How Preservice Teachers Use Learner Knowledge for Planning and In-the-Moment Teaching Decisions during Guided Reading
Saved in:
| Title: | How Preservice Teachers Use Learner Knowledge for Planning and In-the-Moment Teaching Decisions during Guided Reading |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Davis, Allison, Griffith, Robin (ORCID |
| Source: | Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education. 2019 40(2):138-158. |
| Availability: | Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 21 |
| Publication Date: | 2019 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Research Tests/Questionnaires |
| Education Level: | Higher Education Postsecondary Education Early Childhood Education Elementary Education Kindergarten Primary Education |
| Descriptors: | Preservice Teachers, Decision Making, Directed Reading Activity, Reading Instruction, Kindergarten, Early Childhood Education, Young Children, Private Colleges, Field Experience Programs, Urban Schools, Elementary Schools, Hispanic American Students, Reading Material Selection, Reading Comprehension, Reading Strategies, Scaffolding (Teaching Technique), Reflective Teaching, Lesson Plans, Developmentally Appropriate Practices, Individual Needs, Literacy, Word Study Skills |
| Geographic Terms: | Texas |
| DOI: | 10.1080/10901027.2018.1534161 |
| ISSN: | 1090-1027 |
| Abstract: | Decision-making is essential for the work of teaching. Preservice teachers must learn to leverage knowledge about young readers' strengths, needs, and interests in order to plan and teach guided reading lessons skillfully. However, limited research examines preservice teachers' decision-making based on what they know about individual children. In this qualitative case study, we report findings from 12 preservice teachers enrolled in a reading methods course who used teacher knowledge to inform their teaching decisions for guided reading lessons with Kindergarteners. Findings reveal how participants used knowledge of learners to make planning as well as in-the-moment teaching decisions. The data show that most of these decisions were lesson planning decisions about text selection and word solving strategies, indicating that participants were beginning to engage in responsive teaching strategies. This study makes a new contribution to early childhood teacher education literature by underscoring the significance of learner knowledge in the context of authentic teaching practice while learning to teach guided reading to young children. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2019 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1216303 |
| Database: | ERIC |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEZYrsV46dDX01_HkInHHeWAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDHW3HuOitjvXNj73OQIBEICBm6Oq4ougt0MDiaFAA4EiYL_eKrPg3FseOc-KNAvnE_199BmHnNcI3zvw2VaH-L8vcZrfeEB7p1QMglUqARXLPle8xGx_VwXHwUd3Xbd1E0jLh3VoEepEkkcIWc1014W6PLxuDgrs3q-Uh3qivWqpGudy9sVll2xa8HDK7EaN_P27tyZBjWL743bPiBaaNanjdyjeZB8nTfRDz3ED Text: Availability: 1 Value: <anid>AN0136519851;[15u7]01apr.19;2019May22.09:30;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0136519851-1">How preservice teachers use learner knowledge for planning and in-the-moment teaching decisions during guided reading </title> <sbt id="AN0136519851-2">Introduction</sbt> <p>Decision-making is essential for the work of teaching. Preservice teachers must learn to leverage knowledge about young readers' strengths, needs, and interests in order to plan and teach guided reading lessons skillfully. However, limited research examines preservice teachers' decision-making based on what they know about individual children. In this qualitative case study, we report findings from 12 preservice teachers enrolled in a reading methods course who used teacher knowledge to inform their teaching decisions for guided reading lessons with Kindergarteners. Findings reveal how participants used knowledge of learners to make planning as well as in-the-moment teaching decisions. The data show that most of these decisions were lesson planning decisions about text selection and word solving strategies, indicating that participants were beginning to engage in responsive teaching strategies. This study makes a new contribution to early childhood teacher education literature by underscoring the significance of learner knowledge in the context of authentic teaching practice while learning to teach guided reading to young children.</p> <p>"I think one of the most important factors that affect our decisions as teachers is using the student's knowledge as the foundation to all of our pedagogical and content decisions."</p> <p>—Preservice teacher</p> <p>The preservice teacher's (PST) statement above echoes a key tenet of early childhood education that has been consistently discussed in the literature: teacher knowledge is foundational to effective instructional decision-making (Barbour, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref1">2</reflink>]; Goldstein, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref2">20</reflink>]; Griffith, Bauml, &amp; Barksdale, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref3">25</reflink>]; NAEYC, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref4">40</reflink>]). Teacher knowledge has been studied by scholars in multiple subject areas, including mathematics (e.g., Ball, Thames, &amp; Phelps, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref5">1</reflink>]; Wood, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref6">59</reflink>]), social studies (e.g., Gudmundsdottir &amp; Shulman, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref7">29</reflink>]; Sung &amp; Yang, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref8">53</reflink>]), science (e.g., Henze, van Driel, &amp; Verloop, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref9">30</reflink>]; Juttner, Williams, &amp; Park, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref10">33</reflink>]; Loughran, Mulhall, &amp; Berry, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref11">35</reflink>]), and secondary English (e.g., Grossman, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref12">28</reflink>]), yet little is known about the knowledge PSTs possess when they make teaching decisions during literacy instruction.