Educology

International Journal of Educology, 2002, Vol 16, No 2

One of the problems in re-imagining the educology of

teacher education lies in how we talk about theory and

practice. Often theory and practice are spoken about as if

they are opposites of each other, and sometimes they are-- in

the sense that each has to compete with the other in terms of

time. Even when there is general agreement that both

theory and practice are necessary, someone will inevitably

The very discourse we use legitimizes certain

perspectives and conceptually positions us (Gee, 1996; Luke

& Freebody, 1997; Lankshear, 1997). As literacy educators,

i.e. as educologists of literacy, we see curriculum

metaphorically as an opportunity to live the life we want to

live and be the people we want to be (Harste, 1993). In this

paper, we extend the metaphor to the educology of teacher

education and invite readers to consider what sorts of

literate beings they want to have leading classrooms in the

21st Century. The theory-practice debate as it has rhetorically

and historically been cast becomes dysfunctional when

the educology of teacher education is reconceptualized as an

opportunity for future teachers to live the lives they want to

live and be the people they want to be. At stake now are

new visions of what is possible in the name of school reform

and the reform of teacher education as the educology of

teacher education.

Educological studies of student teachers do not paint an

optimistic picture of the ability of new entrants to reform

public education. Britzman’s study (1992) concluded that

practice makes practice. Britzman found that, regardless of

how innovative the teacher education program was, many

student teachers adopted teaching practices which reflected

those of the mainstream practitioner rather than those

advocated in their educology courses. Goodman (1985,

1986) has argued that part of the problem lies in how we

conceptualize the educology of teacher education:

Even though there is no simple technology of teaching, we have for

a number of years conceptualized teaching as a series of techniques

for management and instruction, and teacher education as the

transmission and practice of these techniques in a supervised setting.

[1986, p. 109]

Compounding the problem, Harste, Leland, and Schmidt

(1997) maintain:

... is the fact that most prospective teachers are not enrolled in a

teacher education program at all, but rather take a hodgepodge of

course work from a hodgepodge of professors having a hodgepodge

of theoretical orientations, and are placed for practicum experiences

in a hodgepodge of settings. The only clear bet is that what student

teachers believe and what their supervising teachers believe about

teaching and learning will differ. [p. 1]

Make no mistake about it -- we are interested in both public

school and teacher education reform, although the very term

reform is problematic in that it has come to mean that

someone from the outside is coming in to correct things that

those on the inside cannot manage to do. Rather than a

quick fix (Harste & Leland, 1998), this study looks at a

particular kind of educational reform, one that involves ongoing

renewal by educators themselves. Building from

insider efforts to envision public education in terms of what

kind of literate beings we wish to create, we re-envision

teacher education in the same terms. Rather than seeing

theory and practice as opposites or as framing devices, we

see them as perspectives that permeate this work.

One daunting implication of this analysis of the current

state-of-practice is the realization that in order to re-envision

teacher education, one much simultaneously re-envision

public education. To study such possibilities we worked

with a group of teachers from the Indianapolis Public

Schools (IPS) who wished to create their own magnet

school. The school opened in 1993 with a curriculum

dedicated to holistic, inquiry-based education within a

multiple ways of knowing framework (Harste, 1993; Short,

Harste, & Burke, 1996). Two years after The Center for

Inquiry (CFI) opened, we added a field-based teacher

education component, and together with the staff, took

responsibility for the preparation of 16 preservice teachers

(interns). This included all of the interns’ professional

educology courses and supervision of their field experiences

and student teaching. Theoretically, both curricula -- the

CFIs and the teacher education program’s -- were the

same. Interns took all of their educological foundations and

methods courses on site at the CFI, and they increased their

time commitment over the course of the program. They

began with two days a week during the first semester, two

and a half days during the second semester, three days

during the third semester, and five days a week during the

fourth.

Undergraduate interns at the CFI lived an inquiry-based

curriculum in their on-site course work and simultaneously

saw how such a model was implemented in the classroom.

While our various visions of what could be played a big role

in the design of both the school and the teacher education

setting, what was not clear was how much of an impact

these frameworks would have on the thinking and behavior

of the undergraduate interns involved.

Three conceptual models underpinned the school’s

curriculum and the teacher education program. Figure 1,

Personal

& social

knowing

Disciplines

Sign systems

Education for Democracy, poses the whole of education as

inquiry (Short, 1993; Short, Harste, & Burke, 1996). This

model is purposefully drawn to challenge some common

assumptions about the role that the disciplines should play

in education. One assumption that we wanted to interrogate

is the pervasive belief that learners are well served by

organizing curriculum around the disciplines.

The model in Figure 1 suggests a new vision of

curriculum that is organized around personal and social

knowing. The basic argument is education is more effective

when curriculum is built upon the inquiry questions of

learners.

The second argument that the model generates relates to

whose knowledge is of most worth? Placing the disciplines

in the second ring and not in the center of the model, makes

the argument that disciplines, while important, are valuable

only in so far as they offer perspectives that inquirers might

take as they explore questions of personal and social worth.

The outer ring completes the model and makes another

point. Rather than being language-based, or what Siegel

(1985) has called verbocentric, education should involve all

of the various ways that humans have created to make and

share meaning including art, music, mathematics, drama and

so on. While some of these sign systems also constitute

fields of study or disciplines in their own right, what they

share in common is their tool-like qualities. As tools, they

are used by experts in and across disciplines to create

meaning. Together, then, sign systems constitute a human

meaning potential. Seen semiotically, sign systems are a

literacy tool kit which educators (and educologists) use to

build conceptual models for framing their thinking (Davis,

Sumara, & Luce-Kapler, 2000).

Although all sign systems are available to all cultures,

not all cultures value all sign systems equally. To some

extent, the respect for individual sign systems in a society

determines whose voice will be heard. Given these realities,

the model highlights the political nature of literacy, and it is

indicative of how literacy policy directly impacts schooling

in a democracy. The model advocates expanding our

notions of literacy to include all of the ways that humans

have created to mean. This allows access to education for all

individuals, not just for those who focus primarily on

language as a meaning-making device. The wedge cutting

through the three rings indicates that both multiple sign

systems and multiple disciplines ought to be readily

available as resources for learners as they pursue inquiry

projects and other forms of focused study that reflect their

interests. Inquiry is the smallest unit of instruction in this

model (Short, Harste, & Burke, 1996).

Figure 2, The Inquiry Cycle, metaphorically casts

learning as a cycle of inquiry by highlighting the key

underlying processes in inquiry (Harste, 1993; for other

frameworks see Henkin, 1998; Wells, 2000; Beach &

Myers, 2000). The cycle suggests that learning begins by

supporting voice, or the articulation of what is currently

known, and ends in reflection, interrogation, and new social

action. It is important to note that voice is seen as a

educology-of-mind construct with educology-of-society

roots. Learners need to be supported in taking a stand and

in speaking their minds while at the same time interrogating

how societies and literacies have positioned them. By

highlighting the underlying processes in inquiry, the model

suggests that curricular engagements should support either

complete cycles of inquiry or in-depth understandings of

key learning processes. More broadly, Figure 2 also

suggests that curriculum should be anchored in learning and

that the proper goal of education is the creation of learners

who know how to inquire. It is important to notice that the

inquiry cycle begins and ends in the articulation of ones

stance, thereby showing that: (1) teaching and learning are

theoretically based, and (2) educology is theory, from start

to finish. Both teachers and teacher educologists begin by

supporting learners as they attempt to articulate what it is

they know and end by supporting learners in their efforts to

re-articulate and re-position themselves in the world, based

on what they have learned.

Figure 3, Multiple Ways of Knowing, can be read in two

ways. An outward-to-inward reading of the model suggests

that dance, art, music, mathematics, drama, and language

are each alternate ways to make and share meaning. An

inward-to-outward reading of the model implies that every

act of communication involves multiple sign systems. As

literate individuals, we have learned to orchestrate these

various sign systems as we make and share meaning in a

series of multi-modal acts. By this model, education ought

to support the development of each and every citizens

communication potential as well as tap into and capitalize

on alternate ways of knowing. Music does not do what art

does, nor does art do what language does. Together, all of

the sign systems qualitatively contribute to a more in-depth

knowing and understanding. To the extent that different

cultures have different ways of knowing, diversity and

multiple literacies enrich society.

Practically, these models guided the development of the

curriculum that was offered to pupils in the elementary

school and to undergraduate interns in the on-site teacher

education program. The curriculum of the elementary

Workshop provided time for daily uninterrupted writing in

journals as well as time to compose stories and take them to

published form. In addition, pupils were encouraged to use

writing as a tool for thinking when attempting to

comprehend difficult readings, to understand mathematical

equations and to conduct research on topics of personal and

social interest.

Literature Study consisted of both intensive and

extensive reading. Children were encouraged to read widely

and to collaborate with others in literature discussions.

Storytelling, sketching what students thought stories meant,

daily oral reading of stories, and process drama were

integral parts of the reading program.

Math Time featured the use of several commercial

programs that emphasized problem solving. While correct

answers were important, of more importance was the fact

that children were encouraged to find as many different

solutions to problems as they could. In an effort to make

investigations (Schmidt, 1997) which encouraged children

Inquiry blocks of time throughout the day provided

opportunities to pursue questions of personal interest and to

select topics of study within a whole class theme. Initially,

students were provided inquiry booklets as organizational

devices or tools that helped them gather, structure, present,

and reflect on the information they were acquiring.

Teachers used curricular invitations to develop research

skills, to build background information, to expand interest,

and to support collaboration and independence.

Although Writers Workshop, Literature Study, Math

Time, and Inquiry constituted the bulk of the curriculum,

CFI teachers and pupils also took part in a national

gardening project that featured problem solving in science.

In an effort to make the community an integral part of the

school, CFI parents and interns offered Discovery Clubs

once a week during the school day. This provided an

opportunity for children to explore an area of interest.

Discovery Clubs featured alternate ways of knowing and

encompassed such diverse topics as karate, karaoke,

camping, cooking, creative dramatics, dancing, gardening,

carpentry and sports.

The on-site teacher education program offered

undergraduate interns the opportunity to explore inquirybased

instruction by experiencing such a curriculum first.

Often, what they tried out in their educology classes for

teachers in preparation (for example, engaging in a literature

discussion), became the focus of their work with students in

the classrooms in which they worked. Because we wished

to re-envision what teacher education and the educology of

teaching ought to be, we assumed responsibility for all

coursework handled by the School of Education. This

included all of the various methods courses like reading and

language arts, science, social studies, mathematics, art,

music, special education, and multicultural education as

well as foundations courses like the history and philosophy

of education and educational psychology. We also took

responsibility for all field experiences, student teaching, and

several research seminars. For purposes of organization we

thought of our new vision of teaching as a new discourse

and saw conversation as a powerful tool through which to

enter this discourse world.

