Delving Deeper Into the Construct of Preservice Teacher Beliefs About Reading Instruction for Students With Disabilities

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to complete an in-depth examination of the construct of teacher beliefs by investigating preservice teachers’ beliefs about reading instruction for students with disabilities. Interview and artifact data were collected for 11 preservice teachers during a 10-month period. Dimensions of beliefs investigated were expressed beliefs and beliefs-in-use, the stability of beliefs, and sources of beliefs. Results indicate that preservice teachers’ beliefs systems are complex, made up of enduring, deeply rooted expressed beliefs as well as beliefs-in-use that are highly dependent on discipline-specific working knowledge. These beliefs are not the same in how they are formed or sustained; thus, an implication of this study’s findings is that researchers and teacher educators be more specific and explicit when describing studies of preservice teacher beliefs. Additional implications for future research and practice regarding the relationship between teacher beliefs and teacher education are provided.

Keywords

teacher beliefs preservice teacher reading instruction students with disabilities

For decades, teacher education researchers have investigated relationships among teachers’ beliefs, learning, knowledge, and instructional practices. Across the expanse of literature, several conclusions have amassed strong empirical support. Beliefs form early and are difficult to change, particularly for adults (Lortie, 1975; Nespor, 1987; Pajares, 1992). Beliefs act as filters through which new information and experiences are interpreted (Calderhead & Robson, 1991; Hollingsworth, 1989; Richardson, 2003). Beliefs affect behavior and how an individual organizes knowledge (Hollingsworth, 1989; Rokeach, 1968; Windschitl & Sahl, 2002). Beliefs about teaching come from personal experience, experiences with schooling and instruction, and experiences with formal knowledge (Grisham, 2000; Lanier & Little, 1986; Richardson, 1996).

Preservice Teachers Beliefs

Research has also consistently shown that preservice teachers’ entering beliefs tend to be overly simplistic, optimistic, and grounded in a transmission view of knowledge from teacher to student (Lortie, 1975; Richardson, 1996). Where research findings become muddled is regarding the role preservice teacher education plays in changing prospective teachers’ beliefs. Research findings are mixed as to whether teacher education programs can mold or change preservice teachers’ beliefs (Hall, 2005; Richardson, 2003). Some studies demonstrate that preservice teachers’ beliefs can shift, and their conceptions of teaching can expand during a teacher education course or program (Donahue, 2000; Feiman-Nemser, McDiarmid, Melnick, & Parker, 1989; Garmon, 2004; Grisham, 2000). Change, however, is not uniform for all preservice teachers with some researchers finding preservice teachers’ beliefs changed, while others’ stayed the same (Anderson, Smith, & Peasley, 2000; Borko & Mayfield, 1995; Hollingsworth, 1989). Within these studies, researchers noted that differences in the degree to which the preservice teachers’ beliefs changed were most likely due to the strength of incoming beliefs (Richardson, 2003). Still other researchers found that preservice teachers’ beliefs did not shift or change as a result of teacher preparation programs (McDiarmid, 1992; O’Brien & Stewart, 1990). The discrepancies among studies are most likely due to a number of factors including when the studies were conducted—after one course versus after student teaching—how the changes were measured, and the scope of beliefs investigated (i.e., changes to overall philosophies of teaching vs. small pedagogical changes). Experts note two reasons why extensive and substantial belief change may not occur during teacher preparation programs: (a) preparation programs are relatively short and (b) there may not be enough opportunity to reconcile propositional and practical knowledge (Clift & Brady, 2005; Richardson, 2003; Wideen, Mayer-Smith, & Moon, 1998). In studies in which change did occur, it was almost always in the context of practical teaching experiences.

The discrepancies in the literature warrant continued research on the topic of preservice teacher beliefs. Such research is important because as Pajares (1992) stated, “unexplored entering beliefs may be responsible for the perpetuation of antiquated and ineffectual teaching practices” (p. 328). Richardson (2003) asserted that preservice teachers bring beliefs to the teacher preparation context that influence “what and how they learn” (p. 105). Finally, beliefs play a role in future actions (Hollingsworth, 1989; Richardson, 2003). To create preparation programs that are responsive to the needs of preservice teachers, a necessary first step is to understand the beliefs preservice teachers bring to the preparation context. In carrying out such work, experts recommend research that is grounded in specific disciplines (Zeichner, 2005). In this study, we investigated preservice teachers’ beliefs about reading for students with disabilities with our reasons being twofold. First, the poor reading achievement of students with disabilities has been and continues to be a pernicious and long-standing dilemma as the most recent data indicate that 68% of fourth graders and 62% of eight graders with disabilities read below a basic level (National Center for Education Statistics, 2011). Second, states’ adoption of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) has heightened academic expectations for all students, including those with disabilities. The need for strong reading skills permeates the CCSS across grade levels and content areas, so that students are “college and career ready in literacy” (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010). Thus, the need to prepare preservice teachers to deliver high-quality reading instruction to students with disabilities has never been timelier. Below, we review the literature on in-service teacher beliefs about reading, followed by research on preservice teacher beliefs about reading.

Situating the Study in Reading

Research on general education teachers and their reading beliefs mirrors many of the findings from the broader scholarship on teacher beliefs, particularly that beliefs act as filters for new information and influence individuals’ actions (Fang, 1996). More than 30 years ago, Harste and Burke (1977) found that teachers make decisions about reading instruction based on their beliefs or theoretical orientations. DeFord (1985) developed the Theoretical Orientation to Reading Profile (TORP) instrument, which was found to have a strong relationship with teachers’ observed reading practices. In their study of teacher practices in reading, Richardson, Anders, Tidwell, and Lloyd (1991) found that teachers’ practices concerning reading instruction could be predicted from interviews about their beliefs. Finally, in their study of teachers’ implementation of the Success For All reading program, Datnow and Castellano (2000) found that teachers’ beliefs about reading instruction and whether or not the program benefited students influenced teachers’ implementation and continued use of the program.

Special Education Teacher Beliefs About Reading Instruction

Research centered at the intersection of teacher beliefs, reading instruction, and special education support conclusions derived from the general education reading research literature but also bring forth hidden complexities that characterize special education contexts. In their survey of teachers of students with severe disabilities, Ruppar, Dymond, and Gaffney (2011) found that “what teachers believed should be taught was influenced by where they taught” (p. 108). Specifically, teachers in inclusive settings more strongly believed that all students can benefit from literacy instruction compared with teachers in special education classrooms. Moreover, teachers in

integrated schools were significantly more likely to rate interventions related to the general education curriculum highly, such as high-frequency sight words, defining words, answering comprehension questions about a fictional story, and spelling vocabulary words from textbooks than teachers in segregated schools. (p. 105)

Two qualitative case studies of teachers of students with severe disabilities examined the relationship between teachers’ beliefs and literacy practices and decision-making process. Ruppar (2011) developed a grounded theory of influences on special education teachers’ decisions about literacy instruction for students with severe disabilities. A finding related to the present study was that an important driving force behind how teachers managed their instructional contexts and made literacy decisions was their beliefs about students with disabilities, teaching, and learning, with a particular emphasis on teachers’ belief in individualization. Roberts (2013) studied teachers’ identity formation and how it relates to their literacy instruction. Findings indicate that what teachers believed the term literacy meant for students with severe disabilities was an important differentiating factor in the teachers’ literacy practices. Like findings from Ruppar et al. (2011), Roberts found that teachers’ beliefs were related to the setting in which they taught. Finally, contextual barriers (e.g., lack of time, resources, or opportunities for collaboration) often interfered with teachers being able to implement their ideal models of literacy instruction. One group of researchers attempted to circumvent the effects of contextual barriers that might interfere with teachers delivering reading instruction based on their beliefs by asking teachers to self-report their preferred instructional practices. In this study, Cunningham, Zibulsky, Stanovich, and Stanovich (2009) also compared the reading beliefs of general education and special education teachers and found that special education teachers believed in more explicit, skill-based instruction as opposed to unstructured independent reading.