</p> <p>Importantly, what a teacher knows about teaching must be translated into practice. This requires, among other forms of knowledge like content and pedagogical knowledge, "intimate knowledge of the children... achieved by direct involvement with them" (Schwab, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref13">49</reflink>], p. 502). In this article, we refer to this type of professional knowing as <emph>learner knowledge</emph>. The National Association for the Education of Young Children's position statement on developmentally appropriate practices espouses "expert decision making" as a key to exemplary teaching (Copple &amp; Bredekamp, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref14">9</reflink>], p. 5). We contend that learner knowledge is an essential aspect of beginning teachers' professional understanding as they work toward becoming effective decision-makers. The challenge for teacher educators is to cultivate learner knowledge among PST and provide them with opportunities to use that knowledge in the context of planning and in-the-moment (ITM) decision-making. To date, there is little research that affords PSTs with opportunities to work one-on-one with young children to make decisions based on knowledge of young learners.</p> <p>The purpose of this study was to investigate the planning and ITM teaching decisions for guided reading lessons made by PSTs enrolled in a reading methods course as part of their early childhood teacher preparation program. In particular, we wanted to learn how PSTs who were making significant progress in their understanding of course content use knowledge of the learner to guide their teaching decisions during guided reading lessons. We utilized qualitative case study methodology to explore the following research questions: 1. How do skillful PSTs use learner knowledge to make <emph>planning</emph> decisions for Kindergarten guided reading lessons? 2. How do skillful PSTs use learner knowledge to make <emph>in-the-moment</emph> (ITM) teaching decisions during guided reading lessons with Kindergarteners?</p> <hd id="AN0136519851-3">Literature review</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0136519851-4">Teacher knowledge</hd> <p>Teacher knowledge sits at the center of effective teaching decisions, with teachers drawing upon their teacher knowledge to make informed and effective instructional decisions (Griffith et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref15">25</reflink>]). Therefore, we align our work with the vast body of scholarship on teacher knowledge which includes pedagogical knowledge, content knowledge, and pedagogical content knowledge (Borko &amp; Putnam, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref16">4</reflink>]; Graham, Borup, &amp; Smith, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref17">21</reflink>]; Grossman, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref18">28</reflink>]; Nilsson, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref19">41</reflink>]; Wilson, Shulman, &amp; Richert, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref20">58</reflink>]). In this article, we focus specifically on a subset of pedagogical content knowledge, knowledge of the learner within in the context of Kindergarten literacy instruction.</p> <p>Learner knowledge is an essential aspect of teacher knowledge (Wilson et al., [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref21">58</reflink>]). Speaking in the most general of terms about learners may evoke superficial ideas about students' motivations, preferences, personalities, and backgrounds, but robust learner knowledge delves deep into intimate understandings of each individual's limits and capacities. It is this kind of in-depth knowledge that allows teachers to make effective teaching decisions. In other words, learner knowledge must extend far beyond so-called learning styles and personalities of the individual to include precise knowledge of the learner's strengths and instructional needs. This knowledge comes from informal assessments, formal assessments, and watchful observations; it is the knowledge that allows for individualized instruction.</p> <p>In the field of literacy, scholarship by Clay ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref22">7</reflink>]), Owoki and Goodman ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref23">42</reflink>]), and summarized by the Committee on the Prevention of Reading Difficulties in Young Children (Snow, Burns, &amp; Griffin, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref24">52</reflink>]) maintains that by observing children's reading behaviors, teachers can understand the strengths and development of individuals' reading processes. Clay claimed, "Every teacher must be qualified as a decision-maker to answer instructional questions and to make decisions between equally effective and attractive practical alternatives, taking into account the present characteristics of the particular children she is trying to teach" (p. xii). It is this principle of knowledge of the learner upon which this study is based.</p> <hd id="AN0136519851-5">Teacher decision-making for exemplary literacy instruction</hd> <p>Shavelson ([<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref25">51</reflink>]) argued that teaching <emph>is</emph> decision-making. He claimed that "any teaching act is a result of a decision, whether conscious or unconscious" (p. 18). Given the demands of classroom dynamics, robust curricular obligations, and the ongoing need to assess student learning, reading teachers make hundreds if not thousands of decisions each day. Many of these decisions occur as intuitive and subtle with little conscious attention given to them, while other decisions present as more overt and deliberate (Griffith et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref26">25</reflink>]). Additionally, teaching decisions occur during the planning process (Griffith, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref27">23</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref28">24</reflink>]) as well as in-the-moment of teaching (Griffith et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref29">25</reflink>]).