We began our planning by thinking about the

conversations that we wanted these preservice teachers to

have (Applebee, 1997). The conversations we wanted to

nurture were presented as focused studies in which the

disciplines (traditionally taught through methods courses)

were perspectives embedded in conversations as they

developed. The result was a series of focused studies in

look like in practice? Each focused study provided

instructional engagements in strands that roughly paralleled

the inquiry cycle (see Figure 2):

1. Composing: Exploring your voice and your current

stance.

2. Making Connections: Reading professional

literature in an attempt to understand both your own

position and where others are coming from.

3. Seminar: Hearing the voices of teachers and

educologists who are currently working.

4. Research: Planning and conducting mini-inquiry

projects that can be done in the field while this unit

is being taught.

5. Multiple Sign Systems: Using art, music, math,

process drama, and other sign systems to gain new

perspectives on the topic.

6. Demonstration: Purposefully putting our evolving

personal theories of literacy and literacy learning to

test by focusing on tension.

7. New Curricular Directions: Positioning ourselves

anew in relation to a topic by developing and fieldtesting

new curricular engagements and invitations.

Although both the elementary school faculty and the

teacher education faculty were new to inquiry based

education, each had volunteered to be involved in the

program and had made a personal commitment to actively

explore what such a model might look like in practice. The

two full-time university faculty and their graduate assistant

were committed to helping teachers develop inquiry-based

curriculum for children in their classrooms and the 6 fulltime

teachers making up the CFI staff were committed to

working side-by-side as co-learners with the undergraduate.

To this end, Tuesday and Thursday afternoons, each week,

from 3:30 to 5 were devoted to professional development. It

was here that teachers and interns formed themselves into

study groups to explore topics of interest and worked

together to plan curriculum and to share information on

students, teaching, and classroom management. Several

themes held interest due to particular concerns voiced by the

faculty. Some of these themes became yearlong teacherintern

study group projects:

Because it affects the study that we are reporting here, it is

important that readers understand that the Center for Inquiry

was a school within a school at the time this study was

conducted. Physically, the CFI occupied one wing of

School 92. Enrollment in the CFI was 120 pupils, whereas

enrollment in School 92 was 623. Because central

administration refused to assign a principal to a school of

fewer than 500 students, the CFI was officially administered

by the building principal. Nonetheless, it is important to

traditional education on a daily basis, and although CFI

teachers were exempt from some district policies because of

the school’s special status, there was constant pressure to

conform. Undergraduate interns often complained when

CFI teachers appeared to give in to administrative pressures

to skill and drill children for the up-coming Indiana State

Test of Educational Performance (ISTEP) by conducting

daily oral language activities and timed math tests, and by

focusing on test-taking strategies. Reports such as these

indicate that the theoretical match between the school

curriculum and the teacher education curriculum was less

than perfect. However, the match was philosophically much

stronger than any others that we have encountered in the

educological literature on teacher education.

Further, there is evidence that the CFI and the teacher

education program had a great deal of effect on teachers in

School 92. Over a five-year span, all 34 teachers in School

92 at some time participated in inservice programs offered

by University faculty or CFI teachers. In part, this progress

was possible because we used interns as an incentive.

Teachers in School 92 were invited to participate in afterschool

professional development activities to begin to

explore education as inquiry. In exchange for their

participation and involvement, undergraduate interns were

assigned to their classrooms to help them in the

implementation of inquiry-based instruction. The net result

of these placement policies and the way the CFI was

positioned in the larger school meant that undergraduate

interns had two types of field placements. Sometimes they

worked in CFI classrooms where the instruction they were

seeing paralleled what they were being taught in their

educology of teaching classes, and sometimes they worked

in School 92 classrooms, where instruction often was

diametrically opposed to what was being taught in their

educology program. We were particularly interested in

seeing how the interns negotiated the more traditional

school classrooms during one of their student teaching

experiences. Under these conditions, we can best determine

to what extent practice makes practice and to what

extent practice is mediated by educological theory.

Method: Studying the

Relationship between Theory and Practice

Going into this study, we hypothesized that if preservice

teachers were provided a seamless curriculum of theory and

practice both in their field experiences and in their college

coursework, then they would be more likely to be able to

articulate and implement a coherent educology, i.e. a

coherent theory about the educational process. Given the

experience of a unified teacher education program, we

wished to understand the relationship that exits between a

person’s ability to articulate educological theory and his or

her ability to implement a program of instruction based on

that theory. There were five phases to the research project

reported here. Phases I, II, and III constituted the original

study; phases IV and V were added to address questions

which evolved from the original data.

Phase I involved observations of all interns during

student teaching. Each intern was observed for a half day

on three different occasions by three different researchers.

In-depth field notes were taken during each observation and

some teaching episodes were videotaped. Toward the end

of student teaching, hour-long interviews were conducted

with selected students. Using these data sources, thick

descriptions of the undergraduates’ instructional behavior

were constructed. Four of these descriptions were

subsequently chosen as examples of the stances identified in

Phase II and are included in this paper. Three of the reports

(the ones for Holly, Janet and Anna) are rather

straightforward summaries of our field notes and interviews.

The fourth report (for Emily) summarizes a single event that

occurred during the course of student teaching.

Phase II involved analyzing Phase I data using

intercontexuality theory as an analytical framework (Beach,

1996). According to intercontexuality theory, people cannot

truly understand the ideologies under-girding their current

positions unless they also understand the counter-positions

that are being denied. Not only do texts reside in context,

but different contexts presuppose different discourses. Said

differently, the tension that exists between alternate

discourses means that the everyday participation in social

events always involves the taking of a stance within an

envisioned set of competing discourse worlds.

As a function of this analysis, we created a taxonomy of

five different discourse worlds that we felt captured the

different stances that undergraduate interns demonstrated in

the teaching episodes we observed. In this analysis we

defined stance as the positioning of oneself within a

particular discourse world for purposes of justifying ones

identity, behavior, and agenda.

Phase III involved interviewing all 16 undergraduate

interns at the end of their third semester and asking them

about what mattered most to them in their teacher education

program. Interviews were audiotaped, transcribed, and

analyzed. Working with the interns’ statements and in light

of our observations of their classroom behaviors, 20

uniquely different what mattered statements were created.

The research team discussed how the various statements

might be theoretically aligned with the different stances

identified during Phase II, and eventually assigned a

theoretical orientation to each statement. The statements

were then typed on cards, and given to each student as a

stack at the end of the teacher education program. Students

were asked first to select 4 cards (out of the 20) that

represented what they saw as most important, and then to

justify their selection in terms of the three theoretical

models that formed the foundation for the program (see

Figures 1, 2, and 3). Given their selections and our preassignment

of a theoretical orientation to each card, these

data were studied to confirm or disconfirm our identification

of stance during Phase II of data collection.

Phases IV and V address long-term effects. The four

interns that we cite as exemplars in this study were observed

two years later in an effort to answer questions about

whether or not what we found in Phases I, II and III held.

Phase V reports standardized testing data for children at the

Center for Inquiry; this information is provided for

individuals who see such data as the bottom line.

Part of the educology of education-as-inquiry is the

contention that teachers need to develop their own personal

educology, i.e. their own personal theories about the

educational process. Although interns were immersed in an

education-as-inquiry educology in CFI classrooms and in

their educology courses in their teacher education program,

they also experienced alternatives to this educology in some

of their field placements, in their work as substitute teachers

in this and other school systems, and in their own

experiences as students. Although we know there is no oneto-

one correspondence between teaching and learning, we

assumed that by providing preservice teachers with a

consistent educology, they would be stronger in both the

sense of being more cognizant of their beliefs and of

understanding how beliefs affect practice and vice versa.

The four students we describe below represent four

distinct stances we saw repeated across interns as they

positioned themselves as teachers. It is important to

remember that with the exception of Emily, all of the interns

we report on here were student teaching in a traditional (as

opposed to CFI) classroom. These descriptions suggest that

becoming a teacher is a complex event. The novice teacher

must orchestrate the sense she has made of professional and

personal experiences, as well as her personal sense of

agency, in light of the constraints she believes to be

operating in each teaching context.

During the first eight weeks of the semester Holly was

assigned to student teach in a primary classroom in the

traditional wing of the larger school. Holly described the

cooperating teacher's classroom program as consisting of

first week just to please her. Even though Holly's

cooperating teacher's program consisted largely of skilldriven

worksheets, Holly was able to make adaptations to

the classroom program as early as the second week of her

student teaching. According to Holly, the initial changes to

the schedule consisted of eliminating most of the worksheets

and integrating reading and writing. By this, Holly meant

that she added daily journals, independent reading, and

listening centers to the language arts program. Later, Holly

was able to add several free-choice reading periods and to

begin a home reading program. Holly was determined to

have students take books home to read with their parents.

Hollys supervising teacher argued that too many books

would be lost if they allowed them to go home. In the end,

Holly was able to negotiate this issue by getting parents to

agree to pay for any books that might become lost. Since it

only cost five dollars to replace a book, this plan was

acceptable to both the parents and Hollys supervising

teacher.

Holly continued to follow the cooperating teacher's

spelling program and to use the little books that came with

the districts basal reading program as the primary material

for reading instruction. In an exit interview Holly shared

how she was attempting to integrate more literature into the

classroom. What Holly meant by this was that she had

introduced story telling and several free-choice reading

periods. During these free-choice times, children could

select any of the extra books that came with the basal

reading program to read independently. A second freechoice

reading period consisted of silent sustained reading.

Children selected a library book from those that Holly had

collected and read this book by themselves or quietly with

friends. Storytelling was a big hit in the classroom with

both the children and Hollys supervising teacher. Several

of the videotapes we collected show Holly telling stories

with props and actively engaging students in the storytelling

process themselves.

One of the videotapes we made of Holly teaching shows

her working with a small reading group while other groups

worked on reviewing new words that had been presented in

other lessons, listened to a story on tape, and worked with a

chart board to learn this week’s new words. The students

with whom Holly was working were engaged in round-robin

reading. Holly corrected every error on the spot, and

appeared to be recording the errors in a notebook as well. It

was not clear that these notes were organized in any way or

that she intended to use them for planning future instruction.

When children lost their place, Holly admonished them to

pay attention and follow along. Hollys supervising

teacher was a strong disciplinarian, one who could be heard

raising her voice to children throughout the day. Holly, too,

assumed this Im in control stance by making sure that all

the children were absolutely quiet prior to beginning an

activity and that everyone worked through activities in a

step-by-step fashion. Holly said that one of the things she

had learned from student teaching was the need to make

sure that children saw and respected her authority.

Holly said she thought it was crucial for children to feel

free to share their opinions and interests and that these

would be respected in the classroom. To this end, one of the

first changes she made in the physical environment of the

classroom was to remove all of the supervising teacher’s

Walt Disney posters and replace them with children’s work.

While Holly did not change the focus of instruction in the

room, she did manage to accomplish what the supervising

teacher wanted in a more benign and humane manner.

Holly felt she was able to make these changes because they

did not really alter the districts curriculum:

She [the cooperating teacher] said, these [pointing to the districts

by the curriculum for first grade, and made up my own lessons.

Holly did not attempt to change some program areas.

During our observations, we saw Holly conduct what had

become a ritualistic daily calendar activity in the school.

