The Instructional Decisions of Preservice Teachers during a Reading Practicum

Abstract

Shefelbine and Hollingsworth studied the instructional decisions of 14 under graduate elementary education stu dents during a reading practicum. Deci sion making was evaluated across seven areas of reading: diagnosis, planning, lesson balance, text placement, type of reading practice, word recognition in struction, and developing background knowledge. The authors specifically sought (a) to identify what kinds of deci sions are potentially troublesome for be ginning teachers and (b) to explain why these difficulties might occur. The re sults indicated that decisions about diag nosis, planning, lesson balance, and word recognition instruction were dif ficult for the higher performing teachers. Lower performing teachers, on the other hand, were more likely to have trouble across all seven areas. Possible explana tions for these patterns included the con tent and complexity of each decision area, teachers' overall knowledge of reading content, and concerns about management and instructional routines. Implications for teacher education are discussed.

Tracking Special Education Teacher Candidates’ Reflective Practices Over Time

“…Teacher candidates may need ongoing guidance or instruction grounded in theory (i.e., research-based teaching frameworks, professional teaching standards, lists of evidence-based teaching practices) to deepen their reflective practices and improve their ability to reflect. Teachers who focus on scheduling and planning may be learning about the profession, but such reflective practices are unlikely to lead to changes in their actual delivery of clear directions, implementation of evidence-based practices, or data-driven decision making about instruction (see Shefelbine & Hollingsworth, 1987).…”

Making Field-Based Programs Work: A Three-Level Approach to Reading Education

“…Baseline data on their incoming knowledge of reading and writing were obtained from a criterion-referenced examination that measured content and pedagogical knowledge gained in the first two reading courses. Administered during seven previous semesters and used as a measure of content knowledge in an earlier study (Shefelbine and Hollingsworth, 1987), the test served as a partial indication of incoming content knowledge. A second source of data came from informal interviews conducted at the beginning of the new program.…”

Synthesising research in education: A case study of getting it wrong

“…Kagan cited four studies as having supported that proposition (Hollingsworth 1988a& b,1989, Shefelbine & Hollingsworth 1987. She wrote this about Hollingsworth's (1989) study:…”

“…Neither Shefelbine and Hollingsworth (1987) nor Hollingsworth (1988b) supported the claim that dissonance between cooperating teachers and student teachers was desirable. Finally, Hollingsworth (1988a) merely analysed a subset of the data used in the Hollingsworth (1989) study, and so it does not count.…”