</p> <p>Building on scholars who studied teacher decision-making in the 1980s (Parker &amp; Gehrke, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref30">43</reflink>]; Shavelson &amp; Stern, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref31">50</reflink>]), others are resurrecting this important construct as they seek to understand how scripted instructional programs and increased accountability (Griffith, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref32">22</reflink>]) and mandated curricula (Corno, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref33">11</reflink>]; Duffy et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref34">13</reflink>]; Griffith, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref35">22</reflink>]; Griffith, Massey, &amp; Atkinson, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref36">27</reflink>]; Parsons et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref37">44</reflink>]; Vaughn &amp; Parsons, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref38">55</reflink>]) affect teaching decisions. Furthermore, professional organizations for teacher educators, including the International Literacy Association (ILA, then the International Reading Association), are taking note of the importance of teacher decision-making as well. In 2009, the ILA called for professional development to focus on teacher as decision-maker. In an effort to empower and encourage responsive teaching characterized by in-the-moment and planned teaching decisions, Griffith, Bauml, and Quebec-Fuentes ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref39">26</reflink>]) engage teachers in a process called <emph>metacognitive decision making</emph> wherein teachers are asked to notice, reflect on, and evaluate their planned and in-the-moment teaching decisions. Findings from this work reveal that the process of talking about teaching decisions reinforces the attention teachers pay to the process.</p> <p>In 2000, the ILA drew upon the existing body of research related to teacher effectiveness to craft the position statement on excellent reading teachers. ILA declared that effective reading teachers: 1) understand the reading process; 2) use informal and ongoing formative assessment to monitor children's individual literacy progress; 3) use the results of informal assessment to plan for and implement future instruction; 4) know a variety of ways to teach reading with an array of diverse materials; and 5) provide support strategically. Findings from studies of exemplary reading teachers reveal that responsive, adaptive teaching—<emph>decision-making</emph>—is a hallmark of effective teaching (Hoffman &amp; Pearson, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref40">32</reflink>]; Pressley, Allington, Warton-McDonald, Block, &amp; Morrow, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref41">46</reflink>]). Therefore, given our focus on literacy instruction, we ground this study in the work of literacy scholars who study adaptive teaching (Hoffman &amp; Pearson; Morrow, Tracey, Woo, &amp; Pressley, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref42">39</reflink>]; Parsons et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref43">44</reflink>]), responsive teaching (Gambrell, Malloy, &amp; Mazzoni, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref44">18</reflink>]; Pressley et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref45">46</reflink>]; Vaughn &amp; Parsons, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref46">55</reflink>]), and effective teachers of reading (Duke &amp; Pearson, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref47">14</reflink>]; McGee, Kim, Nelson, &amp; Fried, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref48">37</reflink>]). Literacy teachers who are responsive adapt instruction and make in-the-moment teaching decisions based upon verbal and nonverbal feedback from students.</p> <hd id="AN0136519851-6">Guided reading</hd> <p>Teaching young children to made advances in their ability to read and comprehend texts depends on skillful decision-making grounded in teacher knowledge. Importantly, guided reading instruction is optimized when teachers possess in-depth learner knowledge to make planning and ITM decisions for unique learning needs. A widely accepted and commonly used instructional context for reading instruction in the early childhood grades, guided reading "is a small group instructional context in which a teacher supports each reader's development of systems of strategic actions for processing new texts at increasingly challenging levels of difficulty" (Fountas &amp; Pinnell, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref49">16</reflink>], p. 12). Guided reading is not a time to teach skills in isolation; rather is a time for readers to engage in the dynamic process of solving words on-the-run while attending to fluency and expression, while also building meaning page by page. Because the instruction is tailored to the strengths and needs of the individual students within the guided reading group, it is a fertile ground for teaching decisions.</p> <p>In [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref50">31</reflink>], Hiebert summarized the then developing body of scholarship related to the characteristics of texts for beginning and struggling readers. She challenged the potential "(mis)match between texts and students who depend on schools to become literate" (p. 1). Text selection plays a critical role in reading instruction, particularly guided reading. In order to meet the range of students' needs, teachers select texts that are true representations of text level while not losing sight of a crucial, overarching goal: selecting texts that thoughtfully "engage readers' thinking" (Fountas &amp; Pinnell, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref51">16</reflink>], p. 386). Fountas and Pinnell maintain that text selection is far from simple. They recommend attending to a number of factors during the selection of guided reading books. Teachers need to seek out diverse, high-quality guided reading books that can be read in one setting. These texts should provide a "reasonable challenge," be consistent in structure across pages, and provide students with opportunities to build a repertoire of "strategic actions they can apply to reading other texts" (p. 108). Matching texts to readers in guided reading then requires intimate knowledge of the strengths and needs of the learners.</p> <hd id="AN0136519851-7">Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0136519851-8">Participants</hd> <p>Twelve participants were purposively selected (Creswell, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref52">12</reflink>]) from among 61 university PSTs seeking early childhood/elementary teacher certification at a private university in the southwest. These students were enrolled in the second author's required reading methods course as juniors in Spring 2016. Representative of PSTs enrolled in university teacher education programs nationally, the majority (83%) of participants were White. One participant was Latina, and one was African American; all were female.