This involved identifying the date, the weather, and the

number of days school had been in session. Holly also

continued the cooperating teacher's skill-driven daily oral

math and language activities, which had been mandated by

the principal in preparation for district-wide standardized

testing. Rather than copy sentences and problems from the

board, Holly put these items on a worksheet that she handed

out to the students. In this way she had a record of what the

students had done as well as something to grade.

Holly said she felt she needed to follow the teacher's

math program, but found ways to make the experiences

more concrete for the students through the use of math

manipulatives.

up cards [activity centers].

Holly said she felt very constrained when it came to making

changes in the curriculum because of testing:

cover.

When asked what she had learned from her experience

as a student teacher, Holly said she had learned that testing

can be stressful and a powerful deterrent to learning. She

said she felt that if teachers had to prepare students for

standardized testing, it would be better to do practice

worksheets throughout the school year rather than to cram

everything in at the last minute.

teaching.” Janet selected a primary classroom in School 92

as the site in which to do her student teaching. She knew

this teacher and had worked in this classroom during her

initial field experience. In her interview she shared how

excited she was

teaching experience.

Janet described her cooperating teacher as caring about

kids and as open to new things. To support her argument

she cited the fact that her cooperating teacher had spent a lot

of time visiting classrooms in the CFI and in other ways had

expressed an interest in trying inquiry-based instruction.

During classroom visitations we had the opportunity to

observe Janet conducting a daily calendar lesson very

similar to Holly's, a spelling lesson, a basal reading lesson, a

creative writing lesson, and an invitational session in which

children used the arts to extend reading, math, and science

activities. For the most part, Janet tried to set up activities

in which children had choice. Her demeanor was quiet and

respectful of the children in the room. Janet worked long

hours each day getting materials ready for instruction; she

spent time creating a pleasant and attractive classroom

environment. Bulletin boards were teacher-created but

contained books children had written following a

predictable pattern. A number of tradebooks stood upright

on the tops of the bookcases that lined one wall. Although

not well marked, Janet had created a theater area, a writing

center, and a library reading area in the classroom. Children

had no trouble talking about any of these areas and what

went on in them. Children’s desks were arranged in groups

of 4 to form workspaces.

One of the basal reading lessons which we observed

consisted of the students reading a play aloud as a whole

group. When the students pronounced a word incorrectly,

Janet asked them to go back and reread the word correctly.

There were times in the lesson when Janet interrupted

students to ask about the meaning of particular words. At

the end of the lesson, Janet invited students to vote for the

culminating activity they wanted to do. The students elected

to do a play with puppets and act out the parts themselves.

When we later asked Janet how the play activity went, she

responded:

During our interview, Janet explained the reading

program she had in place. Each Monday she sent home a

list of vocabulary words taken from the basal reading story

that would be the focus of reading instruction for the week.

Janet expected students to work on this story each day as

well as complete a comprehension activity she took directly

from the teachers guide. On Fridays, students did

something creative with the story like a group choral

reading. In addition they often completed a comprehension

activity that involved writing. On one of the days we

visited, students wrote descriptions of the setting, each

character in the story, and drew pictures showing what they

thought their favorite character looked like. Often this work

was displayed in the room. By the end of the semester,

Janet was using every opportunity she had to integrate the

arts into the basal reading program. For example, on one

occasion she had students create piñatas in response to a

story.

The spelling lesson which we observed Janet teaching

involved the 'ou' sound. After introducing the sound and its

spelling, Janet shared the list of spelling words that students

were to learn. After having the students read through the list

of words, Janet asked them to use each word in a sentence

and draw an accompanying picture. When we asked Janet

how she selected the spelling words she responded:

all the different sounds she wanted me to cover, and I just did them.

Janet followed a similar practice in making decisions

about what to teach for language arts. Once again she

reported that her supervising teacher had a language

workbook which covered topics like sentence order and

word tense (was, were, is, are, have, had, etc.). Curriculum

decision making was a matter of covering each skill in the

order they were presented in this guide.

For math, Janet followed district’s guidelines, covering

those concepts that were outlined in the math textbook that

had been adopted by the district. Rather than use the

workbook pages, Janet tried to enhance lessons by reading

books, using manipulatives, and playing games that

reinforced the skill being taught.

Despite the cooperating teachers need to have grades

(one reason Janet gave for why her cooperating teacher had

not radically changed her program), Janet was able to make

significant changes to the on-going curriculum by squeezing

in free-choice reading time:

By the end of the semester Janet was able to create what

she called group time and work it into the schedule. During

this period, students could write stories of their own

choosing and explore different centers in the classroom that

focused on topics like science, math, social studies and

health through music, art, and drama. Janet said that both

she and her supervising teacher had a strong interest in using

the arts to enhance and support learning. She maintained

that her supervising teacher’s interest in the arts had been

initially triggered by visits to CFI classrooms.

During our interview, Janet shared how problematic it

was to be teaching in a traditional classroom. The setting

itself seemed to provide excuses for not doing more:

these subjects every single day.

At one point, we talked with Janet about how she might

envision her classroom next year. At no time during this

conversation did Janet mention textbook materials or skilldriven

worksheets. Instead, she described a creative writing

program and an exploration center where children could

follow their own interests in science, social studies and

health. Janet concluded that above all else, she didn't want

learning to feel like it was doing school. After describing

the program she envisioned for next year she asked:

Our final interview ended in a conversation in which

Janet discussed all of the various ways teachers might

encourage students to read and write, how skills might be

integrated into a holistic curriculum, and how the arts might

be used to enhance the overall program. This line of

thinking must have put Janet in a reflective mood as she

during student teaching.

Anna selected a kindergarten in School 92 for her first

student teaching assignment. She said that she liked this

classroom because it reflected an environment where

students' questions were valued and reflected in the

classroom curriculum. Originally, Anna was to be placed in

another kindergarten, but she lobbied for this classroom

because of earlier visits.

Because of administrative pressure on teachers to do

well on the district’s standardized tests, Anna found that the

curriculum had changed drastically when she arrive in

January to start her student teaching. The classroom now

included worksheets for developing letter recognition, flash

cards, a teacher-generated word list, and a teacher-generated

daily message – all carefully orchestrated around a letter of

the week:

to all these different themes I was supposed to be covering.

Annas only hope, at that time, was that the cooperating

teacher told her that she was open to learn new things, and if

Anna had a better way to do things, then she should let her

know. Anna took these comments as invitations to make

changes. Worksheets were eliminated from the daily group

time and instead assigned as homework. Anna combined

the letter of the week with the theme of the week so that

there was more time in the day to include engagements of

her choosing. She also selected weekly themes that both

reflected student interest and met the letter of the week

requirement. For example, when Letter P Week came

around, Anna saw that children were already involved in

puppets and so selected puppetry as the theme. Word lists

became student-generated rather than teacher-generated. A

word wall and games were introduced as a way to handle

flash card drills. During one of our observations, we saw

several students using the word wall as they wrote in their

journals, another innovation Anna added to the classroom.

Other changes we observed included group time. Here

students cycled through exploration centers. During the

theme, Markets and Nutrition (Letter M and Letter N Weeks)

-- students were working in a supermarket exploration

center, a nurse’s station, and running a classroom mail

center. During Letter R Week, Anna created a classroom

restaurant that was so popular, the 5th graders who visited

the room for Buddy Reading gave up reading together to

play restaurant.

Anna began each morning and afternoon by telling a

story or reading a book which she enacted using simple

props. Children were highly engaged and seemed to have

internalized reading as inquiry in that they often interrupted

the reading to ask questions and discuss what was

happening. Often Anna complimented the children by

saying that what they had asked was a very good question:

The very thing good readers do constantly, she told one

student. During group time, the props for various books

were made available as an invitation for the children to

choose. By the end of the semester Anna was well on her

way to owning her own collection of childrens books.

Over the course of the semester, Anna managed to

integrate all of the curriculum areas. Exploration time

included opportunities to conduct science experiences,

explore nature and learn about the community. Children

moved from one activity to another in an almost seamless

fashion. Being highly organized, Anna developed a system

whereby each curricular invitation had its own plastic box in

which artifacts, books, and manipulatives could be stored

for easy access. When we asked Anna how she was able to

make changes in the classroom program she responded:

done. That's always how I'd start ou.t

Anna claimed that as the semester progressed, not only

her cooperating teacher, but also the other kindergarten

teachers became more open to new ideas. Whenever we

met Anna's cooperating teacher in the hallway, she always

commented on how much she enjoyed having Anna in her

classroom and how much she was learning from Anna. On

one occasion, the school principal shared how Anna had

taken on a leadership role at one of the staff meetings by

suggesting that teachers invite parents to become inquirers

with them in helping their children learn.

At the end of student teaching, Anna identified as one of

her values the necessity of taking a critical stance towards

teaching and what is being taught in schools. Anna’s advice

to others: Stand firm in your beliefs and fight for them.

Emily: The Nappy Hair Incident. Emily’s first student

teaching assignment was in Joe Turner’s multiage

fourth/fifth grade classroom. Joe is a veteran CFI teacher

who can tolerate a good deal of chaos. He believes in

regular town meetings run by students and feels that if the

meetings don’t go well, then that’s a learning opportunity.

He also has been known to criticize other teachers on the

staff for their lack of imagination. For example, when the

issue of how to improve students’ spelling came up at a joint

staff meeting of CFI and School 92 teachers, he came back

from the meeting shaking his head.

going to change with the times.

Joe’s room was interesting in that he had a group of

African-American girls (Emily called them a clique) that

clearly ran the show. They were outspoken. They

interrupted classmates to make points. They worked like

beavers on inquiry projects that interested them, but did so

in their own noisy fashion. Joe didnt mind. Emily did.

Things came to a head when Emily took over the town

meetings. Like Joe, she opened the town meeting by

reading a book. Unlike Joe, she was bothered by the fact

that the African-American girls fixed each other’s hair as

turn this classroom into a glorified beauty parlor! When

she brought this issue up at the town meeting, students

siding with her were interrupted before they got to make

own! With this, she left the classroom. When she came

back, the class was furious. Even the group of girls

involved in fixing their hair thought she had a responsibility

you don’t have a right to just walk out! they complained.

Over the next several weeks the dispute raged on.

Several of the African-American girls brought in articles

they found on Internet to defend their right to fix each

other’s hair during town meetings. Holding a quote by

says so right here. To Emily’s credit, this incident caused

her to rethink her position. Community-school relations

became the urgent topic of her next personal inquiry project.

She was particularly interested in learning about how

community mores, which differed from school mores, were

honored or ignored in other educational settings.

At the end of eight weeks, Emily was reassigned to

another classroom to finish her student teaching, and Rita,

hair problem from Emily, she found the book Nappy Hair

(Herron, 1997) and brought it in to read at her first town

meeting. Nappy Hair is the story of an extended African-

American family’s picnic. A new baby makes her debut at

nappiest hair in the world. The text consists of what

members of the family said about the baby to each other at

got some nappy hair on your head, is followed by the

refrain, Ain’t it the truth? Don’t cha know! The book was a

true hit. Two of the girls worked it up as a reader’s theater

and took their production to several of the other classrooms

in the CFI. The videotape of their reading shows not only

their adroitness with black English, but the audience’s rapt

attention -- including two white girls in the front row fixing

their hair.