Preservice Teacher Beliefs About Reading

In the area of reading teacher education, Risko and her colleagues (2008) conducted an analysis of the literature published from 1990 to 2006. They reviewed 82 studies and found that 23 (28%) of the studies examined prospective teachers’ beliefs about reading instruction. From this review, the authors made several conclusions about the state of the literature on preservice teachers’ beliefs about reading instruction, including (a) preservice teachers’ beliefs about reading instruction seem to be mediated by teacher preparation coursework and experiences; (b) despite mixed findings about the intractability of preservice teachers’ beliefs, studies have shown that explicit teaching practices—modeling, practical teaching opportunities, focused feedback—can be catalysts for changes in preservice teachers’ beliefs; (c) the limited duration of most studies (one semester) brings into question the durability of beliefs; and (d) much of the research on reading teacher education fails to account for the complexity that characterizes preservice teacher beliefs. Risko and her colleagues expressed concern that the bulk of the studies viewed beliefs as static, stable, and overly simplistic constructs.

Special Education Preservice Teacher Beliefs About Reading

Risko et al. (2008) found only four studies that examined reading teacher preparation in a special education certification program and of those only one examined issues related to special education preservice teachers’ beliefs. Results of this study indicated that special education preservice teachers adopted positive beliefs about the utility of curriculum-based measures (CBMs) in reading following an in-class presentation (Foegen, Espin, Allinder, & Markell, 2001). Since the publication of Risko and colleagues’ review, we found one additional study on reading and preservice teachers enrolled in a special education preparation program. Leko and Brownell (2011) studied influences on special education preservice teachers’ appropriation of pedagogical tools for teaching reading to students with disabilities. In terms of preservice teachers’ beliefs, the opportunity to appropriate knowledge in a practicum was the most influential factor, whether their beliefs about reading for students with disabilities remained the same or changed.

Results of studies on preservice teacher beliefs about struggling readers and students with disabilities both from Risko et al.’s (2008) review and from studies published since then indicated that preservice teachers adopted more positive beliefs about the capabilities of struggling readers when asked to interpret informal assessment data for struggling readers and then plan instruction or after completing an one-on-one tutoring experience with a struggling reader (e.g., Mallette, Kile, Smith, McKinney, & Readence, 2000; Mora & Grisham, 2001; Wolf, Ballentine, & Hill, 2000; Worthy & Patterson, 2001; Zeller, Griffith, Zhang, & Klenke, 2010). Like other beliefs studies, however, change was not evident for all participants. These studies lend support for the conclusion that preservice teachers adopt more positive views about struggling readers when presented with targeted, practical experiences working with struggling readers. There are, however, deeper issues needing to be explored regarding why some preservice teachers’ beliefs did not change, which beliefs in particular were affected, and whether the changes lasted beyond one semester.

To move research forward, reading teacher educators must acquire a deeper understanding of the term beliefs, including various categories of beliefs, how these categories form and evolve over time, and the extent to which preservice teachers draw on these beliefs in various contexts and situations. In particular, the field needs more research on preservice teachers’ beliefs about students with disabilities, as well as those including preservice teachers in special education teacher education programs.

Espoused Beliefs and Beliefs-in-Use

We attempted to respond to several of the research needs identified by Risko and her colleagues (2008) and our own review of the literature. First, we tried to disaggregate the broad term beliefs by examining two subtypes of beliefs—expressed beliefs and beliefs-in-use. These constructs were first introduced by Argyris and Schon (1974). Within their theory of professional practice, the authors identify two subtheories: espoused theories of action and theories-in-use. According to Argyris and Schon, espoused theories of action are those that individuals state allegiance to when directly asked, whereas theories-in-use are those that guide individuals’ actions.

Within the field of teacher education, several scholars have investigated distinctions between these two subtheories. Shkedi and Laron (2004) conducted a case study of 16 student teachers’ beliefs and practices during two different practicum experiences. In the first practicum experience, the student teachers taught informal seminars, whereas the second experience was more formal and reflective of traditional schooling experiences. The authors found that when situated in the informal teaching experience the student teachers’ beliefs-in-use were idealistic, but when placed in “regular teaching” roles, the student teachers’ beliefs-in-use became more pragmatic. Shkedi and Laron concluded that the student teachers’ beliefs-in-use did not change but instead reflect a strong tie to particular educational modes (i.e., informal vs. formal). This study supports the position that beliefs-in-use are contingent upon specific contexts, and therefore apparent changes in beliefs should be evaluated in relation to any changes in context. Savasci and Berlin (2012) conducted a case study of four in-service science teachers. Although all of the teachers’ espoused beliefs reflected a constructivist approach to teaching science, their beliefs-in-use did not. The teachers, though wishing they could implement more of their espoused beliefs, stated that contextual conditions such as grade level, accountability demands, and student behavior and motivation influenced their beliefs-in-use and ultimately their teaching practices more so than their espoused beliefs.

Finally, Feiker Hollenbeck (2013) studied the comprehension beliefs and practices of a special educator for students with learning disabilities (LDs). Although the teacher expressed beliefs about holding instructional responsibility for students’ progress, her instructional practices (i.e., beliefs-in-use) did not align with these views, because she also held the belief that reading comprehension progress was developmental and highly dependent on text complexity as opposed to instructional practices.

Drawing from Argyris and Schon (1974) and the extant literature reviewed above, we define expressed beliefs as those that individuals profess in the absence of practice or action. Expressed beliefs are often framed as broad generalizations devoid of context. For example, asking someone, “What are your beliefs about reading instruction for students with disabilities?” would draw on that individual’s expressed beliefs. Beliefs-in-use, however, are beliefs that individuals draw upon as they make decisions and plan and execute instruction. These beliefs are tied to specific contexts and situations and can be thought of as “beliefs in the happening” (Risko et al., 2008, p. 264).

In this study, we also investigated the malleability of preservice teachers’ beliefs. Specifically, we investigated which beliefs were stable versus malleable over time and the conditions that led to any apparent changes. The research questions guiding this study were as follows:

Research Question 1: What are preservice teachers’ expressed beliefs and beliefs-in-use regarding reading instruction for students with disabilities and how do these two categories of beliefs relate?

Research Question 2: Which beliefs seem to be stable or deeply rooted (i.e., do not change over time or context) versus malleable?

Research Question 3: What factors influence preservice teachers’ beliefs? Answers to these questions will help teacher educators and researchers better understand the complexities underlying special education preservice teacher beliefs?

With this deeper understanding, our hope is that teacher educators can craft special education preparation programs that take into account the ways preservice teachers’ beliefs play a part in them.

Method

As our goal was to conduct an in-depth examination of preservice teachers’ beliefs about reading instruction for students with disabilities, we used qualitative methods (Patton, 2002). Qualitative methods are useful when attempting to describe and explain phenomenon, particularly as they occur in lived experiences. Furthermore, they enable researchers to construct comprehensive, detailed, and holistic accounts of that which is being questioned (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000; Merriam, 1995).

Positionality

When using qualitative methods, researchers are an integral part of both data collection and analysis; thus, it is important to situate oneself within the context of the research study (Patton, 2002). Of particular importance is explicitly stating theoretical underpinnings and bringing forth potential biases and hidden assumptions, as this promotes credibility (Brantlinger, Jimenez, Klingner, Pugach, & Richardson, 2005; Patton, 2002).

We approached this study from a constructivist perspective. Tenets of this perspective are that there are multiple realities that are socially constructed (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000). A researcher’s task is to understand and interpret participants’ construction of the world. We are all special education teacher educators, researchers, and former classroom teachers. We believe that reading instruction for students with disabilities should be systematic, explicit, intensive, and centered on the five areas of reading (phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension; National Reading Panel, 2000). Moreover, it should be aligned with evidence-based practices and individualized based on students’ needs. We believe in including students with disabilities in general education classrooms to the maximum extent possible and work to help teachers and students view diversity and disability from a strength-based as opposed to deficit-based perspective.