</p> <p>Because we were interested in exploring how PSTs were learning to utilize teacher knowledge to inform planning and ITM decisions, we reviewed pre- and postassessments to determine which PSTs made notable growth in their use of the language of a knowledgeable reading teacher. For the pre- and posttests, all 61 preservice teachers responded to a video of a child's reading behaviors during a guided reading lesson. Responses were coded based on the precision of language related to reading behaviors. We identified 18 of 61 PSTs who had provided informed consent for their coursework to be used for research as having consistently strong, descriptive reflections of reading behaviors (i.e., using phrases such as "child uses one-to-one matching" rather than "child points to words with his finger"). Our research team then pulled these 18 students' completed what we call the Guided Reading Projects (described below) for further examination. Of the 18 initially identified, we removed those who were not present on all 4 teaching days, those who did not work with the same student each day, and those who worked with more than one student for their assignments. Data for the remaining 12 PSTs became study participants, and each PST was considered a case. The first author masked all of the data from participants' Guided Reading Projects, removing all identifying information for analysis. In reporting our findings, all names are pseudonyms.</p> <hd id="AN0136519851-9">Context for the study</hd> <p>As a requirement for the reading methods course, participants taught guided reading lessons one time per week for 4 weeks at a local elementary school. We called this the Guided Reading Project. The second author supervised this additional field experience, which occurred during the regularly scheduled class time.</p> <p>The elementary school in which guided reading lessons took place was a Title 1 school in a large urban school district in Texas. At the time of the study, 64% of students enrolled in the school were bilingual or English language learners. Nearly 90% of students were of Hispanic/Latino/a origin and eligible for free or reduced lunches (Texas Education Agency, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref53">54</reflink>]). Participants worked exclusively with Kindergarten students for the Guided Reading Project.</p> <p>All four visits to the elementary school lasted 120 minutes: 30 minutes devoted to lesson briefings and preparing for the arrival of the students, 30 minutes for guided reading instruction (15–20 minutes for guided reading lesson, 5–10 minutes for word study, and 5–10 minutes for writing), and 60 minutes debriefing with the second author and planning for the next week's lesson as well as learning new course content. Each PST was assigned to work with one or two Kindergarten students. Baseline reading levels were provided by the classroom teachers and served as a starting point for instruction. Table 1 shows tasks completed for the Guided Reading Project during each of the four visits. During the initial lesson, the PST administered an interest inventory to learn about the students' interests and background experience. Additionally, PSTs asked the Kindergarten students to read aloud from a leveled text. In this task of "kidwatching" (Owoki &amp; Goodman, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref54">42</reflink>], p. 2) the PSTs took notes on observable reading behaviors (e.g., tracking print with eyes, return sweeps, cross-checking, self-correcting, one-to-one matching, and reading with fluency) as students read aloud.</p> <p>Table 1. Tasks Completed with Kindergarten Students</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table&gt;&lt;thead&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;Interest Inventory&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Observing Reading Behaviors as student read aloud&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Selected texts &amp; planned guided reading lesson for the following week&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Reading response prompt about the read aloud&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Running Record&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Week 1&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;x&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;x&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;x&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Week 2&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;x&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;x&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;x&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Week 3&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;x&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;x&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;x&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;x&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Week 4&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;x&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;x&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;x&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0136519851-10">Data collection</hd> <p>Data came from the Guided Reading Project, comprised of the four assignments that were part of the second author's assignment described above. The PSTs submitted detailed plans for other portions of the lesson, including the word study and read aloud components, but the Guided Reading Project was designed to emphasize the guided reading portion of the lesson. Seeking to capture PSTs' planning and ITM decisions regarding knowledge of the learner, our research team selected specific portions of the Guided Reading Project to analyze. Altogether, there were 12–13 written artifacts analyzed for each case (see Appendix for a list of assignment prompts).</p> <p>Example prompts to elicit planning and ITM teaching decisions are as follows:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Planning: <emph>What level is this text, and why did you select this particular book? Carefully consider the characteristics that make this text easy/hard and explain how these characteristics match the strengths/needs of the readers in this student.</emph></item> <p></p> <item> In-the-Moment: <emph>You began the lesson with a detailed and thoughtful plan, but teaching does not always go according to plan. Teachers make hundreds of "in-the-moment" teaching decisions every day. What "in-the-moment" teaching decisions did you make? Why did you make them? What sources of teacher knowledge were you drawing upon to make those decisions? Were they effective and how do you know?