When we visited the classroom two weeks into Rita’s

student teaching, Kiera, one of the African American girls

involved, whispered, Psssst, Dr. Harste, come here. When

Jerry responded Yes, what can I do for you? Kiera stated

that she had a bone to pick with him for moving Emily to

back? Kiera replied coolly that they had never been fighting

teacher.

Figure 4 is a chart outlining the five different stances we

found interns to have taken according to our analyses of

field data, any available videotapes and exit interviews. We

began this analysis by looking through our field notes and

listing for each student what we did and did not see

happening in terms of change. We then attempted to

develop a rationale, based on what interns had said, as to

why these changes were or were not made. For example,

we noted that Holly had changed her cooperating teacher’s

schedule after the first week by eliminating most of the

worksheets and attempting to integrate reading and writing.

We also noted that she appeared to be modeling these

changes on what she saw going on in CFI classrooms but

that she offered no theoretical explanation for making the

changes. Holly did not have problems teaching the skill

sequences that her supervising teacher had laid out for her

other than she thought there were more fun ways to teach

than what she had seen her supervising teacher using. She

also said that she knew we wanted to see children working

together and their work up in classrooms and that she

voices. When we analyzed Holly’s data in terms of why

she had not made more changes, we found that Holly

perceived her cooperating teacher to be under a good deal of

pressure by the principal to have her students do well on the

state standardized test. Because of this situation, Holly felt

that she could not change things very much. At no time did

she question the implicit assumption that was being made by

both the teacher and the principal that the function of

schooling was to do well on these tests. When questioned as

to why she did not make more changes in the reading

program, Holly indicated that a lack of books and materials

did not trust the kids to be responsible.

<----Wannabee

Wannabee---

>

Stances

by

Dimension

Benevolent

Skills

Selective

Chameleon

House

Decorator

Inquirer

Budding

Social

Reformer

Theoretica

l

Sees inquiry

as a new

way of

teaching

skills and

making

learning fun

Willing to

explore inquiry

as an occasional

curricular activity

within a

discipline

Sees inquiry as a

methodology

that applies to

some curricular

area and not

others

Uses inquiry

as a vehicle

for learning

(both self

and

children)

Is

exploring

how to use

inquiry to

make

institutiona

l change

Reflective

Practitioner

Is reluctant

to submit

own beliefs

about

schooling to

critical

reflection

Reflects

narrowly. More

interested in how

they look than in

children’s

learning

Some evidence

of using

reflection as a

tool for

professional

growth and

educational

critique

Reflects on

student

learning as a

vehicle for

understandin

g, generating

and

evaluating

practice

Uses

reflection

for

purposes of

rethinking

schooling

Curricular

Makes

curricular

decisions on

the basis of

pragmatics

rather than

theory

Sees some

theoretical

differences

between alternate

conceptions of

curriculum but is

confused about

what these

differences mean

for practice

Sees what is

good about

inquiry but

cannot envision

a workable

structure outside

of the

disciplines

Uses

focused

studies and

children’s

questions as

the starting

points for

instruction

they initiate

Sets up

environmen

ts for

inquiry

despite

obvious

constraints

including

administrati

ve

mandates

and how

the current

curriculum

has been

organized

Social

Uses groups

as a

variation in

routine. Is

governed by

the

expectation

of others.

Wants to be

seen as an

authority

figure

Uses groups

cooperatively to

more effectively

reach objectives.

Changes position

depending on

who is asking.

Issues of

management and

control determine

choices

Thinks that both

cooperative

learning and

collaborative

learning are the

same. Is very

concerned about

expectation of

authority figures

Uses others

to outgrow

self. Values

collaboratio

n for

students and

for self

Sees new

possibilitie

s for how

various

stakeholder

s might

work

together to

improve

education

World

View

Thinks

about

instructional

methodolog

y as either

working or

notworking.

Uses the

arts as a

variation in

routine and

for

decoration

Selects

methodology

according to

context but

doesn’t see how

something done

in someone else’s

classroom might

be applicable

here. Uses the

arts as

enrichment.

Selects

methodology

according to

discipline but

doesn’t see how

something done

in reading might

be applicable to

science. Uses

the arts as ways

to support

learning

Sees a

variety of

methodologi

es as

instances of

an inquiry

curriculum.

Uses the arts

to help

learners gain

new

perspectives

Sees

education

as inquiry

as a

philosophic

al stance

that

permeates

everything

that is

done. See

the arts as

alternate

literacies

By working with the data in this way, we discovered that

interns held very different opinions about things even on the

same subject. We determined, for example, that Holly saw

inquiry as a new way of teaching skills and making learning

fun, while Emily used inquiry as a vehicle for learning for

both herself and her children. Figure 4 lays out five

dimensions along which we found interns differing:

1. Theoretical orientation: The role inquiry plays in

educational reform.

practitioner: The role reflection plays in teaching.

3. Understanding curriculum: The relationship of

theory and practice in curricular planning.

4. Understanding the social nature of learning: How

social factors affect learning.

5. World View: The extent of their gaze or worldview.

In analyzing the data further, we found that various

positions entailed alignment on several factors. For

their own beliefs about schooling to any critical reflection.

what these [theory to practice] differences mean, were

reluctant to share own beliefs, and selected curricular

activities in terms of what makes me look good. Figure 4

shows other such alignments.

Although four interns were deemed to be Inquirers by

this analysis, what was surprising to us was the range of

positions that interns took, given their many common

experiences. From what we could tell, two interns failed to

change any of their basic beliefs about schooling. For them,

inquiry was a more benevolent way to teach a skill

curriculum, while making them look savvy and

educologically up-to-date. In sharp contrast to these two

interns were two other interns who in a sense not only took

on an inquiry perspective, but went beyond the thinking of

both the university and school faculty in terms of what an

inquiry model of schooling might change. We named this

set of interns Budding School Reformers and literally stood

back in amazement as they pushed administrators and

seasoned teachers into rethinking their notions of schooling.

We named 8 of the interns Wannabees in the sense that they

had internalized parts of an education-as-inquiry educology,

but were unable to get their act together completely.

Overall, what these data suggest is that 14 out of the 16

interns in this program were able, at least on occasion and in

some curricular areas, to think and operate theoretically

when it came to classroom instruction. Eight interns could

only do this for the reading and writing portion of their

curriculum, and then sometimes only on occasion, though

they did seem to have the ability to make their rooms appear

as if they were doing inquiry-based instruction in other areas

of the curriculum as well. At one point in this study we

characterized 4 of these 8 interns, House Decorators and the

additional 4 Chameleons, given their selective ability to say

what they thought listeners wanted to hear. In the end we

decided to combine these two categories into one category

which we characterized as Wannabees, as this name seemed

to capture the true state of things and focused on the positive

progress interns were making in terms of implementing and

managing an inquiry-based curriculum. Six of the 16

interns were able to operate in a theoretically consistent

manner across all curriculum areas. Two of the 6 (the

Budding School Reformer category) began to use inquiry as

a perspective for addressing aspects of schooling we had

never managed to reform ourselves, like school-community

relations and parent involvement.

At a debriefing conference at the end of the third

semester, interns were asked individually what they thought

really mattered most about being in this program. Several

interns asked if we wanted them to respond in terms of their

work in schools or in terms of the teacher education

program itself. Although we had anticipated using only one

response per student, we abandoned this idea and allowed

interns to list as many high priority reasons as they wished.

Their responses were taped, transcribed, and analyzed for

patterns. Figure 5 shows the interns’ responses in order of

frequency by names we thought captured the essence of

what they were saying.

Learning how to conduct inquiry-based education (N=9)

Being part of a progressive educational community (N=6)

Feeling current and connected to the profession (N=4)

Being field-based and actively involved in classrooms (N=4)

Being treated as a professional (N=3)

Having the kinds of opportunities that I think make me

a better teacher (N=3)

Learning how to set up environments that support literacy (N=3)

Learning how to work with diversity and special learners (N=2)

Experiencing first-hand what collaboration means (N=2)

Having the opportunity to build meaningful relationships (N=2)

A surface reading of Figure 5 would suggest that what

mattered most to students was learning practical techniques

related to implementing inquiry-based instruction. What is

not self-evident, however, is that interns have already

educologically had to conceptualize education as inquiry in

order for this to be their concern. This is probably more

obvious when one envisions the what-matters categories

that seem practically oriented as questions instead of

conduct inquiry-based education? presupposes that

education is best conceived educologically as a process of as

inquiry (for further clarification of this point see Langer,

1980).

Another way to read Figure 5 is to look at how

inquiry-based education is the largest category, having 9

what-matters statements attached to it. The second largest

community with 6 statements. The third largest category is a

classrooms each having 4 statements. This pattern

continues, suggesting that it mattered to interns that they

were part of something bigger, namely, an educologically

re-envisioning of both the theory and practice of public

schools and teacher education (57 percent as opposed to 43

percent).

One of the things we noticed in working with intern

statements on what mattered was that often there were

subtle theoretical differences between statements, even

when they dealt with the same topic. Using the range of

intern responses as our cue, we developed 20 revised

statements that we thought captured the theoretical

differences we noted between statements as well as how

various interns holding various stances perceived these

differences. Needless to say, this process was fairly

arbitrary, but important, as it forced us to explicate our own

beliefs as well as put them to the test. Figure 6 displays our

predictions of how various theoretical statements align

themselves with the 5 different stances that we initially

identified interns as taking during Phase II research.

Learning to take a critical stance towards teaching and what is being

taught in schools.

Learning to work with others in an effort to create social change.

Being able to read, discuss, and become part of a progressive

educational community.

Being in a school setting where a multiple ways of knowing curriculum

is being advocated as supporting diversity and improving access for

students not previously well served by schools.

Learning to build curriculum from children.

Being in a program that allows kids to explore their own research

questions.

Being encouraged to reflect on a daily basis for purposes of developing

personal theories of learning and improving classroom practice.

Experiencing collaboration as a way of learning for our students and us.

Being able to experiment with the inquiry process during Friday groups

and other times.

Experiencing a program where children’s literature is used to

supplement the curriculum.

Exploring multiple ways of knowing as tools for enriching the school

program.

Being in a variety of classrooms where different organizational

structures are modeled so that we can pick ones we like.

Exploring what math, science, social studies and other curricular areas

might look like when taught differently than when I was in school.

Being in a setting where you were allowed to try out ideas from a wide

variety of sources (e.g. Instructor magazine, fellow students, college

professors, workshops, etc.)

Learning to use choice to open-up options within a prescribed

curriculum.

Having the opportunity to take new ideas and work with them until they

work.

Learning to set up and make curricula more acceptable by giving

children choice.

Developing new ways to teach skills while making learning enjoyable.

Learning how to manage a classroom, maintain effective discipline, and

keep order.