Furthermore, we believe that high-quality teacher education does make a difference in the quality of reading instruction students receive. When crafting such preparation programs teacher educators cannot discount preservice teachers’ beliefs and the potential influence they hold on teacher learning and practice.

Participants and Setting

The participants (all identified with pseudonyms) were 11 female special education preservice teachers in their early 20s (10 White, 1 Black). They completed their teacher preparation program at a large Midwestern state university that enrolled approximately 42,500 students. The preservice teachers were in either the first or second semester of their junior year, and at the start of the study, were enrolled in a special education reading methods course taught by the first author in the spring semester. Participation in the research study was strictly voluntary. There was a total of 16 students (15 White females, 1 Black female) in the course; thus, 5 students did not elect to participate. The only apparent commonality among the students who chose not to participate was that they said they did not have time in their schedules to complete the interviews.

The reading course focused on evidence-based reading practices for students with LDs and emotional and behavioral disabilities (EBDs). The course met once a week for 3 hours and was comprised of instructor led lectures, whole class discussions, small group discussions, and practical learning opportunities. For example, students practiced administering reading assessments, delivering intervention strategies, evaluating curricular materials, creating lesson plans, and developing Individualized Education Program (IEP) goals and accommodations. Course assignments included quizzes on assigned readings, written journal entries designed to foster reflection about reading instruction, a research paper and presentation, and a case study on a struggling reader. Prior to taking the reading methods course for students with disabilities, the preservice teachers completed one general education reading methods course as well as multiple special education methods courses.

Data Sources

We collected data from multiple sources over the course of two semesters (spring and fall), roughly a 10-month period.

Interviews

We completed semi-structured interviews to ascertain the preservice teachers’ expressed beliefs and beliefs-in-use 3 times over the course of two semesters. The interviews took place in January/February, May, and October. By following our participants into the fall semester, we were further able to answer questions about the stability versus malleability of beliefs and how beliefs change over time and under what circumstances. Extending our study’s time frame was important as the majority (53%) of the studies reviewed by Risko et al. (2008) occurred within only one semester. All interviews were audio-recorded and then transcribed verbatim. Interviews lasted between 25 and 50 minutes.

To understand the preservice teachers’ expressed beliefs, we included global questions such as (a) What do you believe makes high-quality reading instruction for students with disabilities? or (b) What do you believe is important for teachers to consider when planning instruction for students with disabilities? To ascertain their beliefs-in-use, we presented them with reading instruction vignettes and video segments of instruction and asked them to comment on the instruction. We also gave them profiles of students exhibiting reading difficulties and asked them describe how they would plan and implement reading instruction for such students. Although these sources required us, at times, to make inferences about the preservice teachers’ beliefs, making inferences are what experts judge to be an inevitable way to ascertain beliefs (Pajares, 1992).

It should be noted that conducting observations of the participants’ instruction would have also tapped into their beliefs-in-use, but there are limitations to incorporating this data source at the preservice level. First, as preservice teachers in a practicum experience, the study participants had little control over the planning and implementation of reading instruction. Observations, therefore, were likely to provide us with more insight into cooperating teachers’ beliefs or constraints of the context. Second, the practicum experiences in which the preservice teachers were placed had varying characteristics with some providing more opportunities for preservice teachers to deliver reading instruction compared with others. In our case, the use of vignettes, journal prompts, and preselected video samples provided us with more methodological control.

Artifacts

Artifacts were another data source that helped us examine the preservice teachers’ expressed beliefs versus beliefs-in-use. One artifact was journal entries in which the preservice teachers responded to open-ended questions that elicited their beliefs about reading instruction for students with disabilities. Some of the prompts elicited general beliefs about the reading process, whereas others elicited beliefs-in-use as they required the preservice teachers to respond to practically based scenarios situated in particular contexts. The preservice teachers completed six journal entries spaced apart equally across the spring semester. We chose to incorporate journal entries because they have been shown to be an effective way for preservice teachers to analyze, refine, and then articulate their beliefs (Stuart & Thurlow, 2000). Another way we elicited participants’ expressed beliefs was by having them complete a concept map on the general term reading instruction. Finally, we collected practically based assignments such as lesson plans that students completed in the reading course and used them as evidence of the preservice teachers’ beliefs-in-use.

Data Analysis

To analyze the data, we used a collaborative, team approach to coding and interpretation of themes. We drew on coding processes espoused by Miles and Huberman (1994) to conduct inductive analyses within and across participants. To start, each member of the research team took the lead on assigning descriptive codes to all interview and journal entry data for two or three of the participant cases. Team members also completed memoing for the additional artifact data (i.e., lesson plans and concept maps). Then, team members completed inferential coding by searching for data segments that represented broader categories of codes. During this step, team members asked what and how questions in relation to the research questions to help elucidate possible themes for each participant.

After completing inferential coding, the research team began cross-case analyses by comparing inferential codes and emerging themes across the 11 participants. During multiple group meetings, team members presented summaries of the central themes for each preservice teacher case. This allowed us to compare and contrast themes across the sample and identify negative evidence. The lead author compiled all of the inferential codes in an excel spreadsheet, which was then used in our pattern coding. To complete pattern coding and our explanatory thematic analyses, we grouped the inferential codes in multiple ways according to the different research questions. For example, we examined the data and grouped codes according to stimuli eliciting expressed beliefs or beliefs-in-use (i.e., vignettes vs. global interview questions). We also grouped codes across time points to examine potential changes in beliefs over time. The final step was to write the themes and select representative quotes and data samples.

Promoting Trustworthiness and Credibility

We took several steps to promote trustworthiness and credibility. As mentioned above, we met as a team regularly and engaged in peer debriefing. These group discussions helped us remain reflexive in our interpretations of the data (Patton, 2002) and allowed us to maintain analytical flexibility by encouraging multiple interpretations of the data. The cross-case analyses allowed us to triangulate data across participants, and we also triangulated data across sources (i.e., interviews and artifacts). During each meeting, one team member took notes on our processes, decisions, and actions. These notes, in conjunction with memos, individual participant case summaries, and excel code sheets resulted in an audit trail. Finally, as mentioned previously we searched for negative evidence (Brantlinger et al., 2005).

Findings

In the following sections, we present our findings related to preservice teachers’ expressed beliefs and beliefs-in-use, the stability versus malleability of preservice teachers’ beliefs, and the factors that influenced their beliefs.

Expressed Beliefs

When asked to draw on their expressed beliefs about reading instruction for students with disabilities, the majority of participants emphasized the concepts of student affect, role of families, individualization, and approaches to reading instruction. Although the preservice teachers included some ideas about approaches to reading instruction, as is presented below, their beliefs were most often general without specific references to reading instructional practices.

Student affect

The ideas most emphasized by the preservice teachers related to student affect around reading. Preservice teachers believed that reading instruction should be fun, interesting, and motivating for students. Kayla said, “You have to make it fun for kids.” Similarly, Leslie explained, “They [students] have to find it fun and enjoyable so that they want to read.” Preservice teachers’ journal entries provide further support. In Journal Number 1, Mary wrote, “I think that motivation plays an essential role in reading instruction for students with disabilities. A student will achieve more and progress forward if they are motivated to try and work hard.” One preservice teacher, Leslie, went a little deeper in her first journal entry. She wrote,

From past experiences I have learned that kids with disabilities often feel discouraged and down about their reading difficulties, meaning they approach the subject with anxiety. By consistently reinforcing students for their efforts, however, these feelings of doubt and shame eventually dissipate. Thus, I believe it is crucial to constantly remind students with disabilities that they do in fact, have the power to learn to read.

