research in this area indicates that field placements in community settings, when well-mediated, show great potential for interrupting racist attitudes, positively impacting perceptions of families, and boosting preservice teachers’ willingness to work in schools that serve diverse populations (Bondy & Davis, 2000; Boyle-Baise, 1998; Burant & Kirby, 2002; McDonald, Brayko, & Bowman, in press; McDonald et al., 2011; Sleeter, 2001, 2008; Zeichner & Melnick, 1996). Interestingly, most of the community-based placements described in teacher education literature are add-on components to stand-alone multicultural education courses. The placements are rarely designed in connection with particular subject areas or methods courses—including language arts and literacy—and subsequently, they are also rarely researched with a language and/or literacy focus. This reflects a trend in teacher education in which learning about and engaging with communities has typically been conceptualized and organized as mainly a social/multicultural foundations issue, receiving far less attention in methods preparation work.

This trend persists despite research suggesting that teachers’ knowledge of students’ out-of-school language and literacy is of particular importance. For decades, scholars have argued the importance of considering students’ language and literacy beyond school walls, noting that language and literacy are deeply connected to social processes and structures, identity formation, power, and ideology (i.e., Au & Mason, 1981; Heath, 1983). The inclination for programs to engage community-based experiences almost solely as opportunities for foundational and dispositional learning mirrors a larger pattern in teacher education of dichotomizing foundations and methods preparation (Grossman, Hammerness, & McDonald, 2009); this arguably limits the learning opportunities for preservice teachers who are preparing to teach language arts or other subject areas to children in diverse urban schools.

The study described here is an investigation of field placements in after-school community-based organizations (CBOs) within one teacher education program. Although situated in one particular program, this study’s findings apply broadly to our understandings of teacher learning through placements in CBOs. I examined literacy-related activity and learning opportunities available to preservice teachers in two CBO field placements, one serving mainly Latino children and another serving mainly Muslim Somali children. The research questions in the study were as follows: In what ways do community-based placements shape preservice teachers’ learning about (a) literacy and (b) literacy instruction? This article includes a review of literature of preservice teachers’ literacy-related learning in CBOs; a description of the study’s conceptual framework, which is grounded in cultural historical activity theory (CHAT); an explanation of the study and findings; and finally, a discussion of implications and next steps for research.

Candidates’ Literacy- Related Learning in CBOs

Although there has been a recent proliferation of research on children’s literacy learning out of school, there has been far less attention to the learning of inservice and/or preservice teachers in these settings, including community organizations (Hull & Schultz, 2001). The available literature in this area suggests there is promise for out-of-school preservice literacy learning. For example, Patton, Silva, and Myers (1999) studied teacher candidates’ learning in a family literacy program for recent immigrants, and Shelby Wolf, Ballentine, and Hill (2000) examined candidates’ one-on-one work with students from low socioeconomic status or ethnic-minority families. In both studies, candidates came to see the ways in which their own literacy experiences differed from those of their students; this enabled them to think about the varying strengths, needs, interests, and backgrounds of readers.

Much of what we know about candidates’ literacy-related learning in youth-serving CBOs comes from the work of Margaret Gallego and her colleagues (Gallego, 2001; Gallego & Malenka, 1995; Malenka, 1994). Gallego’s project examined learning for preservice teachers across two field settings: one in school site and the other in La Clase Mágica, which was a technology-focused, after-school program located in a community center (a Fifth Dimension site¹). The placements at La Clase Mágica were an optional part of a teacher education program’s literacy methods course. Researchers found that the out-of-school placements provided candidates greater opportunities to learn about children’s multiple literacies (Gallego & Hollingsworth, 1992; Malenka, 1994). That is, by engaging in reading and writing activities with youth at La Clase Mágica, candidates came to see a wider range of ways that students participate in literacy, often successfully, outside of school. Due to the technology emphasis at the organization, most of the literacies that candidates recognized were electronic communication processes such as e-mailing and video gaming in English and Spanish (Gallego & Malenka, 1995). Gallego’s research also showed that the concurrent in- and out-of-school placements sparked an educative disruption for the preservice teachers. The contrast of the placements provoked them to assess their own assumptions and critique traditional norms and relationships, particularly regarding student ownership and classroom management, found in language arts classrooms in schools (Gallego, 2001).

Because La Clase Mágica was technology focused, externally funded, and designed around Vygotskian learning theory by renowned education scholars, it represents a very particular type of organization, and thus, a very particular type of CBO field placement. Findings are difficult to generalize to other CBOs, many of which run under difficult budget constraints and rely heavily on volunteers and staff who do not necessarily have specialized training. Yet, much of our knowledge about organizations as contexts for preservice learning about literacy and instruction relies heavily on this single case.

By examining one teacher education program’s community-based placements with a lens focused on literacy, I aimed to build on the existing knowledge in this area. Specifically, I investigated the ways in which community-based placements and mediating methods coursework shaped teacher candidates’ learning about literacy content and pedagogy.

CHAT: CBO Placements As Learning Contexts

This study examines particular learning contexts in teacher education, and applying CHAT fittingly allows for the study of interaction between candidates and elements of community-based teacher education environments. At a basic level, CHAT assumes that learning is intimately connected to human activity, which is socially situated in one or more activity systems. The activity, Engeström (2001) explained, is mediated by various components in a system and is channeled toward a particular goal that a community of people engaged in the system share. In this analysis, I conceptualized the two case study community-based field placements as activity systems. These systems were physically situated in organizations, but conceptually they also were spaces of teacher education; in other words, they contained contextual elements of the elementary teacher education program (ELTEP) as well as the respective CBOs.

According to Engeström (2001), activity is undertaken by individuals (subjects) and is oriented toward a certain purpose or object. The individuals I foreground in this study are the teacher candidates. For the purpose of this analysis, I conceptualized the object of the activity as candidates’ literacy-related conceptual and pedagogical development, which maps on to my research questions related to learning about literacy and literacy instruction. I thought of this object as being crucial to the larger goal, or “outcome,” of preparing effective reading and writing teachers for students in diverse urban schools.