Learning how to include the arts (storytelling, art, music, drama, and

movement) within the expected curriculum.

These statements were typed on 3x5 cards and put into a

packet that was given to interns at the end of their second

student teaching experience. Interns were asked to look

through these cards and identify 4 which they felt best

represented what they saw as important about the program

from their own perspective. Figure 7 lists in order of

frequency of selection those statements that were the most

often chosen.

What these data show is that on the whole, interns

selected theoretical statements from the Inquirer stance

more frequently than they did other stances. This set of data

then reconfirms the conclusions that we reached in Phase II

research that 16 out of the 18 interns had adopted (at least in

part) an inquiry perspective.

Being encouraged to reflect on a daily basis for

purposes of developing personal theories of

learning and improving classroom practice

(N=12).

Inquirer

Learning to build curriculum from children

(N=10).

Inquirer

Experiencing collaboration as a way of learning

for our students and us (N=8).

Inquirer

Being in a program that allows kids to explore

their own research questions (N=6).

Inquirer

Experiencing a program where childrens

literature is used to supplement the curriculum

(N=6).

Wannabee

(Home Decorator)

Exploring multiple ways of knowing as tools for

enriching the school program (N=6).

Wannabee (Home

Decorator)

To further explore these data, Figure 8 lays out the

frequency of theoretical statements selected by stance

against what we predicted given our identification of

interns’ stances in Phase II. If these data fell out as we

predicted, we should expect that those interns we identified

as Budding Social Reformers would choose theoretical

statements we identified with this category, interns we

identified as Inquirers would choose theoretical statements

we identified with that category and so on. Figure 8

compares predictions of this nature against what really

happened when interns were asked to identify which

statements they saw as particularly important.

Stance (Number

of interns we

identified

holding this

stance during

Phase II

Research)

Total number of

predicted hits in

each category

against actual

number of hits.

(64=total number

of statements)

% of statements

which should

have been

selected given our

prediction from

Phase II research

results

% of

statements

which

actually fell

in these cells

% of miss

Budding

Social

Reformer (N=2)

8 predicted

12 actual

12.5

19.0

Plus 6.5

Inquirer (N=4)

16 predicted

27 actual

25.0

41.0

Plus 16.0

Home

Decorator (N=4)

16 predicted

10 actual

25.0

16.0

Minus 9.0

Selective (N=4)

Chameleon

16 predicted

8 actual

25.0

13.0

Minus 12.0

Benevolent

Skills (N=2)

8 predicted

7 actual

12.5

11.0

Plus 1.5

Because we identified 4 interns as holding the Inquirer

stance during Phase II research, we predicted that 16 inquiry

statements would show up (4 interns × 4 inquiry statements

= 16). In reality, 27 inquiry statements were selected,

suggesting that overall, interns understood the rhetoric of

inquiry even if they were not able to convince us that they

could practice it when we observed them in the classroom.

If one were to predict an intern’s stance on the basis of

the data in Figure 8, one would assume that by far the most

frequent stance interns would have assumed in their student

teaching would have been that of Inquirer. The second most

Social Reformer. Given Phase II observations of interns’

behavior in classrooms, these predictions did not turn out to

be accurate. Yet, to the extent that articulation precedes

action, these results have to be read positively. While they

do not match the reality of the moment, they bode well for

the future. When read as a set of ideals, these statements

can be seen as an image towards which interns can grow and

against which they can self-correct.

We were also interested in finding out how well interns

were able to articulate their choice of statements in terms of

the educological models which provided the foundation for

both the teacher education and CFI programs. In order to

keep this component of the study manageable, one student

was identified for each stance and the rationales for each of

the 4 statements selected by these representative interns

were compiled. To judge which rationale statements were

the most articulate, we enlisted the help of 10 university

instructors who were exploring an inquiry-based approach

to teacher education in their own teaching. Specifically we

asked raters to identify the most articulate rationale

statements and, conversely, the least articulate rationale

statements on the list. Six (of the 16) rationale statements

were identified as being highly articulate; each received 8 or

more votes. Parenthetical notations after the statements

identify which theoretical model the student was talking

about in the rationale as well as the stance of the student

relative to findings in Phase II of the study.

Democracy; Budding Social Reformer).

Education as Democracy; Budding Social

Reformer).

(Figure 2, The Inquiry Cycle; Inquirer).

and investigating (Figure 2, The Inquiry Cycle;

Inquirer).

(Figure 3, Multiple Ways of Knowing; Inquirer)

Multiple Ways of Knowing; Budding Social

Reformer).

Inquirers and/or Budding Social Reformers made all 6 of the

statements identified as articulate by the raters. Although it

was optional, 6 of the 10 raters identified these three

statements as least articulate:

Cycle; Selective Chameleon)

Cycle; Benevolent Skills)

Knowing; House Decorator).

It is important to note that Budding Social Reformers

and Inquirers made all 6 of the most articulate statements,

articulate rationale statements. These data lend support to

the hypothesis that interns who were able to articulate what

they were doing educologically had also been identified as

demonstrating more educologically consistent ways of

interacting with children in classrooms.

We found stance to be a powerful way of looking at how

our students have both been positioned and have positioned

ourselves within the fund of knowledge of educology and

within the processes of education and literacy. Unlike most

concepts, stance is a concept that speaks to relationships.

Just as one cannot understand teaching without understanding

learning, so too, one cannot understand identity

without understanding the tension that exists between

discourse worlds. What follows is a series of statements we

think we can conclude as a result of this study and are

reasons for reaching these conclusions.

are much more likely to accomplish change. While several

phases of this research directly address this issue, Phase III

data make it clear that interns who were the most successful

in making change in their classrooms were also the most

articulate about why this change was educologically

important. Anna is a clear case. Living within the

constraints of flash cards, Letter-A day routines and a

prescribed set of topics, she was able to build curriculum

from the inquiry questions of learners and offer students real

choices. She was also able to make learning active,

highlight reading, writing, and other ways of knowing, and

help the teachers with whom she was working to become

more educologically consistent in their own practice.

more seamless the curriculum. One of the significant

differences between Anna and Janet, for example, was that

Anna was able to organize curriculum around themes as

opposed to disciplines. Under the umbrella of a theme,

Anna’s classroom flowed from activity to activity whereas

Janet’s was forever stopping and starting. Anna’s children

moved within an overarching theme; Janet’s children move

from subject to subject. The corollary of this conclusion

was stated by Janet, and that was that the less the

doing school as it has always been done. Both Janet and

Holly seem to be clear examples.

What may not be so obvious is that this tenet is as true

for teachers as it is teacher educators. With new

understanding such as this study provides, the teacher

education program reported on here continues to grow. As

a result of this study we are experimenting with ways to

support the development of a critical, multiple ways of

knowing, inquiry-based curriculum (Leland, Harste,

Ociepka, Lewison, & Vasquez, 1999; Leland & Harste,

1999; Harste, Vasquez, Lewison, Breau, Leland, & Ociepka,

2000). We already have a new cohort of interns student

teaching over two semesters.

self-correcting device in the educational process. Interns

who were effective change agents used educological theory

as a vision of what might be. It was this vision that drove

them to find ways to align educational practice. Other

interns either let the matter of permission stop them or did

not seek permission because of their lack of educological

vision. Janet said that experiencing first-hand what a

multiple ways of knowing curriculum could do for children

caused her to wish that she had done more. Suddenly, she

could educologically envision a different educational world.

Janet, then, shows how educological theory, or one’s

educological envisioning of what educationally might be,

can serve as a self-correcting device in the educational

process. Comparing what is to what might be creates a new

agenda.

While Holly did make some changes in her supervising

teacher’s classroom, many of the changes were superficial.

Her explanation that she took down the supervising

teacher’s Walt Disney posters to put up children’s work

because she knew this is what we, her instructors, would

like to see, is professionally unacceptable as she is neither

taking educological nor personal responsibility for her

teaching decisions. While Holly has rhetoric for why she

does things, it is not anchored in an educological

understanding of the relationship between educological

theory and educational practice, but in political pragmatics,

where instructors, as a general rule, hold arbitrary power

over undergraduates. Without an educological rationale for

what she is doing, Holly is extremely vulnerable to the next

expert or next new idea, no matter how misguided either

might be.

practice drive the learning process. Two of the newest

insights in the educology of language education are the

literacies (Street, 1995) and that we are socially constructed

as particular types of literate beings (Luke & Freebody,

1997). These data show that few of the interns studied took

on a critical literacy perspective or went as far as we would

have liked them to go in terms of analyzing the systems of

meaning that exist in society to position them as literate

adults. (For more on the relationship between critical

perspectives and these interns, see Leland, Harste, &

Youssef, 1997). Not surprisingly, we found few if any

examples in this data of interns working to help students

understand how literacy is positioning them. Such a

curricular focus is not so much a matter of front-loading the

curriculum as it is having a critical perspective and using

what opportunities naturally arise in the classroom to

support the interrogation of beliefs and the taking of new

social action (Vasquez, 1999, 2000).

The Nappy Hair Incident is representative of how the

concept of stance and the taking of a critical perspective

might advance a new vision of teacher education. There are,

we believe, three lessons to be learned about the relationship

of educological theory and educational practice in teacher

education from this incident. First, educological theory and

educational practice are constantly evolving. Even when

our educological models of the educational process

represent the best that we currently know, there is more to

be learned and more that we need to address. For this

reason our models of education should be both open and

constantly under review. Critical literacy does not make

invalid an inquiry-based model of education, but rather

highlights an aspect of the learning cycle that has not

received the attention it must receive if we are to understand

learning in its most powerful sense. Whatever educological

conceptions of education we use to anchor our programs of

teacher education, they need to be open to change over time.

Models, like education, are always in the making. Second,

learning is signaled by a change in one’s educological

conception of educational models as well as in one’s

educational practice in the teaching and learning process.

Although Emily began in one place, the evidence indicates

that she grew and began to think about classroom

management in a new way. Practically, as her educological

conceptual model changed so did her educational practice.

She became less confrontational and began to position

herself as a learner. Third, Emily’s positioning of herself as

an inquirer allowed her a self-correction strategy. Through

inquiry, she began to demonstrate to the students that she,

too, was a learner. The problem with this example, from a

critical literacy standpoint, is that it doesn’t go far enough --

which bring us to several other important conclusions that

bear on this event.

educational practice. Part of what is problematic with

teacher education is our inability to be as flexible with time

as we need to be. If Emily had been given more time in

Joe’s classroom, she probably would have been able to

engage the children in a very different conversation.

Moving to a new placement for the second half of student

teaching meant that she did not have an opportunity to do

this. The result is that the grounding for a critical literacy

agenda was set, but not enacted. No social action was taken.

In terms of theory-practice relationships, what we are left

with is educological theory but no educational practice; the

result is a less satisfactory educative experience than might

have been.