Preservice teachers did not provide many specific details on how to make reading fun and motivating other than providing interesting reading materials to students, even though within the reading methods course we discussed specific ways of motivating students with disabilities to engage in reading instruction. During Interview 1, Emma said, “So the kids have to be reading interesting material and stuff like that.” While in her first journal entry Lynn wrote that “introducing new stories for my students to get excited about is a great way to encourage reading.”

Role of families

Preservice teachers believed that reading instruction for students with disabilities should begin at home with parents reading to their children and making books available. During her first interview, Leslie said,

I’m the youngest of three kids so I have older sisters and I would always have a ton of books around. I just remember being really young and picking them up and just kind of looking through them and not being able to read yet. But my older sisters were both big into reading so they would read to me a lot. And I think a lot of it was I started memorizing books and then just having to put the pieces together. So I think a lot of it started at home before I even like started preschool or anything like that.

During her second interview, Darla recalled, “I remember my grandma always making me read even if I didn’t know some words she would help me out as best as she could.” In her first journal entry, Rachel wrote, “I believe that reading begins at home. I do not expect parents to teach their children how to read but I would hope that they spend time reading to them and exposing them to reading in some fashion.”

When talking about families, three preservice teachers spoke about how they believed that it was important for instruction to be culturally sensitive and take into account students’ cultural capital—ideas emphasized across the entire teacher preparation program. In Interview 1, Mary said, “I think things like cultural differences are important. Like with ESL learners, taking advantage of what they already know, maybe in their home language or applying it to what they’re newly learning.” During Interview 2, Bonnie said,

They [teachers] need to really be conscious of each student’s home environment because each student was raised with different experiences in reading. Their social, their cultural background and to have an idea of things they might be interested in or how their family or their culture value reading and what’s useful in their cultural context.

Individualization

Preservice teachers emphasized a few general instructional principles when describing reading instruction for students with disabilities. The ideas cited most often were instructional variety and individualization. In fact, all 11 participants emphasized how instruction should be individualized based on the needs of students with disabilities, and to do this teachers should use a variety of approaches. This philosophy was emphasized in the reading methods course and infused throughout the entire teacher preparation program. In Interview 1, Leslie said,

I think a variety of exposures and a variety of methods so that all kids can have a different experience and so they can learn in whatever way is best to them. So if one strategy doesn’t work, they [teachers] might look for another strategy.

Melanie’s first interview comments are similar when she said that a good reading teacher is someone who “implements all different kinds of strategies to help a student. If the student is not getting it, she [teacher] continues to do more research and find strategies that might work.” In her first journal entry, Kayla wrote, “You need to change your instruction depending on how your students learn and that is true for all students with disabilities. They learn very individualistically.”

Approaches to reading instruction

Although preservice teachers were asked about their beliefs specifically pertaining to reading instruction, only five preservice teachers made reference to particular approaches to reading instruction. These preservice teachers ascribed to either phonics (skill-based) or whole language approaches. Two students, Jan and Melanie, identified “phonics” on their preconcept maps. Jan wrote in her first journal entry that

when I have an opportunity to work with individuals with disabilities learning to read I will use the phonics method. When I was learning to read whenever I was unsure about a word my parents would say “sound it out.” From what I remember, most of the time I was able to say the word correctly.

Similarly, Melanie, in contemplating her childhood during Interview 1 said, “My younger brothers grew up on phonics instruction and I did not, so I think that phonics is a very good tool to use in reading instruction especially for children who are just beginning to learn how to read.”

Rachel, Emma, and Bonnie believed that reading instruction should be comprised of literature circles and a whole language approach, an approach not discussed in the reading methods course. Emma wrote “whole language” on her preconcept map about reading instruction for students with disabilities, and during Interview 2 Rachel recalled a time she was observing in a classroom:

They [teachers] put the kids, divided them into groups, and did literature circles, so each kid was responsible for reading a certain part. And there were five aspects. They had to summarize and someone was the illustrator. Even if they were a struggling reader they could still get full points if they were the illustrator because that might be their strong area. So they were still reading, they were still making their reading connection.

Beliefs-in-Use

When asked to respond to practically based situations presented in vignettes, videotaped lessons, and student cases, the preservice teachers’ beliefs were more specific to reading instruction.

Direct instruction

Preservice teachers’ beliefs-in-use drew on concepts taught in the reading methods course, including several aspects of direct instruction such as instruction needing to be systematic, explicit, comprised of multiple opportunities for student practice with error correction and positive reinforcement. After viewing a video clip of a teacher delivering a reading lesson on the silent-e syllable using the direct instruction Reading Mastery curriculum to a small group of students presented in Interview 2, Jan said, “I think it was good how she [teacher in video] did it all together but then called on each student so they can practice it so she can make sure that they each got it.” During Mary’s interview, she said, “I think it would help because it’s in a small group setting. There is a lot of opportunity for individual attention from the teacher, and the explicitness of instruction would really help make things clear.”

In Interview 1, preservice teachers read a vignette about a student who was struggling with reading and spelling irregular words. In describing how she would implement reading instruction for the student Kayla said, “I think you could work with a small group of students and do ‘my turn, together, your turn’ to help the student recognize those odd words.” Leslie stated her belief directly when she said, “I would take a more explicit approach, or like direct instruction almost, because it seems like those [irregular words] are exceptions to the rules. They may need to be taught explicitly to the student.”

Two students, Emma and Bonnie, though not discounting direct instruction entirely shared reservations. Bonnie responded in her third journal entry that reading instruction delivered using direct instruction approaches seemed “rigid” and “drill and kill oriented.” She was more in favor of “authentic forms of teaching and assessment.” She went on to write, however, that “while I am leery of the rigidity of this teaching style, it is something I have never experienced before. Therefore I feel that it is important to give this tool a chance before I completely write it off.” In her third journal entry, Emma asserted that direct instruction should be used only for students who are behind in reading. She wrote, “I think I would use this type of instruction for students when they do start to fall behind.”

Individualization

Like their expressed beliefs, preservice teachers’ beliefs-in-use emphasi-zed the need for instruction to be individualized for students based on their needs with ample opportunities for individual practice. After watching the Reading Mastery video clip, Bess believed that this type of instruction would meet the needs of students with disabilities, stating,

It gives them [students] individual attention and so the teacher can moderate their progress as they’re completing the task or not completing the task. And I think they get immediate feedback as to if they’re doing things correctly and so if a problem arises it can be fixed immediately.

Similarly, Jan said,

I think it definitely could because it is small group in nature. I think the teacher had a better chance to see where the individual students were struggling or they needed more help or scaffolding and then additionally it goes into a little bit more individual accountability. So in that way you can individually modify what’s needed for students with special needs.

Five areas of reading

Preservice teachers’ beliefs-in-use included the five areas of reading (phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension). Several preservice teachers provided even more specific responses by commenting that reading instruction needs to include sight word instruction, directly teaching letter sounds, blending, and incorporating fluency instructional practices such as partner reading and repeated readings. For example, after reading a vignette of a hypothetical student who was reading below grade level and then sharing what she would do to help the student, Lynn wrote in Journal Entry 5:

I would make sure the student knows all the different sounds of the letters and the blending that occurs between letters. Continued daily practice with passage reading could also help her have a better understanding of the alphabetic principle. Once she understands the sounds she can come across new words and sound them out/read them accurately. She can learn new vocabulary words and improve in all aspects of school when her reading improves.

Similarly, Bess wrote,

I would explicitly teach the sounds the student is having trouble with and I would teach sight words. I would then give the student an appropriate level book of decodable words for her to read and practice her oral reading fluency.

Compared with their expressed beliefs, the preservice teachers’ beliefs-in-use were more reflective of the reading methods course content and general reading instruction terms and concepts.

