Skip to content
2018
Volume 51, Issue 4
  • ISSN: 0007-8204
  • E-ISSN: 1943-2216

Abstract

This article explores the practice-linked identity resources offered to preservice ELA teachers as they moved through a teacher preparation program. Nasir and Cooks’s (2009) concepts of ideational, material, and relational resources are used as a frame to analyze the way preservice teachers talked about teaching writing at three points during their teacher preparation program. The study concludes that a narrow vision of the teaching of writing persists in the imagination of preservice teachers and in their secondary public school internship placements, rendering it difficult for teacher education programs to foster an alternate vision of what a writing teacher is or could be.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.58680/ee201930190
2019-07-01
2024-02-28
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Achinstein B. Ogawa R. T. (2006) (In)Fidelity: What the resistance of new teachers reveals about professional practices and prescriptive educational policies. Harvard Educational Review, 76(1), 30–63.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Applebee A. N. Langer J. A. (2006) The state of writing instruction in America’s schools: What existing data tell us. Albany, NY: Center on English Learning and Achievement.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Applebee A. N. Langer J. A. (2011) A snapshot of writing instruction in middle schools and high schools. English Journal, 100(6), 14–27 Retrieved fromhttp://www.ncte.org/library/NCTEFiles/Resources/Journals/EJ/1006-jul2011/EJ1006Extra.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Baltodano M. (2012) Neoliberalism and the demise of public education: The corporatization of schools of education. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 25(4), 487–507.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Caughlan S. Pasternak D. L. Hallman H. L. Renzi L. Rush L. S. Frisby M. (2017) How English language arts teachers are prepared for twenty-first century classrooms: Results of a national study. English Education, 49(3), 265–297.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Cochran-Smith M. Lytle S. L. (2006) Troubling images of teaching in No Child Left Behind. Harvard Educational Review, 76(4), 668–697.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Cook L. S. Smagorinsky P. Fry P. G. Konopak B. Moore C. (2002) Problems in developing a constructivist approach to teaching: One teacher’s transition from teacher preparation to teaching. The Elementary School Journal, 102(5), 389–413.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Creswell J. W. (2013) Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches. New York: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Dempsey M. S. PytlikZillig L. M. Bruning R. H. (2009) Helping preservice teachers learn to assess writing: Practice and feedback in a Web-based environment. Assessing Writing, 14, 38–61 10.1016/j.asw.2008.12.003
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114-95 § 114 Stat. 1177 (2015–16)
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Fairclough N. (1995) Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Gee J. P. (2000) Identity as an analytic lens for research in education. Review of Research in Education, 25, 99–125.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Gee J. P. (2017) Teaching, learning, literacy in our high-risk high-tech world: A framework for becoming human. New York: Teachers College Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Grossman P. L. Valencia S. W. Evans K. Thompson C. Martin S. Place N. (2000) Transitions into teaching: Learning to teach writing in teacher education and beyond. Journal of Literacy Research, 32(4), 631–662.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Hillocks G. (2002) The testing trap: How state writing assessments control learning. New York: Teachers College Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Jennings J. (2018) It’s time to redefine the federal role in K-12 education. Phi Delta Kappan, 100(1), 8–14.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Johnson T. S. Smagorinsky P. Thompson L. Fry P. G. (2003) Learning to teach the five-paragraph theme. Research in the Teaching of English, 38, 136–176.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Lave J. Wenger E. (1991) Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Mabry L. (1999) Writing to the rubric: Lingering effects of traditional standardized testing on direct writing assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(9), 673–679 Retrieved fromhttp://journals.sagepub.com/home/pdk
    [Google Scholar]
  20. McQuitty V. (2012) Emerging possibilities: A complex account of learning to teach writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 46(4), 358–389.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Moje E. B. Luke A. (2009) Literacy and identity: Examining the metaphors in history and contemporary research. Reading Research Quarterly, 44(4), 415–437.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Morgan D. N. Pytash K. E. (2014) Preparing preservice teachers to become teachers of writing: A 20-year review of the research literature. English Education, 47, 6–37.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Myers J. Sales R. Q. Grisham D. L. Wolsey T. D. Dismuke S. Smetana L. Martin S. (2016) What about writing? A national exploratory study of writing instruction in teacher preparation programs. Literacy Research and Instruction, 55(4), 309–330.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Nasir N. S. Cooks J. (2009) Becoming a hurdler: How learning settings afford identities. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 40(1), 41–61.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Nasir N. Hand V. (2008) From the court to the classroom: Opportunities for engagement, learning, and identity in basketball and classroom mathematics. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(2), 143–161.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. National Commission on Writing (2006) Writing and school reform. Washington, D.C.: College Board.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. National Council of Teachers of English (2016) Professional knowledge for the teaching of writing (NCTE Guideline). Retrieved fromhttp://www.ncte.org/positions/statements/teaching-writing
    [Google Scholar]
  28. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 115, Stat. 1425 2002
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Pardo L. S. (2006) The role of context in learning to teach writing: What teacher educators need to know to support beginning urban teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 57, 378–394.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Patterson N. G. Perhamus L. M. (2015) The rubricization of teacherhood and studenthood: Intertextuality, identity, and the standardization of self. InTenam-Zemach M. Flynn J. E. (eds.) Rubric nation: Critical inquiries on the impact of rubrics in education (pp.21–33). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Rainey E. C. (2017) Disciplinary literacy in English language arts: Exploring the social and problem-based nature of literary reading and reasoning. Reading Research Quarterly, 52(1), 53–71 10.1002/rrq.154
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Smagorinsky P. (2010) The culture of learning to teach: The self-perpetuating cycle of conservative schooling. Teacher Education Quarterly, 37(2), 19–31.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Smagorinsky P. Cook L. S. Moore C. Jackson A. Y. Fry P. G. (2004) Tensions in learning to teach: Accommodation and the development of a teaching identity. Journal of Teacher Education, 55(1), 8–24 10.1177/0022487103260067
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Smagorinsky P. Wilson A. A. Moore C. (2011) Teaching grammar and writing: A beginning teacher’s dilemma. English Education, 43(3), 262–292.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Spires H. A. Kerkhoff S. N. Graham A. C. K. Thompson I. Lee J. K. (2018) Operationalizing and validating disciplinary literacy in secondary education. Reading and Writing, 31(6), 1401–434 10.1007/s11145‑018‑9839‑4
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Tremmel R. (2001) Seeking a balanced discipline: Writing teacher education in 1st year composition and English education. English Education, 34(1), 6–30.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Wenger E. (1998) Communities of practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Wilson M. (2006) Rethinking rubrics in writing assessment. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Zuidema L. A. Fredricksen J. E. (2016) Resources preservice teachers use to think about student writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 51(1), 12–36.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.58680/ee201930190
Loading
/content/journals/10.58680/ee201930190
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error