One can only guess how more time would have affected

Janet. Although she was still thinking about curriculum in

terms of disciplines and still seeing the arts more as

enrichment than as an integral part of the learning process,

both she and her cooperating teacher were beginning to

move. Like young children learning literacy (Harste,

Woodward, & Burke, 1984), Janet and her cooperating

teacher were just beginning to take the risk of exploring the

world of possibilities that an expanded definition of literacy

affords.

Practical concerns like management and control are also

artifacts of time and relationships. Underlying the interns’

ongoing concerns about implementing an inquiry-based

curriculum were the twin issues of management and control.

What these data suggest are that in order for interns to

accept fully an educological model of education-as-inquiry,

they needed to be able to envision educologically how such

a model might be implemented by them in a classroom

complete with whatever nightmarish non-support they might

encounter. Over and over again, it became clear that for

interns who did not see classroom behavior as negotiated,

notions of success rested on whether or not students

behaved in a manner that was acceptable to them and to

what they thought significant others, like supervising

teachers and the school principal, expected. At the core of

this egotism was the matter of control. Whereas an

education-as-inquiry model of education is built on the

premise that children ought to be in charge of their own

learning and that education ought to build off the inquiry

questions of learners, the model assumes that teachers will

be willing to negotiate curriculum. Interns identified as

holding the Benevolent Skills, Selective Chameleon and

Home Decorator stances did not understand this

educological theory and educational practice relationship.

In their own mind’s eye, their identity rested on their ability

to maintain order, not on their ability to create an

educational environment which supported learners taking

charge of their own learning. Again, it was political

pragmatics over educological theoretical conceptions of

what might be. Their focus was on themselves rather than

on relationships between teaching and learning and

educological theory and educational practice.

The issue of management and control is another artifact,

then, of time and relationship. Not having enough time to

develop informed and meaningful relationships with either

their cooperating teachers or with the students in the class

means that issues of management and control cannot be

negotiated. This, too, in part is Emily’s problem. Despite

our best efforts at educologically re-envisioning teacher

education, we didn’t go far enough. By concentrating two

student teaching placements in one semester, we did not

create an environment within which interns could develop

the kind of relationships that could truly change things. As

it stands right now, interns experience only a mild dose of

relationship building. Using the metaphor of a literacy tool

kit, management is really a matter of deciding which

organizational tools work best from context to context.

How well these tools work depends on how their use has

been negotiated, and this in large part relies on the kinds of

relationships that have been constructed.

theory and educational practice. To a large degree, interns

in this study faced many of the same constraints. They all

worked in a building where the principal wanted teachers to

skill and drill kids in preparation for the upcoming

standardized state test. They all worked with supervising

teachers who were positioned to understand that their

children’s test scores would be seen as an evaluation of

themselves and their teaching competency. They all had to

acknowledge the district-wide basal curriculum in reading,

mathematics, spelling, and the English language arts. But in

spite of the many constraints they shared, they ended up

doing very different things. In analyzing these data, one

pattern we identified was that when practices educologically

bothered any of the interns, they managed to make change.

This finding was true for all interns, with the pattern holding

across all stances, from Budding Social Reformers to

Benevolent Skills. What separated Benevolent Skills from

Budding Social Reformers was the number of things that did

not educologically bother them.

The more constraints interns saw as to why they could

not make changes, the less likely they were to have an

understanding of relationships between educological theory

and educational practice. Anna, you will recall, was

bothered by almost all of the decisions that had been

implemented since her last visit to this classroom. Holly on

the other hand had many of the same things happening in

her classroom but was not educologically bothered by them.

Rather than use educology as a point of critique, she turned

to pragmatics and justified not making any real changes

because of the physical constraints like a demanding

principal, a reluctant supervising teacher, and district policy.

Janet, too, felt constrained in her attempts to implement an

inquiry-based program by the number of disciplines she had

to include. Her perception of a set of disciplines as a

constraint indicates that she was still putting disciplines at

the center of curriculum. By identifying constraints, we

have a window on what aspect Janet did not understand of

the relationship between educological theory and

educational practice.

educological theories explicit. This study lends credence to

the notion that teachers are more effective when their

classroom practices match the educological theories which

they hold on literacy, learning, curriculum and schooling. It

further lends credence to the notion that it is the

responsibility of educologists within teacher education

programs to support teachers-in-preparation in developing

internally consistent educological models of theory for

guiding sound educational practice.

Many teacher educators might question whether we

ought to be giving teachers educological theories or whether

it is the responsibility of each professional teacher to

develop his or her own educology. They might argue that in

teacher education, we ought to expose teachers to as many

educological theories as possible and let each prospective

teacher decide for him or herself which aspects of

educology to espouse. While these are different perspectives

on the issue of educological theory in teacher education, it is

important to note that each of these views assume that

educological theory is important. Our earlier research on

the teaching of reading (Harste & Burke, 1977; DeFord,

1978) has shown that teachers consistently operate out of an

educological theory of reading whether they are conscious

of it or not. We suspect the same holds for teaching more

generally and that what is true for teachers is also true for

teacher educators.

The real issue is how explicit we want to make our

educological theories. This study supports the notion that

teacher educators, and especially teachers of educology

within teacher education programs, ought to be explicit

about their educological theories of literacy, learning,

curriculum, and schooling as well as provide settings in their

teacher education classrooms and in the public schools

where prospective teachers can see and experience such

educological theories guiding educational action.

Some would see this approach to teacher education as

biased, yet as professionals, we would argue that

educological theories and educational practices we advocate

represent the best of what is currently known. As

responsible teacher educators and teachers of educology, we

are asking prospective teachers to do what we do; namely,

to plan instruction in light of the best information available.

To see teaching and teacher education as inquiry is to

understand that in addition to taking an educological stance,

one also has to assume that some part of one’s current

educological theory is wrong. The trick is to find out which

rebuilding your ship while sailing the high seas.

This study demonstrates the pervasive and powerful role

that educological theory plays in teacher education. To the

degree that prospective teachers were cognizant of the

differences between what they believed about teaching and

learning and what actually took place during their or their

supervising teacher’s instruction, practice did not generate

practice. In fact, there is ample evidence that for teachers

aware of the difference between educological theory and

educational practice, educological theory served as an

anchor, a self-renewing strategy, and a point of reflection.

Aligning Educational Practice with

Educological Theory is Never Easy,

But Worthwhile Nevertheless.

This study shows that aligning educational practice with

educological theory in teacher education, while worth the

effort, is not easy. Not only did we have to create our own

public school, but we had to create our own teacher

education program. Further, what may not be self-evident is

that three of us devoted two full days to this program each

week, teaching college classes on site as well as supervising

students in public school classrooms. Needless to say, this

calls for a level of dedication and commitment to teacher

education not typical of faculties in schools of education

(i.e. schools of educology) at major universities. Probably

one of the reasons schools of education have trouble

preparing quality teachers is not that there are not faculty

willing to put forth this effort, but rather that the university

neither values nor takes the job of teacher education very

seriously.

Beyond long-term, serious commitments between

university and school, other things in this study inhibited the

alignment of educological theory and educational practice.

As is evident in the case study reports, students often found

the instructional materials they were given to work with less

than ideal. Instructional materials, whether in reading or

science, were educologically at odds with what prospective

teachers had come to believe about language and learning.

Classroom schedules were also an issue. Interns constantly

complained that they were not given the time to develop the

lessons they wanted to teach in the manner in which they

wished to teach them because of time constraints imposed

on them by classroom schedules and district mandates.

Then too, as is evident in this data, district wide testing not

only limited what could be done at certain times during the

year, but violated what students had been taught about

quality programs of assessment and evaluation. We came to

see these inhibitors as social and political constraints in that

school policies beyond the classroom and our program

affected our work as teacher educators and teachers of

educology.

Other inhibitors were psychological, but just as real.

Positioning teachers and prospective teachers as co-learners

proved difficult. Try as we might, old models of how

classroom teachers and teachers in training were to work

together prevailed. Interns were as bad at positioning

themselves as were the classroom teachers. Both groups

were prone to position the classroom teacher in a super

ordinate position and the intern in a subordinate position,

when it was exactly this hierarchal arrangement that the

education-as-inquiry model of education was attempting to

disrupt.

As is evident in the case study of Emily, interns’

perceptions of schooling, of community, and of culture

affect what behaviors are and are not valued. In this regard,

it is interesting to note Kiera’s comment to me that she was

not fighting with Emily, but rather helping her become a

teacher. Kiera, too, has an educological theory about

education and specifically her role in the preparation of

teachers. While her stance is not one that has often been

considered in the literature on teacher education, it is clear

that it should be if we wish to understand the complexity of

teacher preparation. While it may not be so evident in the

data we have presented, over and over again interns were

positioned by the perception children had of teachers. The

fact that students wanted things done the way their regular

teacher did them is a constraint unless you envision a

classroom in which such decisions are not arbitrary but

negotiable.

In presenting this study at various research conferences

(Harste, Leland & Schmidt, 1997, 1999), the one question

Phase IV, while not part of our original design, was a

two-year follow-up. Specifically, the 4 interns used as

exemplars in this paper during the reporting of Phase I of

the study were located and observed teaching 2 years later.

Although only one classroom observation was made for

each teacher, the data collected begin to address this

question of sustainability. As was done during Phase I, a

thick description of each former intern’s teaching was made

after an observation and interview by one of the authors.

Notes were condensed and summarized to provide a portrait

of the classroom, and summaries were returned to the

teachers for comment and correction. As a research team,

we studied this set of data to see to what degree we might

answer the question as to whether or not the effects reported

in Phases I, II, and III held over time.

Holly: Three Years Later. Since graduating from our

teacher education program in 1996, Holly has taught in two

private Christian schools. Her first position (1-year) was

teaching 5th grade on a half-day schedule. Her current

position is as a 2nd grade teacher. During the interview,

Holly discussed her current teaching position and some of

her concerns as a teacher in this school. Her biggest

complaint was that the required curriculum (textbooks) and

the philosophy of the principal did not support her ideas and

desires “to teach with a whole language method” as she had

because I need to use the required materials. She also

mentioned that her instructional assistant was much harder

on the children than she would be and that this was often a

problem as they worked in the room together.

Holly had 14 second graders (all African-American) in a

very large and airy classroom. The desks were placed side

by side in pairs, allowing lots of space for the students to

move around. There was a gathering area by the calendar in

the front of the room and a large crescent-shaped table used

for reading groups. The room was quite colorful with charts

to designate helpers and track behavior, a word wall, cursive

alphabet letters, and a number of posters. However, there

was a noticeable lack of children’s work on display. When

we asked Holly about this, she replied that she had forgotten

about putting up student work and would get around to

displaying their papers soon.

As soon as the children had put away their lunch boxes

and jackets; Holly instructed them to prepare for D.E.A.R.

time. The children scrambled around finding their reading

materials and then looked for suitable places to sit and read.