Stability Versus Malleability

At the end of the spring semester, preservice teachers reported that their beliefs had not changed; they just learned more about reading and had broadened their perspectives. Bonnie wrote in her final journal entry of the semester:

I still feel strongly about the individualization of reading instruction for students with disabilities and supporting students through their strengths. However, in hindsight, I would be more detailed. I feel that it is important to utilize a variety of engaging techniques to teach reading, techniques that make the materials learned by students meaningful in everyday life.

In her final journal entry, Bess wrote,

My beliefs on reading, in large, remain the same as the beginning of the semester. My original beliefs were to build connections between the students and what they are reading. I still agree that this is one of the best ways to teach reading. Students are more motivated to discuss books if it is a story they are interested in. I would like to add using direct instruction methods. I believe that working with children who are at-risk is better done in small groups or on an individual basis.

The preservice teachers who entered ascribing to whole language type approaches to reading had broadened their perspective to state that for some students a more explicit approach might be necessary. A preservice teacher described previously, Emma, wrote in her final journal entry: “I think direct instruction may work for some students, but I think it should only be used if students are behind in reading because it is very formal instruction and doesn’t leave for much creativity or student input.” Rachel, in the last interview of the semester stated, “Now I’ve been sitting in these [special education] courses I keep thinking, wait a minute some kids really do need more direct instruction. They are going to require more explicit direction and shorter chunks.”

Preservice teachers who came in believing that phonics was the most effective approach stated that they now believed that teaching reading should encompass more than just phonics. Melanie wrote in the final journal entry of the semester that

just using phonics approach to teaching students how to read is not covering all the areas of reading. Comprehension, vocabulary, phonemic awareness, and fluency are all very important because they all need to be emphasized in teaching reading to students.

Five months later in October, the preservice teachers again reported that their beliefs had not changed in drastic ways. In Interview 3, Bess said,

I would say my beliefs stayed the same. I don’t think there is anything that I am doing now that would be totally different from what I would have done before. My thinking hasn’t changed in the overall grand scheme.

Our analyses confirmed that overall the preservice teachers’ beliefs had not changed, but they had become less detailed and specific about reading. For example, when asked about what her beliefs were regarding reading instruction for students with disabilities, Bess said, “It would depend on the student and their strengths, focusing on the strengths and interests of the student. But I would do maybe repeated readings, one-on-one. I would probably pull the student aside to a quiet environment.” In this example, the only reference to a reading practice was when Bess talked about doing repeated readings. The only other reading-specific beliefs were from Melanie who discussed the need to teach sight words during Interview 3. The students who started the study believing in particular reading approaches did not name these approaches explicitly but stated that their beliefs had not changed.

The beliefs that remained consistent and strong were related to individualization and student affect. In Interview 3, Kayla said, “Getting them [students with disabilities] interested in reading because obviously that is a difficult thing with students with LDs in reading,” whereas Bonnie said, “Definitely tailoring it to their needs so seeing which phase of the reading process they are having difficulties with and making sure you start where each individual needs to start.”

Influences on Beliefs

Personal experiences with reading

Our analyses revealed that personal experiences were influential on preservice teachers’ beliefs. As presented earlier, the experiences the preservice teachers had as young children were key sources for their beliefs about reading needing to be fun and motivating as well as the role families should play in the reading process. The preservice teachers who entered the study with expressed beliefs that were not specific regarding reading approaches or practices did not remember their experiences with learning to read or encountered few struggles throughout the process. Leslie’s comments during Interview 1 typified the others’ recollections when she said, “I don’t have any memories of like, struggling. It was all very natural to me so I just almost remember it being a really, like natural thing. Almost just picking it up naturally.”

The preservice teachers who started the study believing that phonics or skill-based approaches comprised high-quality reading instruction for students with disabilities, however, had vivid memories of their experiences learning to read. They acknowledged that as children they struggled and recalled receiving extra tutoring and support. Melanie described in Journal Number 4:

I always remember learning how to read was very hard for me. I remember having to take speech classes on the side. If differentiated instruction was implemented for me at age five I would have an easier time learning how to read and then comprehending what I was reading.

Practical experiences

The preservice teachers had a wide range of practical experiences that influenced their beliefs. Several of them commented about how their practical experiences in classrooms and working with students were the most powerful influences on their beliefs. Throughout the study, it was clear that these experiences were at the forefront of the preservice teachers’ minds. In fact, it was quite common for preservice teachers to reflect on their practical experiences when asked to draw on both their expressed and beliefs-in-use. When queried about their beliefs, the preservice teachers often answered by recalling events from their practical experiences or describing how instruction was delivered in those settings. Essentially, it was these experiences that the preservice teachers used to make decisions about what was best practice for students with disabilities.

Some were formal experiences such as teaching placements in practicum settings or working as substitute teachers in the public schools. For example, in Journal Entry 4, Leslie reported that her general education practicum experience influenced her philosophy about teaching explaining:

Cara, my practicum teacher, is really stressing multiple intelligences and classroom community kind of thing, so the homeroom that I’m in now we have this circle of friends is what it’s called and we talk about how we’re feeling in the morning and sometimes we’ll go around the circle and I think that that sense of community in the classroom is really important. The community in the classroom is important not only for the class but for the students because I know there’s a girl in the class that has multiple behavior issues in everyone else’s class except for ours.

Similarly, Jan referenced her practicum experience during Interview 2:

It [reading instruction] should be tailored to the individual students’ needs. I’ve seen, well, last semester I was in my practicum, I witnessed several kids, not getting the exact skill set [they needed]. Instruction should be targeted. Firstly, I would say individualized for personal needs.

In Interview 1, Rachel, a preservice teacher who believed that reading instruction should make use of balanced literacy approaches and literature circles, attributed her beliefs to her experiences working as a substitute teacher in a general education classroom as this is how reading was taught in the classroom in which she worked.

Less formal practical experiences were also influential. For example, in Interview 2 Darla reported that her beliefs about reading instruction for students with disabilities were influenced by a tutoring position she had working with a student with Autism. Darla believed reading instruction should be individualized and include a variety of strategies because

with the Autistic boy that I work with, I think his situation differs a lot because he doesn’t have those verbal skills so he can’t tell me if he doesn’t understand a sentence or doesn’t know what a word means . So having a whole suitcase of ways to teach reading is important.

Three students had mothers who were teachers. These students spent time in their mothers’ classrooms as they were growing up. As Kayla described in Interview 2,

I’ve volunteered in my mom’s classroom, and I’ve worked at my mom’s school, and seeing her teaching, and I see her teach reading and um help her with some of her lessons, and I think that those are some of my references about teaching reading.

The influence of practical teaching experiences was particularly evident at the 5-month follow-up. Students perceived practical teaching experiences to be a critical factor in whether or not their beliefs change over time. Melanie, though acknowledging her beliefs had not changed since finishing the reading course, viewed her beliefs as works in progress that are flexible based on her classroom experiences. She said, “I think my philosophy will grow over time. I still have student teaching. But they [beliefs] haven’t really changed since last semester because I’ve seen those strategies being implemented in the practicum.” Similarly, Bonnie said, “I can see how my beliefs are going to change. Reading was just reading to me, so I’m interested to see how things change as I work with more teachers and as I get into schools.”

Coursework

All of the students cited their special education coursework as being influential on their beliefs, and this influence was especially pronounced when they drew on their expressed beliefs. For example, in Interview 2 Mary said,

A lot of these [beliefs] come from my university classes. Honestly I never thought about differentiation or anything like until I got to the university, and the very first special ed. class I took definitely emphasized differentiation, and just the whole idea of each student being individual, and that’s true for all students but, I think it’s especially for students with disabilities. So that was the first special ed. class I took that really got me thinking about those ideas of individualizing and things like that.