Engeström (2001) posited that the activity in which individuals engage takes place in relationship to, and in collaboration with, a particular community of people. The structure of the activity is shaped and constrained by cultural factors such as the community’s established procedures (rules) as well as social strata (division of labor) within the community (Engeström, 2001; see Figure 1). In the placements, the candidates interacted with CBO educators, parents, and children from particular backgrounds. Their activity was shaped by the rules, such as the established procedures and norms, of the CBOs. The division of labor, including roles the candidates were asked to take up in the CBOs, also impacted their activity. As mentioned, the community component of the placements included members of ELTEP as well (i.e., the literacy methods instructor). ELTEP had specific expectations of candidates as they worked in the field at the CBOs. These expectations, or rules, also shaped and mediated candidates’ activity in the placements.

Figure 1.

CBO placement activity system (Engeström, 2001)

Activity theory suggests that individuals’ object-oriented activity is mediated by tools, which can be conceptual or practical (see Grossman, Smagorinsky, & Valencia, 1999, for a discussion on conceptual and practical tools in teacher education). In this study, tools that were made available by ELTEP coursework, and by CBO educators/contexts, shaped candidates’ activity in the system.

The Study

This case study design included embedded subcases within an overall holistic case (Yin, 2003). The larger case was ELTEP, which represents a program that has a unique partnership network with community organizations (McDonald et al., 2011; McDonald et al., in press). Within this case, I selected two CBO placements, La Unidad and Community Village, and within those, I selected case study candidates, whom I call Margo and Claire. Data for this study were collected during the candidates’ first quarter—when they were placed in CBOs and taking their first literacy course.

Context and Participants

Teacher education program

The ELTEP in this study is a master in teaching (MIT) program at a research university in a large U.S. city. During the first quarter, candidates in the cohort described in this study each spent 60 hr in CBOs that serve diverse youth in low-income, urban neighborhoods (6 hr per week for 10 weeks). These CBOs were mainly neighborhood community centers or ethnically focused organizations that had after-school youth programs. A CBO seminar course accompanied the field experiences. ELTEP’s purposes in establishing the CBO placements were to provide opportunities for candidates to learn more about the lives, families, strengths, networks, and other resources of children; to build connections between candidates, community organizations, and schools; and to place students, families, neighborhoods, and communities at the center of education.

An instrumental feature of this program was a commitment on the part of the faculty to connect coursework and fieldwork. The five ELTEP faculty members teaching in the first quarter, to various extents, aimed to link their courses with candidates’ community-based field experiences. One of the main ways faculty did this was through assignments that required candidates to observe, inquire, enact, or reflect on their experiences in their placements. For example, in the CBO seminar, candidates reflected on their field experiences in journals and weekly discussions. They discussed strategies they could use to learn about children and their families, and applied Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) framework to think about students’ ecologies in comparison with their own. In the ELL strand of a Differentiating Instruction course, candidates were asked to shadow one language-minority student at their CBOs. The social studies methods course required candidates to make a visual map of CBO students’ communities of influence (geographic and social) based on information gained from interviews with children and adults. Candidates were encouraged to draw on their CBO experiences in class discussions in their multicultural education course.

The field-based component under study was linked to the first of three literacy courses in the program; it had a strong emphasis on early reading and the reading process. The class was housed in a diverse elementary school in a low-income urban neighborhood. The instructor arranged for the candidates to observe reading and writing instruction in the school, and to work directly with students during each class session. Of the four class assignments, two were carried out by candidates at their CBO placements as well as their school placements (emerging literacy survey and read aloud lesson). The other assignments involved the administration and analysis of an informal reading inventory, and planning and presenting decoding lessons to peers.

CBOs

At the time of this study, there were 11 partner CBOs in ELTEP, and 2 to 3 candidates were placed in each. In some cases, candidates were placed in organizations in the same neighborhoods as the schools where they did their practica and student teaching in the subsequent quarters. In some ways, La Unidad and Community Village were typical of the entire group of 11 partnering organizations, and in other ways, they were not. Like the vast majority of the partnering organizations, the youth programs at La Unidad and Community Village were known to have program goals related to academic achievement and literacy improvement. They were two of eight placement sites with students from the same general ethnic/linguistic groups (broadly defined); most La Unidad students were Latino, and most of the students who attended Community Village were from Muslim Somali families. La Unidad and Community Village worked with mostly bilingual student groups, which was true of more than half of the 11 CBOs at the time of the study. La Unidad was 1 of 4 CBOs that were officially bilingual programs.

All 11 CBOs included reading in their daily activities; however, La Unidad and Community Village were in the top half of the placements in terms of having time, space, and/or expectations for reading. This made them more likely than some other contexts for literacy-laden activity to “show up.” For this reason, these two CBO placements represent a purposeful sample (Miles & Huberman, 1994) that might help us learn about what is possible for literacy-related learning for children and candidates in community-based settings for language-minority children. Latino and Somali students are among the most poorly served groups in this region’s schools, making them important groups for teachers to know more about and making the two case study CBOs particularly strategic contexts for teacher education placements and for research. A more detailed description of these sites is given in the “Findings” section (Table 1).

Table 1.

Contextual Components of CBO Activity Systems

	LU	CV
Activity system component	After-school program, part of larger Latino activism/advocacy organization	After-school program nested within larger social agency focused on promoting self-sufficiency
Community: Who was in the system?	Children: K-6, mostly Latino, all bilingual, some immigrants/children of immigrants; most children had attended LU’s programs from a young age	Children: K-5, most were from Somali Muslim families, most were bilingual, most were immigrants or children of immigrants, some were refugees, all from housing project area
	Lead teacher (Gloria): Latina, bilingual, immigrant from Mexico, long-standing relationships with children and families, advocated for LU children in their respective schools	Lead teacher (Amy): White, did not speak Somali, long-standing relationships with children and families, advocated for CV children in schools
	Parents/guardians present every day	Parents/guardians occasionally present
	ELTEP faculty	ELTEP faculty
Rules: What were the established procedures and norms?	Language norms: Bilingual English/Spanish program, staff often spoke Spanish to children and parents, older children usually spoke in English and younger kids spoke more often in Spanish, some parents were monolingual Spanish speakers	Language norms: Program ran in English, children sometimes spoke to one another in Somali, some parents were monolingual Somali speakers
	Daily activities included outside play time, snack, reading time (bilingual and in different formats: individual, partners, groups), homework time, shared activity (art, poetry, computers), free play time, preparing for cultural or political events	Daily activities included snack, reading fluency practice, homework time, reading time, math practice, shared activity (journaling, art, science, community event), free play time in and outside
	ELTEP expectations	Older Girls’ and Boys’ groups, (organized by Amy in response to social issues like teasing)
		ELTEP expectations
Division of labor: Who did what?	Older students guided younger students	Older students guided younger students; Older Girls/Boys Groups sometimes organized activities
	Candidates positioned as experts, close to the intellectual work of the CBO	Candidates positioned as experts, close to intellectual work of the CBO
	Candidates worked mainly with small groups and one-on-one	Candidates worked mainly with small groups and one-on-one
	Mentored by lead teacher	Mentored by lead teacher
	ELTEP Faculty assigned reflective tasks	ELTEP faculty assigned reflective tasks
Tools: What instruments helped candidates learn (in relationship to object)?	Literacy methods assignments Emerging literacy survey Read aloud lesson plan Other course assignments/activities Conferences with Gloria (before children arrived)	Literacy methods assignments: Emerging literacy survey Read aloud lesson plan Other course assignments/activities Conferences with Amy (before children arrived)