</emph></item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0136519851-11">Data analysis</hd> <p>Data were analyzed using constant comparative methods (Corbin &amp; Strauss, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref55">10</reflink>]). First, the authors read through and discussed three cases (25% of the total number of cases). Using analytic memos, conclusions were drawn about participants' decision-making, as well as which components of participants' assignments to code in light of the research questions. The authors developed and refined a coding framework (described below) using an iterative process as the first three cases were analyzed. The first author coded the other nine cases independently, taking careful memos and reporting findings back to the other authors during peer debriefing.</p> <p>In order to determine participants' knowledge of the learner as it relates to reading instruction, the researchers first noted all instances where participants mentioned the learner in their Guided Reading Projects. From there, the team looked for specific evidence of the following: concepts about print; comprehension, monitoring and/or self-correcting, and cross-checking; word-solving, fluency, and expression. Additionally when participants named the type of reader they were working with (e.g., "quiet reader;" "struggling reader"), these comments were coded as knowledge of the learner.</p> <p>Next, a three-step coding process was used to answer the research questions (see Figure 1). For step 1, PSTs' teaching episodes were coded as either "planning" or "in-the-moment" (ITM) and were then copied onto two documents: one for planning decisions and one for in-the-moment decisions. Planning decisions were identified from participants' responses to the reflection questions, "Why did you select this particular book?" "As you planned this lesson, what teaching decisions did you make?", and "Explain how you plan to introduce the book." We identified ITM decisions by referring to participants' responses to the prompt, "What in-the-moment teaching decisions did you make?"</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. Coding sequence.</p> <p>In step 2, planning and ITM decisions were coded for <emph>which aspect of knowledge of the learner preservice teachers used to make a decision</emph>. The following codes that emerged from the data related to planning decisions were student interests, student personality, student reading level, student needs, student strengths, and student reading goals. The following codes that emerged from the ITM data differed slightly and included student personality, student needs, student strengths, student reading goals, student behaviors (pertaining to classroom management), student reading behaviors displayed (derived from watching students read), and student comprehension levels displayed.</p> <p>Within each of these new categories, Step 3 of the analysis involved examining <emph>what element of the guided reading lesson each decision was related to</emph>. For planning decisions, decisions were coded according to: text selection, pacing/sequencing of lesson, book introduction, teaching points, word solving, and student involvement. ITM decisions were coded according to pacing/sequencing of lesson, book introduction, teaching points, word solving, student involvement, comprehension building, comprehension assessing, and reinforcement/praising. This coding process enabled the researchers to identify patterns and themes across cases. Multiple data sources allowed for triangulation, while peer debriefing, searches for confirming and disconfirming evidence, and the use of analytic memos for recording preliminary conclusions and conjectures about the data ensured trustworthiness (Brantlinger, Jimenez, Klingner, Pugach, &amp; Richardson, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref56">5</reflink>]; Corbin &amp; Strauss, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref57">10</reflink>]).</p> <p>During data analysis, we defined text selection as the careful consideration of the supports and challenges presented in a leveled text for guided reading. For instance, a text may be considered supportive because of the amount of picture support that would not only add to the overall meaning of the text, but would also assist with solving unknown words. Text selection considerations might also include the relatability of the text to the students' lives. A text with a plot centered around a lost dog might be considered more supportive than one set in the 1800s. Text selection criteria not only relates to the complexity of the words and the ideas, but also requires a careful matching of the demands of the text with the current strengths and control of decoding and comprehension strategies of the readers encountering those texts.</p> <p>We defined word solving as the strategies a reader uses or a teacher prompts for when decoding unknown words. Throughout the course, the professor taught the PSTs that "sounding out" words letter by letter was only one way to solve words, and in most cases not the most efficient word solving strategy. Instead, PSTs were encouraged to build upon Clay's ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref58">8</reflink>]) work related word solving strategies. Word solving strategies included: 1. Using meaning to solve words (including the use of picture supports); 2. Rereading the sentence and thinking about what word would make sense and look right; 3. Using parts of words to solve unknown words (e.g., <emph>ay</emph> in <emph>stay)</emph>; 4. Solving words in cumulative letter-by-letter analysis.</p> <p>Further, we defined comprehension decisions as those related to meaning-making. These decisions included examples of students making personal connections to texts, relating one text to another, discussing the literal and inferential details, thinking about how characters feel based upon what they say or do, and exploring lessons learned from the text and/or characters.</p> <hd id="AN0136519851-12">Findings</hd> <p>Each Kindergartner brought unique personalities, interests, strengths, needs, and reading abilities to the lessons; PSTs drew upon these various facets of the learner to plan and teach their guided reading lessons. Because our investigation focused on the frequency and types of decisions PSTs made before and during guided reading lessons rather than on the effectiveness of these decisions, this section deals exclusively on the reported decisions. The data revealed that participants made numerous planning and ITM decisions based on their knowledge of the learners, as shown in Table 2. Out of the 206 coded decisions directly related to knowledge of the learner, 71% were planning decisions, while 29% were ITM decisions made while teaching guided reading to Kindergarteners.