It seems the repetition of foundational concepts throughout the special education program was the key in helping preservice teachers formulate their beliefs and maintain them over time. When asked about the sources of her beliefs during Interview 2, Rachel responded,

From a lot of my special education classes. I mean, I was talking to someone and I feel like we go over a lot of the same things, like RTI. I’m learning about that in my seminar class and RTI we did in this class and you know we mentioned it last semester in the academic instruction class, so I feel like we hit on each little thing you know a little bit at least so it really gets stuck in your brain.

When asked to draw on their beliefs-in-use, the preservice teachers often credited their ideas coming from the special education reading methods course they took. After viewing a video of classroom instruction during Interview 2 and stating what she would do differently, Kayla said, “I got into [the special education reading] class and I just learned so many new ways to teach reading. So I feel like my beliefs about teaching individuals with disabilities um have come from that class.” As described earlier, however, once the preservice teachers finished the special education reading methods course their beliefs seemed to revert to more general ideas about affect, individualization, and general instructional principles as opposed to reading-specific beliefs.

Discussion

This study’s findings support and extend prior research on preservice teacher beliefs, both generally, and in reading. The preservice teachers in this study attributed the formation of their beliefs to three sources: personal experiences, practical experiences, and coursework. This finding corroborates other scholars’ assertions that beliefs come from personal experience, experiences with schooling and instruction, and experiences with formal knowledge (Grisham, 2000; Lanier & Little, 1986; Richardson, 1996). Our findings also align with the extant literature that indicates that beliefs form early and are difficult to change (Lortie, 1975; Nespor, 1987; Pajares, 1992). The preservice teachers who entered the study with strong beliefs about reading because of their personal and practical experiences did not change their beliefs during the course of the study. They did, however, adopt more flexible thinking in terms of broadening their perspectives and matching reading approaches to the needs of particular students instead of steadfastly ascribing to one reading approach or another. With the exception of Jan and Melanie, who acknowledged their personal difficulties in learning to read, the preservice teachers did not have strong recollections about how they learned to read nor did they have extensive prior experiences working with struggling readers; thus, it is not surprising that the preservice teachers’ beliefs were not very specific regarding reading instruction for students with disabilities.

This study’s findings also confirm assertions that beliefs are complex, multidimensional constructs (Pajares, 1992; Risko et al., 2008; Rokeach, 1968). Some beliefs are deeply rooted, recurring across time and context. According to Rokeach’s (1968) model, such beliefs are “central” and unlikely to change. For example, the preservice teachers consistently believed that reading instruction should be fun and motivating. We posit that this belief is so strong because it is based on the preservice teachers’ personal experiences as young readers themselves. According to Rokeach, this makes sense as this belief touches on the preservice teachers’ identity and is thus a central rather than peripheral belief. This also explains why the preservice teachers who entered the study ascribing to either whole language or phonics-based approaches never entirely abandoned their original perspectives—these beliefs were part of their identity either because of the personal experiences with reading or because they were a result of practical experiences in which the “seeing is believing” phenomenon was in operation.

The other deeply rooted belief was that reading instruction should be individualized. We think that this belief was strong because the idea of individualization for students with disabilities was a message that was emphasized repeatedly in all of the preservice teachers’ special education coursework. As Rachel aptly stated, “ . . . it really gets stuck in your brain.” This finding also aligns with Rokeach’s (1968) theory, in that the consistent message about the importance of individualization across courses and experiences strengthened that belief, making it more central.

This idea of rehearsal and repetition played out in another way in the study’s findings. While enrolled in the reading course, the preservice teachers’ beliefs were more specific to reading, ostensibly because of their frequent exposure to and interaction with this knowledge base. After finishing the reading course and without the need to consistently tap into this knowledge, the preservice teachers’ beliefs were no longer discipline-specific. This finding lends support for knowledge and beliefs being inextricably linked—an idea discussed widely in the scholarship on beliefs (Pajares, 1992). Our findings contribute to this discussion. The preservice teachers in our study believed what they knew. When they were entrenched in knowledge about reading instruction for students with disabilities, it was evident in their beliefs. Once distanced from this knowledge, their beliefs were no longer reading-specific, instead they reverted to what they knew about effective instruction for students with disabilities generally or what they “knew” based on personal and practical experiences. This finding supports extant literature claiming that context plays a powerful role in individuals’ belief systems (Roberts, 2013; Ruppar et al., 2011; Shkedi & Laron, 2004).

Finally, findings from this study contribute to the scholarship on belief change. Results of some studies indicate that changes in beliefs precede changes in practice (e.g., Richardson et al., 1991). Other results, however, support the conclusion that changes in beliefs occur as a result of changes in practice that lead to positive outcomes (e.g., Fullan, 2007; Guskey, 1986; McLeskey, Waldron, So, Swanson, & Loveland, 2001). Findings from our study support the latter. Throughout our study, it was clear that the preservice teachers’ practical experiences were a key influence on their beliefs. When they observed what they perceived to be successful practices in their practicum settings, they readily adopted these practices into their beliefs schema. Several of the preservice teachers even stated that before they would commit a particular reading strategy or approach to their belief system, they would have to see it implemented successfully in practice. As is discussed next, these findings have important implications for future research and practice.

Implications for Research

After completing this study, it is easy for us to understand why at the intersection of the beliefs and teacher education literature there are mixed findings and discrepancies. When asked to draw on their expressed beliefs about reading instruction, preservice teachers’ responses were general and lacking content-specific details. Their beliefs-in-use, however, were more grounded in reading-specific practices. An implication from these findings is that researchers be clear about what types of beliefs they are assessing and how. For researchers interested in examining discipline-specific beliefs, it seems that tapping into their beliefs-in-use will lead to more informative and productive information.

Another implication is that the time at which beliefs are assessed makes a large difference in the conclusions that can be drawn about whether or not beliefs are amenable to change. When we examined the preservice teachers’ beliefs at the end of the course, we might have concluded that for many preservice teachers the reading methods course shaped their beliefs by helping them acquire a more comprehensive understanding of reading instruction for students with disabilities. Five months later, however, the changes to reading-specific beliefs had dissipated. Thus, the time at which researchers assess participants’ beliefs may lead to different conclusions. Our study also points to why it is so important to conduct more longitudinal studies of the outcomes of teacher education. We did not follow the preservice teachers until the end of their preparation program or into their beginning teaching years, so we cannot answer questions about the long-term effects of coursework, personal, and practical experiences on beliefs. This is an important direction in need of further exploration.

Finally, to say that teacher preparation programs can or cannot change preservice teachers’ beliefs is too general of a statement. It fails to specify the type of belief subject to change, when potential change did or did not occur, and the extent to which the change lasted. Based on this study’s findings, we learned that all beliefs are not the same in how they are formed or sustained; thus, using more specific language to describe studies of belief change is critical if we hope to be able to synthesize findings across the expanse of belief literature.

Implications for Practice

Results of our study have important implications for the work of teacher educators—lessons we have already incorporated into our own practices. Students who come in with little prior knowledge or experience about a topic seem to have a more adaptable belief structure that is amenable to influence from teacher educators, coursework, and field experiences. It seems the more consistency there is among these three venues and the more opportunities the preservice teachers have for reviewing and drawing on this knowledge, the greater the likelihood it will become a central, deeply rooted belief. According to this hypothesis, had the preservice teachers in our study learned about reading methods for students with disabilities in the same way they learned about the need for individualization, their beliefs about reading would have been much stronger, better articulated, and less likely to fade over time. At the time we conducted this study, the preservice teachers in our program took the reading methods course without concurrently completing a formal practicum experience. Now, they take the course with a practicum experience; thus, there is more opportunity for them to acquire knowledge from the course—Rokeach’s (1968) derived beliefs—and then engage in “seeing is believing” in their practicum resulting in underived beliefs (Rokeach, 1968). What is critical to this arrangement is that we identify practicum teachers who are exemplars and whose practices are consistent with the methods endorsed in teacher education coursework. Again, our findings indicate that what preservice teachers see in practice is most likely to be incorporated into their belief schema, so we must be deliberate in our selection of placements. We also increased the number of credits the preservice teachers take in reading methods and distributed this knowledge across multiple semesters, so that they have more frequent opportunities to revisit their beliefs and knowledge of this topic.