Note: CBO = community-based organizations; LU = La Unidad; ELTEP = elementary teacher education program; CV = Community Village.

Case study participants

To understand the influence of the case study CBO placements, it was necessary to examine in depth the experiences of teacher candidates placed in each of these settings. Of the small group of candidates placed at each CBO (2 to 3 in each), I studied the candidate at the respective sites whose background was the most like the majority of the MIT cohort (28 candidates) in terms of race, language, socioeconomic background, experience working with diverse populations, and previous training in literacy.

I closely shadowed both of the case study participants, Margo and Claire, as they worked in their respective placements. Margo, who was placed at La Unidad, was 22 years old, White, and had studied psychology as an undergraduate. She reported that she grew up in a middle-class family and attended all-White elementary and secondary schools in a medium-sized city. She had very few experiences with children from backgrounds different from her own until her senior year of college, when she worked as a classroom volunteer in a racially diverse elementary school as a way to complete field requirements for acceptance into ELTEP. One of her duties as a volunteer in the classroom was to work individually with struggling readers using a supplemental commercial phonics-based tutoring program. She reported to have had very limited experiences with Latino children or adults prior to her time at La Unidad.

Claire was 26 when she started ELTEP and was placed at Community Village. Coming from a White, middle-class background, she attended mostly White schools growing up and studied business at a private liberal arts college. After working for a few years in the marketing field, she decided to pursue a teaching career due in part to her positive experiences working with children at “business camp.” For the year prior to entering ELTEP, Claire tutored children in math and reading during after-school hours at a local elementary school. Some of the children she tutored at that time were from nondominant backgrounds. She said that she had no previous personal or professional experiences with Somali Americans before being placed at Community Village.

Data Sources

Data sources included direct observations, journal entries, interviews, and documents. Six observations were conducted in each CBO over the course of 10 weeks (24 hr) as well as five observations in the literacy methods course (16 hr). In line with CHAT, the protocol used in CBO observations focused on contextual factors and arrangements, and individual candidates’ participation in relationship to these factors and arrangements over time. In the literacy course, verbatim field notes were taken, which allowed for a fuller understanding of available course-based tools that were appropriated (or not) in the CBO activity system. Semistructured interviews with CBO lead teachers and the literacy methods course instructor, and documents such as CBO schedules and the literacy course syllabus, provided further information about candidates’ activities and opportunities, and more nuanced explanations of key contextual factors shaping candidates’ learning. Candidates’ CBO journals, which were required for the CBO seminar that accompanied the fieldwork, and two semistructured interviews with case study candidates (four total) provided further explanation of observed activity and captured candidates’ self-reported understandings and perspectives.

Positionality

Studying a program in which I was involved had constraints as well as benefits. As someone who played a role in designing the community-based learning innovation, I was subject to bias. However, having inside knowledge of the program also afforded in-depth understanding that is sometimes not available to outside researchers. At the time of the study, I was not teaching in the program and participants only knew me in my role as a graduate student researcher. In an effort to offset the potential that candidates might have felt led to respond positively about their learning or CBO fieldwork; interview questions were phrased in ways that deliberately invited negative, neutral, or positive responses.

Analysis

When the entire corpus of data were collected, I read through all of the transcripts, journals, field notes, and documents—first with an eye focused on the “object” component of the activity system. The two-pronged object included candidates’ “conceptual and pedagogical development related to literacy,” which closely maps onto my two research questions about literacy and literacy instruction, respectively. In interview and journal data, I identified representations of candidates’ understandings about literacy (object); and in interview, journal, and observational data, I identified examples of candidates’ perspectives and actions related to literacy pedagogy (object). I coded the data again, attending to other CHAT components (i.e., division of labor, tools, rules) in the two CBO placement activity systems; in addition to CHAT concepts, I developed other codes based on themes that emerged. Then I looked for relationships between the codes and, in particular, noted ways in which the system’s components seemed to interact with one another and how, if at all, they related to the object (indications of candidates’ conceptual and pedagogical learning). Triangulating across data sources, I looked for patterns and discontinuities within and across cases (e.g., Were there similarities and differences in the candidates’ talk about literacy and instruction, in the instruction they were enacting, and/or in some contextual components at the CBO sites?).

I offer an excerpt from one of Margo’s journal entries, followed by an explanation of how I analyzed the excerpt:

I was able to do my read aloud (from literacy course) with the other half of the Unidad kids today. The kids enjoyed the story and again, I felt like we were able to learn a lot from each other. The students shared lots of personal memories and it helped me gain a better understanding of what is memorable and important to them.

I first noted that this quote represented an example of Margo’s perspectives on literacy instruction (under the umbrella code “object”) as well as an instructional practice opportunity; I also coded this as a “tool” (and more specifically a pedagogical tool), because the read aloud assignment mediated Margo’s activity and learning opportunity in this case. Much of Margo and Claire’s talk about instruction included references to relationships with students, which is shown in this quote; I created the code “building relationships” to capture these data. As this read aloud experience also was documented in observational field notes, I eventually brought those data to bear on this quote as well, classifying it as something that occurred during reading time under the code “rules” (routines, norms, and expectations of CBO).

As themes emerged in my analysis, I looked closely for disconfirming evidence. Variation existed between the two case study placements and candidates, but the findings identified here were substantially represented across cases.