</p> <p>Table 2. Planning and In-the-Moment Decisions Across Cases</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table&gt;&lt;thead&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;PST Decisions &lt;italic&gt;Total: 206 coded decisions&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Planning&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;In-the-Moment (ITM)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;71% &lt;italic&gt;147 decisions&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;29% &lt;italic&gt;59 decisions&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Text Selection&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Word Solving&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Other&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Word Solving&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Comprehension&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Reinforcing reader's actions&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;65%&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;20%&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;15%&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;46%&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;46%&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;8%&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0136519851-13">Using learner knowledge for planning decisions</hd> <p>For this study, we only analyzed the planning decisions PSTs made while preparing for the guided reading portion of the Guided Reading Project; we did not analyze or report decisions related to the writing and word study portions of the project. Of the 147 planning decisions, approximately 65% pertained to text selection. In other words, over half of the planning decisions PSTs made dealt with thinking about a given text's level of compatibility with a learner. In comparison, about 20% of planning decisions were related to supporting word solving strategies. The remaining planning decisions—much less evident in the data—pertained to eliciting student involvement (10%), making teaching points throughout the lesson to students (4%), and pacing/sequencing the guided reading lessons (1%),</p> <hd id="AN0136519851-14">Text selection</hd> <p>While preparing guided reading lessons, the majority of PSTs' planning decisions, 65%, had to do with text selection for the guided reading lessons. These PSTs demonstrated an understanding that every detail involved with text selection is directly linked with helping students become better lifelong readers. This parallels Fountas and Pinnell's ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref59">16</reflink>]) notion that teachers are "teaching the readers—not the texts." Fountas and Pinnell stress that "the goal [for students] is not simply to learn how to read this book but to learn how to read" across all contexts (p. 108). PSTs used their knowledge of students' reading level, instructional needs, interests, personality, and their own goals for student learning when deciding which texts to introduce while keeping in mind that the goals for reading extended well beyond this particular lesson.</p> <hd id="AN0136519851-15">Reading levels</hd> <p>Often, text decisions were based on the student's reading level and the accuracy rates at those levels. For example, PST #11 noted, "I am going to choose an easy level B book instead of an A book for the guided reading lesson for next time because Paul has read both level A books with at least 95% accuracy and I feel that he would benefit from a little bit of a challenge." Similarly, PST #2 relayed that her decision was based on her student's scored running record and previous guided reading experiences. This PST purposefully selected a Level F guided reading text to build on the child's success with Level E.</p> <hd id="AN0136519851-16">Individual needs</hd> <p>PSTs were also able to select appropriate texts for the sequential guided reading lessons by drawing upon their knowledge of students' individual learning needs that they noticed during previous reading sessions. For example, PST #10 noticed that her student needed to practice connecting dialogue to the book's plot. This PST was keenly aware that the student had trouble differentiating between the three characters' perspectives. Based on this child's specific needs, the PST chose a text that made it easier for the child to explain his understanding of the characters' conversations.</p> <p>Also drawing on knowledge of student needs, PST #4 and #8 chose books that offered fewer supports in order to challenge their students. PST #4 noticed that her student seemed "prepared to take on this text [with less supports] that is not as repetitive as the ones in the past," and recognizing the need of her student to attend more to the print, while PST #8 "purposefully chose a book that might not support the pictures to words as much" because she knew the student was "dependent on the pictures in books." Similarly, PST #2 selected her book "because of the significant amount of expression that was present in the text features (large bolded and scribbled print to match the characters' feelings) and the illustrations (explicitly depicted emotions of the characters)." With this decision, she hoped "to continue to model for Jessica the aspect of expression when reading a story."</p> <hd id="AN0136519851-17">Learners' interests and personalities</hd> <p>The participants were also frequently mindful of their students' interest in animals and other specific topics. For example, PST #4 noticed how much her student loved animals and selected a text to build on this interest. PST #11 noted her student's specific interest in go-karts and school, thus serving as her motivation for text selection for subsequent guided reading lessons. Books were also selected based on knowledge of students being "shy" or "determined." For example, PSTs explained that they sometimes chose challenging books because they believed the student would embrace the challenge versus others who chose books they considered slightly easier so as to boost a reluctant reader's confidence.