Some chose to read with partners; others were reading

alone. Once they were settled, Holly and her assistant each

took one child aside and began to have these children read

from the Dolch word list. While each child identified the

words on the list, the teachers kept track of words that were

known and unknown. We found out later that all primary

students in this school are required by the principal to know

all the words on this list. Proficiency with the Dolch words

was how Holly determined the make-up of the three reading

groups that were currently operating in her classroom. Later

on in our discussion of her reading program, Holly asked me

if we thought the child she was testing that day might be

dyslexic because she was misplacing vowel letters (e.g.

smell for small). We suggested it might just be the child’s

dialect, and Holly agreed that that was possible and that she

would look for more evidence regarding the child’s dialect.

As soon as Holly had finished testing the child with the

Dolch word list, she got up and began to go around the room

asking individual children about what they were reading that

day. After about 20 minutes, the students were asked to

return to their desks. At this point the children were invited

to share anything that they had read with the whole group.

Three of the boys gave a vivid account of the snake they had

read about and two of the girls read a short poem that they

had found. During the entire D.E.A.R. time and sharing

experience, the students were very engaged and respectful

of the quiet reading time and the ideas that were shared.

After the students had put away their self-selected books

from D.E.A.R. time, Holly called Tonya’s group, which

consisted of 3 girls and 1 boy, to the reading table while the

rest of the class went to the calendar area with the

instructional assistant. While the instructional assistant

discussed the days and dates on the calendar and then did a

math activity regarding the use of coins, Holly led the

reading group in a round robin reading of a story from the

basal text. During this oral reading activity, the children

were asked to read a page aloud, discuss what they read, and

identify specific vocabulary words. Holly demonstrated

how to use a dictionary to help the group define a word that

was new to them. At the end of the group session, Holly

gave each child a sheet of drawing paper and asked the

students to retell the story in sequence by drawing eight

pictures and writing sentences to match. This work was to

be done individually at their desks or for homework.

During the next 10 minutes Holly talked about the two other

reading groups that she had worked with in the morning.

She said that each group was using a different text, but all

the groups operated in the same way as the group we

observed.

Janet: Two Years Later. Janet now teaches first grade

at a public elementary school in Indianapolis. Her school is

a Title 1, urban, inner-city school housing a student

population consisting of largely African-American children

(92 percent). Because of her interest, Janet had volunteered

to take the low reading group, which was made up of 13

children from all three of the first grades in the school.

There were four distinct instructional segments in the

lesson we observed. When we arrived, Janet was sitting

with the children in the carpeted area playing the

harpsichord. While Janet provided the accompaniment, her

the Bay, and the children gathered around singing the song.

As the children sang along, they used visual clues in the

book to predict which animal would be the next one to stop

Down by the Bay.

Following the singing, students participated in the word

identification game. Once the boys’ team had correctly

identified ten flashcard words in a row, the girls took their

turn. Although no dialectical pronunciations of words were

allowed (Say it correctly!), children were completely

engaged in the competition and helped each other identify

words quickly and correctly.

The third phase of the lesson involved oral reading of a

basal story. Children were asked to use the table of contents

to find the page number of the 5-page chapter story they

were to read orally and in unison during this session. After

the first word), Janet led the children in the reading, making

sure that everyone put some vocal inflection into their

voices. When they reached the end of the chapter, the books

were passed back to Janet without any discussion of the

content or meaning they made of the text.

As soon as the books were collected, Janet stood up and

moved a small easel into place facing the group still seated

at the carpet. Attached to the easel was a large sheet of

paper with three columns on it. Children were to place three

strips of paper containing sentences from the story they just

read in correct order. They were to identify which part

belonged at the beginning, middle, or end of the story.

When students finished this activity, they were sent back to

we’ll be talking much more about it.

Throughout the lesson, behavior was a challenge. In

preparation for the word identification activity, two children

were dismissed from the group for walking around rather

than sitting in place and waiting patiently on the carpet.

Although they were asked to rejoin the group later, three

other children were told to take their seats during the

beginning-middle-end sequencing activity.

Anna: Two Years Later. We found Anna teaching first

grade at the same public elementary school where she had

done her teacher education with us. At the time of the

observation, she had 19 children in her class, 16 of whom

were African-Americans. During her interview Anna said:

The most important thing I learned in the cohort program was to

view myself as a life-long learner. I continually access my

philosophies, successes, failures, and future goals. I always ask

myself, What went well? What needs to be changed? I try to

provide every learner with what they need to be successful. I teach

my children to use several cueing systems when confronting an

unfamiliar word. Trade books, phonics, shared reading, guided

reading, journaling, literature and author studies all have a place in

178

my classroom. Every child is unique and it is my duty to include

many different strategies to accommodate all types of learners.

During the period of observation, Anna worked with two

small groups and then with the entire class on reading. Her

While meeting with small groups of children to talk

about the trade books they were reading, Anna encouraged

children to rely on their own resources for figuring out new

words. She consistently refocused any and all what-is-thisword

questions in terms of what strategies they might use to

figure it out. Students moved easily from one strategy to

another. When sounding out a word did not work for one

child, she skipped it and read on, and then went back and

Tequila just did? Anna stopped and invited the group to

analyze a child’s successful attempt to figure out a word.

When someone suggested she looked at the pictures to

As part of her instruction, Anna included work on

phonics as well as on the syntactic and semantic cueing

systems of language. One group worked with word builder

tiles, on the daily message, a cloze activity that required the

children to use their knowledge of semantics and syntax to

another ________ today.

At another point during the observation, children were

invited to meet with Anna for literature discussions. While

some groups were reading the same book, others each had a

different book from a text set that Anna had created around

topics of interest. Anna began each literature discussion

with an invitation to talk about your book. Later children

took turns reading their favorite part aloud. Anna collected

assessment data throughout her literacy period. She took

continuous notes as children built words with tiles, read

aloud, and talked about their stories. At various points

throughout the lesson, Anna encouraged children to reflect

upon how well they had done and whether they needed to

choose a more or less difficult book next time.

Emily: Two Years Later. At the time of our follow up,

Emily was teaching sixth grade social studies at a public

middle school in an Indianapolis suburb. She worked with a

team of three other teachers who were responsible for

mathematics, science, and language arts. Emily taught four

periods each day to a largely Caucasian population (20

percent African-American). Over the course of any given

day, she worked with over 100 students. At the time of our

observation, Emily was teaching a unit on Mexico. As

students entered the classroom they looked to the overhead

where Emily had written the following directions:

I Already Know; What I Want to Know; What I Learned].

2. List 10 things you know about Mexico in column 1.

3. We will share in five minutes.

Students knew to look up at the overhead as they came

into class and needed no further directions to get to work.

As they conferred with each other and recorded ideas on

their individual KWL charts, Emily took attendance. After

five minutes Emily asked students to share what they

already knew about Mexico. During a post interview Emily

explained why so little direction was needed:

With [content areas, like] social studies, they’re so used to reading

the chapter and then answering the questions at the end of the

chapter that it is hard to break them of the habit. This time we did a

mural project where I gave them the textbook and asked them to

pick out interesting pictures. I hoped that as they did this they

180

would read. That way, today they had a starting point. They were

already interested in the topic.

Emily said she chose the development of a mural as an

initiating activity for this unit because so many of the

students in her class have artistic talent, and they are

particularly interested in images and their meanings. While

the social studies text did not provide a particularly in-depth

portrait of Mexico, it did address, Emily said, broad topics

of Mexican economy, the geography of Mexico, and its

people and culture.

After sharing what they knew about Mexico, students

were asked to brainstorm questions about Mexico they were

interested in pursuing as research projects. Emily asked

them to think about what makes a good research question,

jot their ideas down in column two of their KWL charts, and

later, to circle the one question that most interested them.

Before giving the go-ahead to start researching, Emily took

time to introduce the students to various resources in the

classroom, including the encyclopedia, various social

studies textbooks, a collection of trade books she had

borrowed from the library, and a set of magazines she had

collected containing articles on Mexico.

After this, students immediately went to work while

Emily circulated around the room asking students what they

were researching and offering whatever information she had

on the topic herself as well as other resources or research

strategies they might use. One student, for example,

wondered if there was as much school violence in Mexico as

for these books. Do you have an Internet account? Emily

asked. Since this student’s inquiry question was one that

obviously would have to be researched outside the

classroom, Emily suggested that, for today, he might want to

conduct a survey of what his classmates thought. The

implication was that in light of what he eventually found

out, such data would provide an interesting starting point for

presenting the study later on.

Throughout the observation, it was obvious that students

in Emily’s class felt a sense of community. They not only

freely shared ideas, but readily helped each other as

problems or questions arose. Further, students demonstrated

through words and actions that they understood what to do

and what was expected of them in the classroom. The

placement of resources and materials allowed students to

access what they needed without a lot of interruption or

movement. Emily used a red, green, and yellow stop sign

image on the overhead to regulate noise and to make

students aware of how in-class time was important for the

work they had to do.

Although the data collected in Phase IV is based on only

one classroom observation, what seems clear is that teachers

who understood the relationship between educological

theory and educational practice during their preparation

program (Anna & Emily) still understand and use that

relationship to guide their teaching. Teachers, on the other

hand, who had a fuzzy understanding of educological theory

and educational practice relationships during their

preparation program (Janet & Holly) still do not understand.

Their approaches seem eclectic at best, if not traditional in

the sense of reflecting district mandates and common-sense

approaches to instruction (Mayer & Boomer, 1990). On the

positive side, it is clear that all four of these teachers take

teaching very seriously. Beyond that, however, differences

abound, with teachers who were more educological as

interns far outshining those who were not.

Anna wants children to see reading first and foremost as

a meaning-centered activity. In addition, she wants children

to have a repertoire of strategies at their disposal for

unlocking unknown words they encounter in print. Anna’s

teaching behaviors speak to the fact that she believes that

children who are consciously aware of the reading process

and who know what options are available to readers in terms

of unlocking unknown items in print, have more control

over the reading process. Trade books and literature

discussions are a central component of her reading program.

All of these notions were clearly part of the educological

framework which guided Anna’s teacher preparation

program.

Emily’s teaching is almost the personification of inquirybased

instruction. While some may say that this is due to

the subject matter she was asked to teach, this argument

does not seem very compelling in light of how social studies

is typically taught. Note particularly that Emily said she had

a lot of work to do in getting students over the notion that

social studies was simply a matter of reading the text book

and answering questions. While there is no evidence that

Mexico as a topic of study came from students’ interests,

Emily managed to open the study up so that students could

pursue their own inquiry questions. The KWL framework

she used with her students was one introduced in her

undergraduate preparation program as a simplified version

of focused studies based upon the inquiry cycle. In her

interview, Emily was concerned about her ability to see all

of the work going on in small groups, arguing that there was

just too much administrative work to do during each class

to do that. I think that’s something I can work on.

Emily said she has been working hard to get routines in

place, and from her assessment, things seem to be working:

have put in place] have helped.

While Janet uses what she understands about a multiple

ways of knowing (something she learned in her preservice

program, see Figure 3) to integrate reading and music in her

teaching, this educology is not carried through effectively.

From what we can tell, Janet sees music as a motivator

rather than as an expanded form of literacy and the focus of

a good language arts program. The summary statement we

lesson. Rather than explore reading as inquiry with her

children, Janet focuses her reading lesson on phonics,

vocabulary building, and sequencing. Her practice is

characteristic of a skill-based model of reading.