Findings

As the candidates interacted with components from the CBO contexts and mediating coursework (rules, division of labor, tools, and community; see Figure 1 and Table 1), particular opportunities to learn became possible for them. The placements facilitated opportunities for candidates to build literacy content and pedagogical knowledge as well as contextual knowledge about children’s linguistic and literacy practices. Some of candidates’ opportunities resembled those commonly afforded by traditional preservice placements. However, community-based activity systems also made available distinctive learning opportunities beyond those typically encountered in school-based placements. These opportunities are represented by the three main themes related to candidates’ learning about literacy and instruction. First, case study candidates’ views of literacy expanded and became more complex due to their CBO placement experiences. In addition, the candidates became exceptionally proficient (for novices) at engaging children in discussion about text. Finally, they used student–teacher–family relationships in ways that enhanced student engagement in literacy learning. To address questions about how the CBO placements shaped candidate learning, I identify some of the main contextual factors in the CBO placement activity systems that seemed to contribute to these patterns in candidates’ conceptual and pedagogical development. (See Table 1 for a list of factors.) I address each of my research questions with further elaboration below.

How Did Placements Shape Candidates’ Learning About Literacy?

My analysis revealed that CBO field placements contributed to candidates’ developing more complex theories about literacy. There were notable differences between Margo and Claire’s discussion about children’s literacy in the school where they did their literacy methods work and their discussion about children’s literacy in their respective CBOs. A substantial amount of Margo and Claire’s interview data includes talk about literacy learning in terms of acquiring or refining skills. For example, when asked what they noticed about literacy in the school where they met for their literacy methods course, both candidates immediately described what they perceived the students’ levels of reading proficiency to be in these contexts—mainly in regard to decoding. When asked what they noticed about literacy in their placement CBOs, Margo and Claire’s responses reflected similar attention to skill proficiency, but additionally included more attention to the ways in which literacy was used and for what purposes (Barton, Hamilton, & Ivanic, 2000). For example, Margo said,

It seems like the (La Unidad) teachers really try to incorporate kids’ literacy type stuff into the goals of La Unidad, like social justice and human rights and stuff . . . the activities like making justice posters after the march that are hanging up in the room, I have never seen that kind of thing in schools. I think they try to get the kids to use their language abilities and literacy to get them more involved in social issues and advocate. If you go down in the childhood development center, there are pictures of the current La Unidad youth program kids making and holding “Si, se puede (yes we can)” signs when they were little kids.

Margo reflected a sociocultural perspective of literacy in saying that language abilities and literacy are something to be used toward the end of community goals. She recognized that the children had continuously engaged in these activities over time starting at a very young age. This suggests that she understood that “using language abilities and literacy” for the (often political) purposes and practices highlighted in La Unidad’s mission was not peripheral or isolated in nature. Rather, these practices are central to the activity and the literacy-related rules of the La Unidad community (see Figure 1).

Data suggest that candidates’ appropriation of sociocultural perspectives was due in part to their experiences with children who were using literacy in different ways and for different purposes than those typically found in schools. In my first observation in La Unidad, Margo and two Latino boys (ages 5 and 9) pored over the front page of a newspaper. The lead story was about a May 1 immigrant rights march (La Marcha), and the boys searched a large photograph together, pointing to faces of friends and family members as well as signs they recognized or even helped construct. “Mira (look)!” Aurelio (age 9) exclaimed, “There’s my tío (uncle)! I can tell because that’s his sign! And there’s the top of his hat!” Margo asked the boys questions about La Marcha and the people in the photograph. During reading time later in the afternoon, Margo gathered with the La Unidad children in the reading area. Aurelio picked up the newspaper again, settled into an oversized stuffed chair, and read parts of La Marcha article aloud to a small group of kindergartners, one of whom climbed into the chair with him. They eagerly asked Aurelio what it said. Margo’s discussion with the boys about the newspaper article, and the later exchange between Aurelio and the kindergartners represent examples of literacy activities that were authentic, relevant, and valued for the children of La Unidad, and arguably for the wider community of which they are members. In these interactions, Aurelio and his kindergarten counterparts had access to a wide repertoire of their resources, including key relationships and the full spectrum of their linguistic knowledge (Gutiérrez, Baquedano-López, & Tejéda, 1999). These types of “literacy use” were well-established norms (rules) in the CBO activity system.

Claire, too, spoke of ways that children’s reading and writing were leveraged for social purposes connected to the mission of Community Village. Also like Margo, Claire identified the role of relationships—often cross-age relationships—in literacy activity. Specifically, she discussed how reading was used as a way to build community. She described a time in which the Community Village Older Boys’ Group (see Table 1), when charged with the task of planning a project to promote citizenship,² designed a reading challenge. Each table group (mix of K-5th grade students) was to set goals for reading a certain number of books. Claire said,

They made it so that the kids at each table would really have to support one another and work together to make sure they were meeting their shared goal, and in many cases the older kids read stories with younger kids because that counted for the younger kids’ books. So it wasn’t as much a project about reading to begin with—the bigger goal was community-building for them.

Claire noted that older children’s reading with younger children was a practice (or literacy-related rule) already in place at Community Village. It was a common way in which children there supported each other, so it seemed logical that the boys incorporated reading into their effort to build community and promote citizenship. Cross-age relationships, shared literacy activity, and language apprenticeship observed by both case study candidates represent important social resources held by children at the CBOs. Despite their value, these are the very kind of resources that are often overlooked in schools, largely because of the way schools are organized.

Although candidates were able to observe a wider range of literacy activities than typically represented in schools, some of the literacy events in the CBOs were very “school like.” For example, homework time held a prominent role in both organizations, and during this time, students worked mainly on worksheet packets. In their tutoring experiences, candidates had opportunities to see curricular and homework expectations for students across six grade levels (and in Margo’s case, across several schools). Furthermore, they were also able to see school-related literacy demands as oriented in a larger picture of children’s literacy use.

It appeared that certain tools from the CBO contexts and ELTEP courses supported Margo and Claire to “see” sociocultural aspects of literacy and learning in their fieldwork (Table 1). Frequent conferences with the CBO teacher, usually before the children arrived each day, seemed to be a particularly important tool for candidates as they worked to make sense of their observations and experiences (McDonald et al., in press). During this time, the CBO teachers discussed the rationale behind learning activities; they also shared their deep, contextualized knowledge about the communities, families, and children.