The recommendation of linking field experiences with courses and providing multiple opportunities for preservice teachers to acquire knowledge, though seemingly straightforward, is more complex for special education teacher educators. Shortages of special education teachers, particularly those who would be considered exemplars, can stymie teacher educators’ efforts to find high-quality practicum and student teaching placements. Moreover, special educators are often expected to be knowledgeable and skillful across a broad range of disability areas, age levels, and content areas. They also must be able to collaborate with multiple school personnel and families. In essence, there is much content that must be part of special education preparation programs and little time to cover it all. For special education teacher preparation programs, it seems particularly important that they (a) are coherent (a long-standing recommendation from experts; Darling-Hammond, 2000; International Reading Association, 2003; Renzaglia, Hutchins, & Lee, 1997; Wideen et al., 1998; Wilson, Floden, & Ferrini-Mundy, 2001), (b) include plentiful opportunities for applying knowledge in practical settings (Leko & Brownell, 2011; Renzaglia et al., 1997; Wilson et al., 2001), and (c) provide multiple opportunities to review content and ideas across the breadth of the program (Renzaglia et al., 1997). One teacher education practice that has shown much promise for accomplishing these goals is the formation of professional development school (PDS) partnerships. For discussions of PDS for special educators and inclusion, we refer authors to McCray et al. (2011) and Waitoller and Kozleski (2013).

Limitations

We acknowledge that our study is limited in several ways. First, our sample was quite homogeneous with all female preservice teachers and only one preservice teacher of color. Such homogeneity, however, mirrors the demographics of special education teacher education programs nationally. According to the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC; 2001), only 14% of students enrolled in special education teacher preparation programs come from historically underrepresented groups. The participants also volunteered to be in the study; thus, a self-selection bias could be at work, and the findings might be different if all of the preservice teachers in the course had participated. As has been a critique of the reading teacher education research, our study was situated within a course taught by the first author who participated in data collection. Unlike other studies in which the researcher is also the course instructor, in this study, a team of researchers participated in data collection and analysis collaboratively as opposed to a course instructor examining his or her own course individually. This helped mitigate the risk of students feeling obligated to participate or say what they thought the course instructor would want to hear. Finally, our method to examine beliefs-in-use was limited to participants’ written and interview responses to journal prompts, vignettes, and videotaped classroom instruction. There is, however, precedence across the breadth of social science disciplines (and specifically within teacher education) to use vignettes or cases to assess participants’ knowledge, beliefs, attitudes, and prospective actions (Darling-Hammond, 2006; Jeffries & Maeder, 2005, 2011; Kagan, 1992).

Conclusion

Results of this study on preservice teachers’ beliefs about reading instruction for students with disabilities indicate that preservice teachers’ beliefs systems are complex, made up of enduring, deeply rooted expressed beliefs as well as beliefs-in-use that are highly dependent on discipline-specific working knowledge of effective reading instructional practices for students with disabilities. The most important sources of beliefs for the preservice teachers in this study were their personal and practical experiences. University coursework only seemed to influence the preservice teachers’ beliefs when content and ideas were infused throughout multiple courses and program experiences or when course content was fresh on their minds.

Based on our findings, we concur with Risko et al. (2008): Beliefs are not simple or static entities, nor is their relationship with teacher education. To understand the degree to which teacher education can or does influence preservice teachers’ beliefs requires an in-depth examination of preservice teachers’ incoming beliefs; how they formed; the scope, sequence, and structure of the teacher preparation program, including opportunities to engage in practical teaching experiences; and how and when changes in beliefs are assessed. Only when we engage in research and teacher education that reaches this level of depth and complexity will we make headway in “cleaning up” (Pajares, 1992, p. 307) the messy construct that is beliefs and teacher education 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.

Author Biographies

Melinda M. Leko, PhD, is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Special Education at the University of Kansas. She studies special education teacher education, secondary reading instruction for students with high-incidence disabilities, and teachers’ implementation of reading interventions.

Saili Kulkarni, MEd, is a doctoral candidate at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Her research focuses on special education teacher retention and culturally relevant pedagogy.

Meng-Chuan Lin, MEd, is a doctoral candidate at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Her research interests include transition, self-determination, culturally responsive curricula, and English language learners.

Shane A. Smith, PhD, is an Assistant Professor at the University of New Haven. His research centers on preservice teacher education, multicultural issues in special education, and curricular access for students with high-incidence disabilities.

References

Anderson

L. M.

Smith

D. C.

Peasley

(2000). Integrating learner and learning concerns: Prospective elementary science teachers’ paths and progress. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 547-574. doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(00)00017-2

Argyris

Schon

D. A.

(1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Borko

Mayfield

(1995). The roles of the cooperating teacher and university supervisor in learning to teach. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11, 501-518. doi:10.1016/0742-051X(95)00008-8

Brantlinger

Jimenez

Klingner

J. K.

Pugach

Richardson

(2005). Qualitative studies in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 195-207.

Calderhead

Robson

(1991). Images of teaching: Student teachers’ early conceptions of classroom practice. Teaching & Teacher Education, 7, 1-8. doi:10.1016/0742-051X(91)90053-R

Clift

R. T.

Brady

(2005). Research on methods courses and field experiences. In Cochran-Smith

Zeichner

K. M.

(Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp. 309-424). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Council for Exceptional Children. (2001). Educating exceptional children: A statistical profile. Arlington, VA: Author.

Cunningham

A. E.

Zibulsky

Stanovich

K. E.

Stanovich

P. J.

(2009). How teachers would spend their time teaching language arts: The mismatch between self-reported and best practices. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 418-430. doi:10.1177/0022219409339063

Darling-Hammond

(2000). Studies of excellence in teacher education. Washington, DC: AACTE Publications.

10.

Darling-Hammond

(2006). Assessing teacher education the usefulness of multiple measures for assessing program outcomes. Journal of Teacher Education, 57, 120-138. doi:10.1177/0022487105283796

11.

Datnow

Castellano

(2000). Teachers’ responses to success for all: How beliefs, experiences, and adaptations shape implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 775-799. doi:10.3102/00028312037003775

12.

DeFord

(1985). Validating the construct of theoretical orientation in reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 351-367.

13.

Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(Eds.) (2000). Introduction the discipline and practice of qualitative research. In Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

, Handbook qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 1-43). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

14.

Donahue

D. M.

(2000). Charity basket or revolution: Beliefs, experiences, and context in preservice teachers’ service learning. Curriculum Inquiry, 30, 429-450. doi:10.1111/0362-6784.00173

15.

Fang

(1996). A review of research on teacher beliefs and practices. Educational Research, 38, 47-65. doi:10.1080/0013188960380104

16.

Feiker Hollenbeck

A. R.

(2013). Beyond talking about books: Implications of the reading comprehension instruction and pedagogical beliefs of a special educator perceived as effective. Learning Quarterly, Disability, 36, 112-125.

17.

Feiman-Nemser

McDiarmid

Melnick

Parker

(1989). Changing beginning teachers’ conceptions: A description of an introductory teacher education course (Research Report No. 89-1). East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Education, College of Education, Michigan State University.

18.

Foegen

Espin

C. A.

Allinder

R. M.

Markell

M. A.

(2001). Translating research into practice: Preservice teachers’ beliefs about curriculum-based measurement. The Journal of Special Education, 34, 226-236. doi:10.1177/002246690103400405

19.

Fullan

(2007). The new meaning of education change. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

20.

Garmon

M. A.

(2004). Changing preservice teachers’ attitudes/beliefs about diversity: What are the critical factors? Journal of Teacher Education, 55, 201-213. doi:10.1177/0022487104263080

21.