In contrast to Anna and Emily, Janet’s teaching seems

less child-centered. Either students performed at the level

she expected and acted in the way she expected or they were

dismissed from instruction. Unlike Emily, who seems to be

constantly reflecting on her teaching in terms of how best to

serve students, Janet demands conformity to her standards

of behavior and language.

In many ways it is hard to believe that Janet was part of

the program under study. As is evident in this report, there

is little evidence that the educology undergirding her

undergraduate teacher preparation had an effect on her

current teaching. When one looks across all four phases of

this study, it is clear that by not having understood how

educology ought to guide practice and vice versa, Janet has

become vulnerable to the immediate pressures and mandates

of the system in which she teaches. When we attempted to

place a new intern in her classroom this past year, thinking

that we needed to continue to support her development as a

While a statement such as this is disappointing, it is

important to understand that it was and is Janet’s lack of

understanding of the relationships between educological

theory and educational practice that has led her to this

conclusion and made her feel vulnerable to the

administrative mandates of the district in which she teaches.

What is important to note is that Anna is under the same

constraints. Both teachers work in a setting where there is

pressure both from central administration and the principal’s

office to raise test scores.

Another question which constantly gets raised is whether

the specific educological frameworks we used made any

difference on pupil learning in the schools. While we have

lots of anecdotal evidence that it did, this does not seem to

satisfy everyone. There are also questions about our

position that we are not advocating a particular educological

framework so much as exploring what a common

educological framework (within and across a teacher

education program and its practicum sites) has to say about

the quality of teachers that get produced. These questions

have some merit as it should be clear to anyone reading this

report that none of the investigators believe that all

educological models of literacy, learning, curriculum or

schooling are equal. Without a doubt, we began this project,

and continue in it, hoping to reform both teacher and public

school education.

Since we did not request test score data on pupils over

the course of this study, answering this question is

somewhat difficult. For the most part what we have are

official school by school comparisons and official

statements from the district office. In 1996, the Office of

Research, Evaluation, and Assessment within IPS released a

report showing the percentage of students falling below the

Indiana State Test of Educational Performance (ISTEP)

School 92, within which the Center for Inquiry was located,

was reported as having 45 percent of its 3rd grade population

not meeting this expectation in English and language arts

and 61 percent of its 3rd grade population not meeting this

expectation in mathematics (IPS Report 7.31.96).

Three years later, in 1999, the Center for Inquiry

received the International Reading Association Award for

the Exemplary Reading Program in Indiana. Only one

award per state was made. As part of the documentation

process for this award, standardized test scores were

requested. Although we do not know mean scores or

standardized deviations, the following conclusions were

reported: On the Fall, 1999 ISTEP, 87% of CFI 6th graders

received a passing score as compared to 36% of 6th graders

district-wide. Despite the fact that CFI is an urban school

with a high (85%) minority population, CFI students also

outscored students in schools making up the first ring of

suburbs surrounding Indianapolis. Lawrence Township was

reported as having 65% of it students receive a passing

grade; Perry Township, 65%; Franklin Township, 68%; and

Decatur Township, 54%. According to the Spring, 1999

Terra Nova [a version of the California Test of Basic Skills]

results, CFI first graders scored at the second grade level

(2.0), 2nd graders scored at the 3.4 level, 3rd graders at the

5.1 level, 4th graders at the 6.6 level, 5th graders at the 8.4

level, and 6th graders at the 8.1 level (State Exemplary

Reading Program Submission, 1999).

Although equivalent data on the Terra Nova is not

available for other schools in the district or in the state, both

the ISTEP and the Terra Nova data reported suggest that on

traditional measures of achievement, CFI students are doing

much better than can be expected given other schools in the

district.

Given the amount of pressure most schools are under to

raise test scores, these data suggest that the addition of a

teacher preparation program on-site in the school did not set

back student performance. If anything, we have evidence

that students did better. While we can make no claims that

the educological framework of our school or our teacher

education program made these differences, we can argue

that they did not automatically lower standardized measures

of student achievement. There are, of course, lots of

questions that cannot be answered by standardized test

scores reported in this fashion. What remains to be sorted

out is how much socio-economic status and parental choice

accounts for these increases in test scores. Last fall, the IPS

School Board voted to give the Center for Inquiry its own

building in the heart of downtown Indianapolis. With this

change has come an influx of students as well as a changing

demographic population. Given our experience in

conducting and presenting this study, we have asked for and

received permission to study standardized test scores more

closely. It will be interesting, for example, to know the

kinds of items on which students are or are not performing.

In addition to standardized test results, other outside

measures of program achievement exist. In 1995, the

Teaching to Learn/Learning to Teach program at Indiana

University-Purdue University, Indianapolis (IUPUI) was

named a Promising New Program by the Association of

Teacher Educators. In 1999, the core campus Indiana

University teacher education program was selected as one of

8 exemplary programs by the National Commission on

Excellence in Elementary Teacher Preparation for Reading

Instruction (Keating, 1999).

Just as one must first be a philosopher to be a scientist,

so too it is necessary that teachers imagine what could be if

they wish to change what is. While teacher education is a

complex business, what this study suggests is that how we

conceptualize problems affects the discourse we use and

hence our approach to finding solutions. In our efforts to reimagine

schools and teacher education, we can no longer

position ourselves as guests in the schools. This study

demonstrates that when teachers and university faculty work

together to re-envision the kind of people we want to be and

the kind of profession we want to become, good things can

happen.

Carolyn Burke (as quoted in Harste, 1993) says that the

function of curriculum is to give perspective. One of the

problems with re-envisioning curriculum in teacher

education is our starting point. Practice makes practice, this

study suggests, only if and when relationships between

educological theory and educational practice are not

understood. That this may be the general case only speaks

to how far away from curriculum most current programs of

teacher education are. When the study and the program

be, and this vision is used to elevate expectations, see

problems as possibilities, and as Maxine Greene (2000) says

e -envision the possible, then we will have made progress.

And, we can take to heart from one of the lessons these

interns taught us. While it is true that our rhetoric may be

ahead of our practice, this phenomenon is both a harbinger

of greater things to come and an artifact of a deeper

understanding of the relationship between educological

theory and educational practice in teacher education.

Applebee, A. N. (1997). Rethinking curriculum in the English language

arts. English Journal, 86: 3, 25-3.

to multicultural literature. Paper given at the annual meeting of the

National Reading Conference, New Orleans.

English classroom: An inquiry-based approach. New York:

Teachers College Press.

could go wrong in English education. Invited address at the Mid-

Winter Seminar on Teacher Learning and Teacher Knowing

sponsored by the National Council of Teachers of English Assembly

on Research and the National Conference on Research in Language

and Literacy, Chicago, IL.

Berghoff, B., Egawa, K. A., Harste, J. C., & Hoonan, B. T. (2000).

of knowing. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Learning and teaching in a complex world. Lawrence Erblaum.

DeFord, D. (1978). Teachers’ Theoretical Orientation to Reading.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University.

Gee, J. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses

(2nd Edition). London: Taylor & Francis.

189

Goodman, J. (1985). Field-based experience: A study of social control

of Education for Teaching, 11, 26-46.

Goodman, J. (1986). Making early field experience meaningful: A

critical approach. Journal of Education for Teaching, 12, 109-125.

the arts, and social change. Jossey Bass.

Harste, J. C. (1993). Literacy as curricular conversations about

knowledge, inquiry, and morality. In M. Ruddell & R. Rudell,

Theoretical models and processes of reading (4th Edition). Newark,

DE: International Reading Association.

Harste, J. C., & Burke, C. L. (1977). A new hypothesis for reading

teacher education: Both the teaching and learning of reading are

theory and practice (Twenty-sixth Yearbook of the National

Reading Conference). Chicago, IL: National Reading Conference.

Harste, J. C., & Leland, C. H. (1998). No quick fix: Education as

inquiry. Reading research and instruction, 37:3, 191-205.

the role that theory plays in teacher education. Paper presented at

the annual meeting of the American Education Research

Association, San Diego.

teacher education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the

American Education Research Association, New Orleans.

Harste, J. C., & Vasquez, V. (1998). The work we do: Journal as audit

trail. Language Arts, 75:4, 266-276.

stories and literacy lessons. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Harste, J. C., Vasquez, V., Lewison, M., Beau, A., Leland, C., &

Ociepka, A. (2000). Supporting critical conversation in

classrooms: A review of more than 50 picture books and young

books (4th Edition). Urbana, IL: NCTE.

Henkin, R. (1998). Who’s invited to share? Portsmouth, NH:

Heinemann.

Herron, C. (1997). Nappy hair (Illustrated by Joe Cepeda). New York:

Alfred A. Knopf

190

IPS Report 7.31.96. (1996). Indianapolis, IN: Office of Research,

Evaluation and Assessment, Indianapolis Public Schools.

Leland, C., & Harste, J. (1999). s this appropriate for children?

Practically Primary, 4:3, 6-10.

Leland, C., Harste, J., Ociepka, A., Lewison, M., & Vasquez, V. (1999).

Exploring critical literacy: You can hear a pin drop. Language Arts,

77:1, 70-78.

Leland, C., Harste, J. C., & Youssef. O. (1997). Teacher education and

critical literacy. In Charles K. Kinzer, Kathleen A. Hinchman, and

Donald J. Leu (Eds.), Inquiries in literacy theory and practice (46th

Yearbook). Chicago, IL: National Reading Conference, pp. 385-

396.

Keating, G. (1999). National commission on excellence in elementary

teacher preparation for reading instruction. Reading Today, 9:41.

of reason, rite and art (3rd Edition). Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Lankshear, C. (1997). Changing literacies. Philadelphia, PA: Open

University Press.

Luke, A. & Freebody, P. (1997). Shaping the social practices of

reading. In S. Muspratt, A. Luke, and P. Freebody (Eds.),

Constructing critical literacies. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, 185-

225.

practice in language education. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton Cook.

Schmidt, K. (1997). Math investigations. Presentation made at the

annual meeting of the Whole Language Umbrella conference,

Seattle, WA.

Short, K. G. (1993). Curriculum for the 21st century: A redefinition.

Speech given at the annual meeting of the National Council of

Teachers of English, Pittsburgh, PA.

Siegel, M. (1985). More than words: The generative power of

transmediation. Canadian Journal of Education, 20:4, 455-475.

for authors and inquirers. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

State Exemplary Reading Programs (2000). Newark, DE: International

Reading Association.

191

Wells, G., w/ Davis, G., Donoahue, Z., Hume, K., Kowal, M.,

inquiry. New York: Teachers College Press.

Vasquez, V. (1999). Negotiating critical literacies with young children.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University.

Vasquez, V. (2000). Building community through social action.

School Talk, 5:4, 2-4.

International Journal of Educology, 2003, Vol 17, No 1&2

association and that of a signal stimulating or giving rise to

…. (3)

data between mechanical devices, and of the semantical fact

meaning, as expressed, for example, by the word ‘cursor’