How Did CBO Placements Shape Candidates’ Learning About Literacy Instruction?

Some of the opportunities to learn about instruction in the placements resembled those commonly afforded by traditional preservice field placements. This was due, in part, to the CBOs’ goal of improving academic literacy proficiency of their students, the regular structured reading and homework activities in both placements, and the applicative nature of the required literacy methods assignments. Because literacy activities represented a substantial part of the established procedures (rules) of each setting, there were regular opportunities for preservice teachers to make explicit connections to aspects of academic literacy instruction, including content from their literacy methods course. For example, Claire encountered the concept of text selection at Community Village and in the literacy methods class:

When [my instructor] brought up text selection in class, I mentioned what I had seen at my CBO. Student choice in text selection is huge. Once at Community Village, Amy selected a book for the Older Girls’ Group that she thought they would like, and it was a complete flop. The girls hated it so bad, it was like pulling teeth. It’s much better when they choose for stuff like that. They liked the ones they chose.

Claire had developed a tool in the CBO, in this case a theory about text selection, which she appropriated in a different setting. Similarly, she developed a theory through her coursework about the importance of students’ reading for meaning; she brought this to bear in her critique of the fluency rate practice exercises at Community Village, which were structured to focus exclusively on speed. Some of the other concepts or methods encountered by candidates across settings were phonemic awareness, decoding, journaling, setting purposes for reading, and grouping for reading.

At first glance, the fact that some of the learning opportunities commonly available in school placements were also present in CBOs may not seem very compelling. Yet, this in itself may negate the assumption that community-based placements are valuable only for their dispositional opportunities and devoid of disciplinary or pedagogical learning opportunities. Despite some similarities with conventional placements, my analysis indicated that the CBO placements provided additional and distinct affordances for candidates’ pedagogical learning. There is evidence that these activity systems were particularly well suited to facilitate salient learning about certain aspects of literacy pedagogy. These are the themes on which I focus here.

Facilitating text-related talk

Observational data indicated that by the end of the term, the first-quarter candidates were unusually proficient³ at conversing with children as they read books. This was promising, given that building quality conversation around text has been shown to have positive effects on students’ vocabulary growth, reading comprehension, and critical thinking (Beck & McKeown, 2001; Dickinson & Smith, 1994). Margo and Claire reported and demonstrated improvement in facilitating this type of text talk over the quarter.

Early in the placement, when candidates were observed reading with children, they focused mainly on helping children decode words and correcting their miscues. Field notes from later weeks showed that Margo and Claire facilitated much more conversation with children as they read books to and with them. For example, in the 2nd week of the placement, a second-grade student reading with Margo selected a book written in Spanish; Margo said, “I can’t really read that one with you because I won’t know . . . I can’t help you since I don’t speak Spanish.” In the 7th week, she was observed listening to a child reading in Spanish; although it was clear that she did not understand everything in the book, she still seized opportunities for dialogue via asking questions throughout (e.g., “What happened in that part?” “What might happen next?” “Why do you think that?” “Can you tell me about what you’ve read so far?”).

A number of tools from the literacy course and contextual elements from the CBOs seemed to contribute to the candidates’ learning in this area. Course readings (i.e., Nichols, 2006) and practice doing shared readings in a school site were key course-based opportunities for candidates to learn about increasing student talk around text. The read aloud lesson plan was also an important mediating tool. This assignment required candidates to select a book, articulate a content objective, and plan questions and prompts that would scaffold comprehension and build student talk before, during, and after reading. Candidates presented their lesson in a school site, then again at their CBOs, and reflected on their experiences in both settings. This tool shaped the way that candidates approached reading with students at the CBOs. Claire said,

The read aloud made me think more about questions I asked . . . I always tried to do the read aloud the before, middle and after thing with them every day. Not the huge lesson plan we wrote up, but I always try to engage them a little bit more in conversation about it. That was something else I learned was to do that—more than just sit down and read like I did before with the kids.

The amount and quality of text-based discussions improved for Margo and Claire after this assignment, even though they gave disparate reports on their self-efficacy and experiences with the lessons.⁴

Another factor, shaped by the established procedures (rules) of the activity systems, was that candidates simply had time to read with children every day they were in their placements—at least 25 min each session. The division of labor was such that the candidates almost always engaged in one-on-one and small group reading contexts with children, which afforded many opportunities to practice these skills. Margo said,

By the end [of the placement] I knew a lot more about how to help kids read books and every day I was there during reading I would ask them questions about the book throughout, and had them make predictions and stuff. Teacher Gloria and the other teachers did this, too.

This quote points to another contributing factor related to the tools and division of labor of the activity system, which was the modeling done by CBO educators. Staff members at both CBOs, particularly the lead teachers, used strategies before, during, and after reading to support students’ engagement, comprehension, and vocabulary development. This was a model explicitly taught and practiced in the literacy methods class.

A final factor that contributed to candidates’ increased proficiency in this area involved their prolific opportunities to get to know the children at the CBOs. Candidates’ knowledge about children enhanced their capacity to engage students in discussions and connect their experiences with books. I explain this pattern in more detail below, as it relates to the second main theme that surfaced in my analysis on candidates’ pedagogical development.

Leveraging relationships for increased engagement in reading

We already know from existing research that community-based fieldwork, which positions candidates outside some of the well-documented constraints of schools (time, goals, policy pressures, marginalizing histories), can improve candidates’ capacity to form relationships with children and adults from nondominant backgrounds (McDonald et al., 2011; Seidl & Friend, 2002). My analysis builds on these previous findings, showing that in addition to having opportunities to build relationships and learn about children’s lives, candidates placed in CBOs leveraged these rich relationships and knowledge of students in the effort of teaching and learning of literary content and literacy skills.

Above, I noted how candidates’ knowledge of students strengthened their capacity to facilitate educative and engaging conversations about books. Due to the relatively informal structure of the CBO contexts, Margo and Claire had frequent opportunities to engage with children in conversations and inside and outside play in one-on-one and small group situations. During these interactions, they learned information about the students’ families and school experiences as well as information about the students’ personalities and interests. In the text conversations previously described, both candidates were observed making connections between text and information that children had previously shared with them, and asking questions about text that stemmed from their knowledge of children’s lives. For example, while engaged in shared reading, Claire and Abdi, a kindergartner, noted that the characters in the story were playing. Claire asked, “Like you and your brothers. Do you play with your brothers?” This question illustrates Claire’s move to leverage her knowledge about Abdi’s life while engaging him in reading a book. This quote also illustrates how book conversations, in turn, led to increased knowledge about students. Candidates not only drew on their knowledge about students during these conversations, their knowledge about students was actually further developed through them.