</p> <hd id="AN0136519851-18">Goals for student learning</hd> <p>On occasion, the PSTs drew upon their own goals for student learning to select appropriate guided reading texts. For example, PST #2 claimed, "I used my pedagogical content knowledge [to select a book] by recognizing the features of the text that would best fit my goal to model reading prosody." Additionally, PST #10 indicated,</p> <p>I want to move past [asking], "Where is the dog in the picture?" and have him practice giving more elaborate answers. For this reason, I decided to sacrifice reading level for strategy practice; we could move one level down so that Elijah could practice a skill that was a little bit harder for him.</p> <p>In these examples, participants steered their lessons toward the learning goals they had in mind for the students with whom they were working. Shifts in thinking like the ones noted in this section are important to note because they demonstrate PSTs' potential use of pedagogical content knowledge to make informed teaching decisions related to text selection. In our work with in-service teachers with years of experience teaching guided reading, we have noticed that many of them do not yet make instructional decisions at this sophisticated level.</p> <hd id="AN0136519851-19">Supporting word solving strategies</hd> <p>Twenty percent of all planning decisions were related to world solving. The data show that PSTs relied heavily on their knowledge of a student's current word solving strategies when selecting texts and activities for guided reading lessons.</p> <hd id="AN0136519851-20">Current word solving strategies under development</hd> <p>Often when selecting a text, PSTs sought to support students' current word solving strategies that were not yet mastered but were under development. These were word solving strategies that the student could use when supported by the teacher. To illustrate, PST #6 explained that she selected a particular book because it had "wonderful supporting illustrations that will really help my student if he gets stuck on a word." In this case, the PST recognized that the student used illustrations as a means to solve unknown words. Other participants described their concern for students' decoding and phonics skills, letter recognition, high frequency word recognition, and decoding and phonics skills. For PST #11, knowledge of her student's decoding skills informed her decision to select a book with repetitive text. This PST specifically cited that the repetition in the book worked well to support "a core of sight words that would propel him forward in texts." Expanding on this child's repertoire of growing high-frequency words demonstrates the PST's awareness of the learner's abilities both in the present and in the future.</p> <hd id="AN0136519851-21">Current word solving strengths coupled with needs</hd> <p>As they considered word solving abilities while planning lessons, PSTs also attended to children's strengths and needs related to word solving strategies. For example, PST #5 selected a book based on observations that her particular early reader struggled with solving words, thus selecting a text that provided opportunities solving words by cross-checking the picture with the first letter of the unknown word. Additionally, PST #1 believed that the text she chose would address both a strength and a weakness for word solving. She reasoned, "This book matches John's strengths because it supports... one to two syllable-words and high frequency words. At the same time, this book supports his needs because it provides opportunities to study more complex words, and to recognize [other high frequency] words." In both of these examples, PTSs demonstrated that when selecting texts for guided reading, they attended to students' current word solving strengths as well as their needs.</p> <p>The structure of the assignment required heavy attention to planning decisions; however PSTs also identified numerous ITM teaching decisions. Those related to knowledge of the learner are described in the next section.</p> <hd id="AN0136519851-22">Using learner knowledge for in-the-moment teaching decisions</hd> <p>PSTs' ITM decisions reflected unexpected student reading behaviors and/or response during the guided reading lessons. As PST #11 summarized, ITM decisions helped PSTs become "prepared for the unexpected... meeting [the] immediate needs [of the child] then and there." We chose to focus only on instructional decisions related to reading; we did not analyze or describe decisions related to behavior management or student engagement. The ITM decisions related to knowledge of the learner were the result of keen observations of students (Owoki &amp; Goodman, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref60">42</reflink>]). All of the ITM decisions we focused on were based upon what PSTs noticed that the readers were doing. Participants demonstrated that they were using learner knowledge to make ITM decisions primarily in three ways: 1. by promoting word solving strategies; 2. by assessing and extending comprehension; and 3. by reinforcing the reader's actions with praising and/or prompting.</p> <p>Of the ITM decisions–actions that happened unexpectedly during guided reading instruction–approximately 46% were related to helping a learner with word solving and decoding unknown text. Equal in measure was the percentage of ITM decisions related to assessing or extending comprehension, accounting for 46% of ITM decisions. Finally, a small but notable 8% of ITM decisions pertained to reinforcing readers' actions.</p> <hd id="AN0136519851-23">Promoting word solving strategies</hd> <p>Participants most frequently used their knowledge of students' actual reading behaviors during the lesson to support word solving strategies. Roughly 46% of ITM decisions were identified as having a connection to supporting student word solving. For example, in an effort to encourage a reader to use parts of words to solve unknown words, PST #6 noted, "[The student] also got stuck on the word 'going.' I broke the word up into two parts, first asking about 'go' then 'ing.'" Similarly, PST #8 commented, "[I made the] decision to let my student use her skills to try and solve the words before I jumped straight to giving her the word she needed help on." This preservice teacher used her knowledge of the learner to purposefully pause and provide wait time to support the student's learning, thereby teaching for independence.