Grisham

D. L.

(2000). Connecting theoretical conceptions of reading to practice: A longitudinal study of elementary school teachers. Reading Psychology, 21, 145-170. doi:10.1080/02702710050084464

22.

Guskey

T. R.

(1986). Staff development and the process of teacher change. Educational Researcher, 15, 5-12. doi:10.3102/0013189X-015005005

23.

Hall

L. A.

(2005). Teachers and content area reading: Attitudes, beliefs and change. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 403-414. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2005.01.009

24.

Harste

Burke

(1977). A new hypothesis for reading teacher research: Both the teaching and the learning of reading are theoretically based. In Pearson

P. D.

(Ed.), Reading: Theory, research, and practice (Twenty-Sixth Yearbook of the National Reading Conference) (pp. 32-40). Clemson, SC: The National Reading Conference.

25.

Hollingsworth

(1989). Prior beliefs and cognitive change in learning to teach. American Education Research Journal, 26, 160-189. doi:10.3102/00028312026002160

26.

International Reading Association. (2003). Prepared to make a difference: An executive summary of the national commission on excellence in elementary teacher preparation for reading instruction. Newark, DE: Author.

27.

Jeffries

Maeder

D. W.

(2005). Using vignettes to build and assess teacher understanding of instructional strategies. Professional Educator, 27, 17-28.

28.

Jeffries

Maeder

D. W.

(2011). Comparing vignette instruction and assessment tasks to classroom observations and reflections. The Teacher Educator, 46, 161-175. doi:10.1080/08878730.2011.552667

29.

Kagan

D. M.

(1992). Implication of research on teacher belief. Educational Psychologist, 27, 65-90. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2701_6

30.

Lanier

J. E.

Little

J. W.

(1986). Research on teacher education. In Wittrock

M. C.

(Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 527-569). New York, NY: Macmillan.

31.

Leko

M. M.

Brownell

M. T.

(2011). Special education preservice teachers’ appropriation of pedagogical tools for teaching reading. Exceptional Children, 77, 229-251.

32.

Lortie

D. C.

(1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

33.

Mallette

M. H.

Kile

R. S.

Smith

M. M.

McKinney

Readence

J. E.

(2000). Constructing meaning about literacy difficulties: Preservice teachers beginning to think about pedagogy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 593-612. doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(00)00009-3

34.

McCray

Rosenberg

Brownell

deBettencourt

Leko

M. M.

Long

(2011). School-university partnerships for special education teacher preparation. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 24, 47-58.

35.

McDiarmid

G. W.

(1992). What to do about differences? A study of multicultural education for teacher trainees in the Los Angeles Unified School District. Journal of Teacher Education, 43, 83-93.

36.

McLeskey

Waldron

N. L.

T. K.

Swanson

Loveland

(2001). Perspectives of teachers toward inclusive programs. Teacher Education and Special Education, 24, 108-115. doi:10.1177/088840640102400205

37.

Merriam

S. B.

(1995). What can you tell from an N of 1? Issues of validity and reliability in qualitative research. PAACE Journal of Lifelong Learning, 4, 51-60.

38.

Miles

M. B.

Huberman

A. M.

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

39.

Mora

J. K.

Grisham

D. L.

(2001). What delicious tortillas! Preparing teachers for literacy instruction in linguistically diverse classrooms. Teacher Education Quarterly, 28, 51-70.

40.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). The Nation’s Report Card: Reading 2011 (NCES 2012–457). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

41.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards. Washington, DC: Author.

42.

National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

43.

Nespor

(1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19, 317-328. doi:10.1080/0022027870190403

44.

O’Brien

D. G.

Stewart

R. A.

(1990). Preservice teachers’ perspectives on why every teacher is not a teacher of reading: A qualitative analysis. Journal of Literacy Research, 22, 101-129. doi:10.1080/10862969009547699

45.

Pajares

M. F.

(1992). Teacher’s beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62, 307-332. doi:10.3102/00346543062003307

46.

Patton

(2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

47.

Renzaglia

Hutchins

Lee

(1997). The impact of teacher education on the beliefs, attitudes, and dispositions of preservice special educators. Teacher Education and Special Education, 20, 360-377. doi:10.1177/088840-649702000406

48.

Richardson

(1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In Sikula

Buttery

T. J.

Guyton

(Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 102-119). New York, NY: Macmillan.

49.

Richardson

(2003). Preservice teachers’ beliefs. In Raths

McAninch

(Eds.), Teacher beliefs and classroom performance: The impact of teacher education (pp. 1-22). Greenwich, CT: IAP.

50.

Richardson

Anders

Tidwell

Lloyd

(1991). The relationship between teachers’ beliefs and practices in reading comprehension instruction. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 559-586. doi:10.3102/000283-12028003559

51.

Risko

V. J.

Roller

C. M.

Cummins

Bean

R. M.

Block

C. C.

Anders

P. L.

Flood

(2008). A critical analysis of research on reading teacher education. Reading Research Quarterly, 43, 252-288. doi:10.1598/RRQ.43.3.3

52.

Roberts

C. A.

(2013). Identity development of literacy teachers of adolescents with significant cognitive disabilities (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest. (UMI 3588529)

53.

Rokeach

(1968). Beliefs, attitudes, and values: A theory of organization and change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

54.

Ruppar

A. L.

(2011). Influences on teachers’ decisions about literacy for students with severe disabilities (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest (UMI 3503695).

55.

Ruppar

A. L.

Dymond

S. K.

Gaffney

J. S.

(2011). Teachers’ perspectives on literacy instruction for students with severe disabilities who use augmentative and alternative communication. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 36, 100-111. doi:10.2511/027494811800824435

56.

Savasci

Berlin

D. F.

(2012). Science teacher beliefs and classroom practice related to constructivism in different school settings. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23, 65-86. doi:10.1007/s10972-011-9262-z

57.

Shkedi

Laron

(2004). Between idealism and pragmatism: A case study of student teachers’ pedagogical development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 693-711. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2004.07.006

58.

Stuart

Thurlow

(2000). Making it their own: Preservice teachers’ experiences, beliefs, and classroom practices. Journal of Teacher Education, 51, 113-121.

59.

Waitoller

F. R.

Kozleski

E. B.

(2013). Working in boundary practices: Identity development and learning in partnerships for inclusive education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 31, 35-45. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2012.11.006

60.

Wideen

Mayer-Smith

Moon

(1998). A critical analysis of the research on learning to teach: Making the case for an ecological perspective on inquiry. Review of Educational Research, 68, 130-178. doi:10.3102/0034654-3068002130

61.

Wilson

S. M.

Floden

R. E.

Ferrini-Mundy

(2001). Teacher preparation research: Current knowledge, gaps, and recommen-dations. Seattle: University of Washington.

62.

Windschitl

Sahl

(2002). Tracing teachers’ use of technology in a laptop computer school: The interplay of teacher beliefs, social dynamics, and institutional culture. American Educational Research Journal, 39, 165-205. doi:10.3102/00028312039001165

63.

Wolf

S. A.

Ballentine

Hill

L. A.

(2000). “Only connect!”: Crosscultural connections in the reading lives of preservice teachers and children. Journal of Literacy Research, 32, 533-569. doi:10.1080/10862960009548095

64.

Worthy

Patterson

(2001). “I can’t wait to see Carlos!” Preservice teachers, situated learning, and personal relationships with students. Journal of Literacy Research, 33, 303-344. doi:10.1080/10862960109548113

65.

Zeichner

K. M.

(2005). A research agenda for teacher education. In Cochran-Smith

Zeichner

K. M.

(Eds.), Studying teacher education (pp. 737-760). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

66.

Zeller

Griffith

Zhang

Klenke

(2010). From stranger to friend: The effect of service learning on preservice teachers’ attitudes towards diverse populations. Journal of Language and Literacy Education, 6, 34-50.