Building relationships with adults in the communities also seemed to contribute to candidates’ capacity to engage students in literacy learning. As a monolingual English speaker, Margo was “scared” to meet Spanish-speaking parents initially, but with support from Gloria and tools from the CBO seminar course (e.g., funds of knowledge articles/discussion, strategies for introducing self), she was able to talk to and form relationships with many parents and guardians. Many of her initial interactions with parents occurred when she went to outside community events, such as El Día de Los Niños festivities. She said that these exchanges led to further interactions at La Unidad because parents saw that she was interested in their children and “could be trusted.” Interestingly, many of these interactions involved talk about children’s literacy attitudes and practices. Margo found that information she learned from family members was helpful for her work with students. In one case, a mother told Margo about their “family reading night” when each family member read for a half hour. Margo, in turn, used this knowledge during daily reading time. She wrote,

After I learned about Isabela’s family reading night, I could like ask her about what she was reading at home with her parents and stuff, and could ask her to compare that to the books we were reading together at La Unidad. She always seemed excited about talking about her books after that.

This example is one of many journal entries in which Margo and Claire detailed instances of their growing efficacy in engaging students in literacy learning experiences; they cited their growing expertise about literacy, opportunities to practice, and improved relationships as key factors in their development. Regardless of field situation, we would expect some of these aspects of growth from candidates during preparation due to personal maturation, more focused reflection on teaching and learning, and other course-based learning opportunities; it is important to consider alternative explanations. That said, the CBO settings in this study (and the corresponding ELTEP coursework intended to mediate the CBO fieldwork) seemed to afford especially salient and frequent learning opportunities about the importance of teacher–student relationships in engagement and learning, and the practices related to orchestrating conversations about text.

Discussion

The placements examined in this study brought candidates into contact and shared activity with communities previously unfamiliar to them, and with mediating elements from the CBOs and ELTEP courses shaping their activity, these candidates demonstrated promising conceptual and pedagogical development related to literacy. Findings from this study point to implications not only for literacy (teacher) education but also for elementary teaching and learning as well as teacher education efforts more generally.

Implications for Teaching and Learning

The findings from this study explained above suggest CBO placements hold potential for preparing literacy teachers for urban schools. First, incorporating sociocultural understandings of literacy represents an important development for novice teachers. Considering the meaningful ways in which students engage in literacy across the day—their patterns of participation—better enables teachers to recognize students’ linguistic competence and their competence as users of literacy (Au, 1998; Heath, 1983; Lee, 2007). Teachers’ views of students’ competence are of critical import, as they impact the expectations for students in classrooms, subsequent curricular and instructional decisions, and ultimately students’ outcomes (O’Connor & McCartney, 2007). Furthermore, when teachers recognize a fuller range of students’ linguistic and literacy competence, purposes, and uses, they are more likely to design expansive learning arrangements in which students are engaged in literacy in authentic and relevant ways and for meaningful purposes (Au & Kawakami, 1994; Banks et al., 2005; Gutiérrez et al., 1999).

Candidates’ proficiency in facilitating student talk around text is also a promising development. Involving children in discussion with ample opportunities to be reflective promotes vocabulary development and early reading success (Beck & McKeown, 2001), and candidates were able to practice this important skill for 10 to 15 hr with children of different ages and linguistic backgrounds over the course of their placements. Given the research suggesting that schooling for language-minority students has a heavy emphasis on language-learning and basic decoding skills (Shanahan & Beck, 2006), it is noteworthy that Margo and Claire had so many opportunities to engage linguistically diverse student groups with an instructional emphasis on meaning making and interpretation.

Findings from this study corroborate previous research that links teacher–student relationships to student engagement—which is an ingredient and an outcome of academic success (Lee, 2007; Valenzuela, 1999). Several studies have shown that perceived relationships with teachers are particularly influential on the learning experiences and outcomes of ethnic-minority youth (Kleinfeld, 1972; Ladson-Billings, 1994; Valenzuela, 1999). In a large-scale study of 92 teachers in low-income schools, a number of factors were found to be statistically significant for student reading achievement (Taylor, Pearson, Clark, & Walpole, 2000). Two of these factors were strong student engagement and strong home communication/links to parents—both of which were supported by CBO placements in this study and neither of which are extensively engaged in teacher education efforts (Broussard, 2000).

Assuming a subject-specific focus in community-based fieldwork research allowed for a more specific examination of certain types of candidate learning. An additional, and perhaps even more evocative, affordance is that such a focus enables and compels us to look more squarely and specifically at what placements can mean for certain types of pupil learning—and thereby vet the relevance of community-based preservice efforts in today’s accountability climate. This is in part because the discussion of pupil learning in specific subject or skill areas, such as reading, math, or science, requires a level of specificity not always afforded by discussions of teaching and learning in general or in multicultural education literature. For example, we can think about findings from this and other studies in relationship to the substantial knowledge we have in elementary literacy education literature about factors that correlate with high reading performance in high poverty classrooms and schools (i.e., Taylor et al., 2000). Holding up research findings on community-based teacher education to this kind of existing knowledge can in turn help us theorize about the potential placements’ hold for eventual student outcomes.

Implications for Teacher Education Programs

Findings from this study also highlight organizational implications for programs and teacher educators who are involved, or who are considering involvement, with community-based placements. Lessons learned from this study apply well beyond literacy teacher education efforts. Specifically, this research engages and informs perennial issues inherent to orchestrating field placements of all sorts: site selection and mediation.

Site selection

A number of components of the two CBO activity systems were found to be influential for candidate learning; this can inform the selection of placement sites for programs aiming to foster similar outcomes. Both La Unidad and Community Village were well-established organizations in their respective communities; they had leaders who were deeply trusted by parents and families, and they both mainly served bilingual and ethnic-minority children. Language and literacy flourished in the activity systems of these CBOs. Much literacy activity was shared among the community of older and younger children and adults, and was leveraged toward key social goals. Both sites had at least one educator on staff who ascribed to and modeled a number of strategies known to make a difference for children’s literacy development, and who successfully appropriated a teacher educator role by articulating their practices. Both CBOs included literacy work in the programming in terms of resources, focused time, allocated space, and expectations. This commitment to student literacy learning is increasingly common among CBOs due to current funding stipulations. This means that La Unidad and Community Village were not outliers in this respect.

The differences between the two contexts, such as the role of home language and parent involvement, provided for different opportunities. Both Claire and Margo worked with mainly bilingual children, yet the official bilingual structure at La Unidad likely led to Margo’s frequent reflections and questions about language. In contrast, language issues were only occasionally mentioned by Claire. In addition, Margo had more experiences interacting directly with families, which was instrumental to her learning at La Unidad. Her CBO placement, including Gloria’s expertise and guidance, gave access to extra opportunities to meet families outside of school. Margo’s experiences suggest that some of the most valuable learning for candidates might require crossing yet another boundary: from the CBO into other community events or institutions. The variation between CBO sites mirrors the well-documented variation that exists among school placements in teacher education (Darling-Hammond, 2006). As with school placements, research describing likely sources of variation can aid teacher educators as they conceptualize efforts to mediate these experiences.

CHAT was a helpful analytic tool for understanding the CBO contexts and learning opportunities. I argue that in addition to serving as a tool for research, the CHAT framework can be used as a tool for site evaluation/selection. For example, individuals who are exploring potential CBO placement sites might identify particular rules, communities, tools, and division of labor paradigms that contribute to the kinds of opportunities to learn that are desired for candidates. This study illuminates several factors to consider (See Table 1), but more case study research is needed to build and refine an index of contextual components that show promise for facilitating particular kinds of candidate learning, including learning in other disciplines.

Designing mediation

Findings from this study also shed light on course-based mediation considerations for programs. First, they reaffirm the need for coordination and collaboration between teacher education faculty and community-based educators (Zeichner, 2010). The example of candidates’ enhanced learning about engaging children in talk around text illustrates the power and potential when there are common goals, modeling, and opportunities to practice across sites. In this case, there was not a negotiated or coordinated effort between literacy methods faculty and CBO staff to collectively focus on this aspect of instruction. This mirrors previous research on fieldwork in schools and reflects the incidental nature of course-based mediation that is so common (Darling-Hammond, 2006). Regardless, we can learn from the example to understand the conceptual and structural conditions that contribute to powerful mediation and learning opportunities for candidates in community-based placements.

It is also useful to look at instances of missed opportunities in course-field connections. Data from this study suggest there were times when candidates encountered aspects of literacy instruction in only one setting, and without further opportunities to engage with the concept, came away with limited understandings. For example, Margo’s placement in a bilingual setting provided a multitude of experiences with Spanish and English language. Yet several of her responses suggested that she held some misconceptions about language acquisition and second language literacy learning. Candidates in this program eventually received substantial instruction about these concepts in the following quarters of ELL coursework, but this example highlights what might be gained by basing curriculum planning on the unique affordances of community-based field experiences and CBO activity systems. Specifically, are there particular concepts that faculty should teach during the community-based field experiences that support and potentially expand learning for candidates? Given, for example, that most partner CBOs served a large number of language-minority pupils—with higher concentrations of ELL students than nearly all the partner schools—it is conceivable that learning about language acquisition concurrently to the CBO work could have supported Margo and other candidate’s opportunities and understandings.

It is interesting to note that the community-based placements in this program, like similar innovations in the literature, were established in the effort to improve dispositional learning and designed to generally prepare candidates to work successfully with students in diverse urban schools. However, because the ELTEP faculty made a collective decision to connect all the courses to a central field experience, opportunities for methods connections with the community-based work were heightened. As findings from this study denote, candidates’ social foundations learning and methods learning came together in interesting ways in these placements. Goals that are so often balkanized in teacher education programs, and again balkanized in research, were integrated: Candidates had opportunities to learn about diverse groups of children and their lives, and to learn about skill/subject-area content and instruction.

Next Steps for Research

Given our limited knowledge about candidates’ learning—particularly disciplinary learning—in community-based placements, this study contributes much-needed empirical findings. This research contributes to the scholarly exploration of what contexts and experiences are “educative” (Dewey, 1938) for preservice teachers as they learn to teach in general and learn to teach literacy in diverse urban contexts. A small sample size was necessary to achieve the desired depth of information about each placement in this study; thus, more case study research is needed on a wide range of placements in community-based settings to give a clearer picture of the opportunities different contexts present.

Because existing knowledge about these unique types of placements is so limited, I made a decision to use a design and analytical framework that (a) focused on contextual components more so than individuals’ identities, decisions, and motivations and (b) assumed a scope focused on the CBO placement experiences themselves, and not on long-term teaching experiences. Further research that emphasizes identity and subjectivity is needed to explore variation among candidates (e.g., McDonald et al., in press). Longitudinal perspectives would also be valuable. This study contributes to the field’s understanding of local opportunities tied to candidates’ experiences in CBO placements, which can be helpful when conceptualizing how to investigate long-term impact for candidates and their pupils. Because this research highlights what potentially formative disciplinary learning opportunities live in out-of-school placements, it highlights questions to ask of longitudinal efforts—eventually including, perhaps, a large-scale comparative effort that can more effectively identify learning differences between cohorts that have community-based field placements and those that do not. The examination of other disciplinary learning in areas such as math, science, social studies, and/or art could and should be included in these efforts.

Responding to research, U.S. teacher education programs are currently aiming to facilitate more field experiences for candidates (Darling-Hammond, 2006). At the same time, many schools faced with heightened pressures are less willing to host preservice interns (especially, in grade levels preparing to take high-stakes tests). These incongruous trends may result in an increase of placements outside of school in the upcoming years. Given this situation and the benefits demonstrated in this study, further research of preservice content and pedagogical learning (in addition to dispositional learning) in community-based placements is timely and warranted.

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) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Research is funded in part by the Ford Foundation.

Notes

About the Author

Kate Brayko, PhD, is an assistant professor at the University of Montana. Her teaching and research focus on improving literacy learning opportunities for students whose communities have historically been underserved in the U.S. education system; she views teacher education as a critical component in this effort. In her most recent research, she investigates children’s language and literacy resources outside of school, and explores how these resources can be leveraged in ways that boost literacy learning. Her work has also been published in Teachers College Record.

References

K. H.

(1998). Social constructivism and the school literacy learning of students of diverse backgrounds. Journal of Literacy Research, 20, 207-319.

K. H.

Kawakami

(1994). Cultural congruence in instruction. In Hollins

E. R.

King

J. E.

Hayman

(Eds.), Teaching diverse populations: Formulating a knowledge base (pp. 5-23). Albany: State University of New York Press.

K. H.

Mason

J. M.

(1981). Social organizational factors in learning of reading: The balance of rights hypothesis. Reading Research Quarterly, 17(1), 115-152.

Banks

Cochran-Smith

Moll

Richert

Zeichner

LePage

, & Teaching Diverse Learners. (2005). Teaching diverse learners. In Darling-Hammond

Bransford

(Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 232-274). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Barton

D. M.

Hamilton

Ivanic

(2000). Situated literacies: Reading and writing in context. London, England: Routledge.

Beck

McKeown

(2001). Text talk: Capturing the benefits of read aloud experiences for young children. Reading Teacher, 55(1), 10-20.

Bondy

Davis

(2000). The caring of strangers: Insights from a field experience in a culturally unfamiliar community. Action in Teacher Education, 22, 54-66.

Boyle-Baise

(1998). Community service learning for multicultural education: An exploratory study with preservice teachers. Equity & Excellence in Education, 31(2), 52-60.

Bronfenbrenner

(1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

10.

Broussard

C. A.

(2000). Preparing teachers to work with families: A national survey of teacher education programs. Equity & Excellence in Education, 33(2), 41-49.

11.

Burant

T. J.

Kirby

(2002). Beyond classroom-based early field experiences: Understanding an “educative practicum” in an urban school and community. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(5), 561-575.

12.

Darling-Hammond

(2006). Powerful teacher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

13.

Dewey

(1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

14.

Dickinson

D. K.

Smith

M. W.

(1994). Long-term effects of preschool book readings on low-income children’s vocabulary and story comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 29, 104-122.

15.

Engeström

(2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133-156.

16.

Flowers

Patterson

Stratemeyer

Lindsey

(1948). School and community laboratory experiences in teacher education. Oneonta, NY: American Association of Teachers College.

17.

Gallego

(2001). Is experience the best teacher? The potential of coupling classroom and community-based field experiences. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(4), 312-325.

18.

Gallego

Hollingsworth

(1992). Research directions: Multiple literacies: Teachers’ evolving perceptions. Language Arts, 69, 206-213.

19.

Gallego

Malenka

(1995). La Clase Mágica and conventional classrooms: Developing conceptions of language, learning and literacy (Julian Samora Working Paper Series). East Lansing, MI: Julian Samora Research Institute.

20.

Grossman

Hammerness

McDonald

(2009). Redefining teaching, Re-imagining teacher education. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 15(2), 273-289.

21.

Grossman

Smagorinsky

Valencia

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

22.

Gutiérrez

K. D.

Baquedano-López

Tejéda

(1999). Rethinking diversity: Hybridity and hybrid language practices in the Third Space. Mind, Culture and Activity, 6(4), 286-303.

23.

Heath

S. B.

(1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

24.

Hull

Schultz

(2001). Literacy and learning out of school: A review of theory and research. Review of Educational Research, 71, 575-612.

25.

Kleinfeld

J. S.

(1972). Effective teachers of Indian and Eskimo high school students (ISEGR Report No. 34). Fairbanks, AK: Institute of Social, Economic and Government Research, University of Alaska.

26.

Ladson-Billings

(1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers for African-American children. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

27.

Lee

(2007). Culture, literacy, and learning: Taking bloom in the midst of the whirlwind. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

28.

Malenka

(1994). A preservice teacher’s developing conceptions of multiple literacies and literacy instruction: The case of Sarah (Research Report No. 8). East Lansing, MI: Julian Samora Research Institute.

29.

McDonald

Brayko

Bowman

(in press). Learning to see students: Opportunities to develop relational practices of teaching through community-based placements in teacher education. Teachers College Record.

30.

McDonald

Tyson

Brayko

Bowman

Delport

Shimomura

(2011). Innovation and impact in teacher education: Community-based organizations as field placements for preservice teachers. Teachers College Record, 113(8), 1668-1700.

31.

Miles

M. B.

Huberman

A. M.

(1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

32.

Nichols

(2006). Comprehension through conversation. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

33.

O’Connor

McCartney

(2007). Examining teacher-child relationships and achievement as part of an ecological model of development. American Educational Research Journal, 44(2), 340-369.

34.

Patton

Silva

Myers

(1999). Teachers and family literacy: Bridging theory to practice. Journal of Teacher Education, 50(2), 140-146.

35.

Seidl

Friend

(2002). Leaving authority at the door: Equal-status community-based experiences and the preparation of teachers for diverse classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(4), 421-433.

36.

Shanahan

Beck

(2006). Effective literacy teaching for English-language learners. In August

Shanahan

(Eds.), Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on language minority children and youth (pp. 415-488). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

37.

Sleeter

C. E.

(2001). Preparing white teachers for diversity: Research and the overwhelming presence of whiteness. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(2), 94.

38.

Sleeter

C. E.

(2008). Preparing White teachers for diverse students. In Cochran-Smith

Feiman-Nemser

McIntyre

D. J.

Demers

K. E.

(Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring questions in changing contexts (3rd ed., pp. 559-582). New York, NY: Routledge.

39.

Taylor

B. M.

Pearson

P. D.

Clark

Walpole

(2000). Effective schools and accomplished teachers: Lessons about primary-grade reading instruction in low-income schools. Elementary School Journal, 101, 121-165.

40.

Valenzuela

(1999). Subtractive schooling: U.S.-Mexican youth and the politics of caring. Albany: State University of New York Press.

41.

Wolf

Ballentine

Hill

(2000). “Only connect!”: Cross-cultural connections in the reading lives of preservice teachers and children. Journal of Literacy Research, 32(4), 533-569.

42.

Yin

R. K.

(2003). Designing case studies. Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

43.

Zeichner

(2010). Rethinking the connection between campus courses and field experiences in college and university-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 61, 1-11.

44.

Zeichner

Melnick

(1996). The role of community field experiences in preparing teachers for cultural diversity. In Zeichner

Melnick

Gomez

M. L.

(Eds.), Currents of reform in preservice teacher education (pp. 176-196). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.