</p> <hd id="AN0136519851-24">Comprehension</hd> <p>An equally prominent category of ITM decisions, roughly 46% of ITM decisions, involved PSTs assessing and extending children's comprehension of text. Of the combined comprehension-based decisions, 63% were made with the intent to assess a student's current level of comprehension, whereas nearly 37% were made to extend comprehension.</p> <hd id="AN0136519851-25">Assessing comprehension</hd> <p>First, participants used strategies to check for understanding while students were reading texts aloud. PSTs usually assessed comprehension during reading by having children summarize what they read or by asking questions about the pictures and/or the text. For example, PST #2 reported making an ITM decision to "[ask] Jessica what had happened in the story to make sure she understood what was happening. [Because otherwise], she might have been confused while reading," thus indicating that the student was not building meaning page-by-page. Likewise, PST #10 recalled, "I noticed that Carl was reading each page very quickly, and didn't seem to fully comprehend the sentences. He might have already memorized the story, I think. At that point, I decided to stop him and discuss the text further by asking questions like, 'Which dog in the picture is Dusty?'" By asking questions about the text, participants were informally assessing their students' comprehension.</p> <hd id="AN0136519851-26">Extending comprehension</hd> <p>Second, some PSTs went beyond assessing children's understanding of the text and used knowledge of the learners to build on their existing comprehension. Participants reported making these decisions as they watched the children read and listened to their answers to comprehension assessment questions. For example, PST #6 reflected, "My student was continually answering [the comprehension questions I had prepared in advance] with no prompting. Instead of [using] my original prompts, I fed off of his information in an attempt to scaffold his thinking even more." Similarly, PST #1 wrote, "Instead of praising [the child] as soon as he mentioned his prediction, I prompted him to pay attention to what Dan was trying to do with the animals, and to pay attention to what his problem was." As these examples illustrate, participants scaffolded the development of reading comprehension by attending to what the children already knew and helping them to comprehend text at a deeper level.</p> <hd id="AN0136519851-27">Teaching for independence through reinforcement of reading strategies</hd> <p>PSTs also demonstrated an ability to make ITM decisions that reinforced their student's reading abilities. Approximately 8% of all ITM decisions included remarks pertaining to specific strategy reinforcement. For example, PST #6 gave her student "verbal praise and a high-five for hard work" after reading a few pages, while PST #3 and #6 both recorded instances of using verbal praise to reaffirm and encourage their readers. PST #6 expanded, noting "I even told him that I loved that he used both the text and pictures to prove his thoughts." This action reinforced the child's independent strategy to cross-check text with pictures to solve unknown parts of text, while simultaneously bolstering his confidence as a reader.</p> <hd id="AN0136519851-28">Discussion</hd> <p>In order to understand how PSTs used their knowledge of the learner to guide their teaching decisions during guided reading lessons, we examined two kinds of decisions PSTs made based on learner knowledge: planning and ITM. Most decisions mentioned by participants related to planning, which was expected given the structure of the assignment. Planning decisions primarily involved text selection and word solving strategies, whereas ITM decisions pertained to world solving, comprehension, and reinforcing readers' actions. In contrast to enacting what Lortie ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref61">34</reflink>]) called the "apprenticeship of observation," during the Guided Reading Project, these PSTs were not merely imitating what they have seen teachers do. Rather, they were thinking, knowing, and acting like teachers (Feiman-Nemser, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref62">15</reflink>]) as they made intentional teaching decisions based on their knowledge of learners. This finding is significant because it points to the combined power of teacher knowledge and the positive impact that knowledge has on teaching decisions in guided reading.</p> <hd id="AN0136519851-29">Knowing the learner: the basis of all decisions</hd> <p>Effective readers develop meaningful, self-extending systems by developing a system or network of learning strategies that are generative and ever-expanding, allowing the reader to learn more about reading with every encounter with text (Clay, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref63">8</reflink>]). Within these self-extending systems of learning are processes of self-initiating, self-regulating, and independent systems—all processes that help readers "continue to learn through the act of reading" (Fountas &amp; Pinnell, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref64">16</reflink>], p. 18).</p> <p>The organization of instruction can facilitate or restrain the development of these self-extending systems (Boocock, McNaughton, &amp; Parr, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref65">3</reflink>]). Fullerton and DeFord ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref66">17</reflink>]) call for attention to the reciprocal exchange between the teacher and the reader in which the teacher's instructional moves are informed by the observations of the student's reading behaviors. In this study, formative assessments (e.g., running record) and purposeful "kidwatching" helped PSTs truly get to know their learners (Owoki &amp; Goodman, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref67">42</reflink>]), thereby positively influencing their teaching decisions, both planned and ITM. These PSTs came to know their learners by being aware of what to notice; this was achieved by physically observing student reading behaviors and building an overall repertoire of content knowledge concerning guided reading. Furthermore, participants did not simply follow their lesson plans and expect the learners to fit in nicely; rather, they focused first on each learner's reading and adapted their lessons accordingly. We contend that teaching guided reading without thinking about the learners is akin to teaching reading in the dark.</p> <hd id="AN0136519851-30">Purposeful text selection</hd> <p>PSTs in this study showcased an ability to reflect on the needs of their learners as they selected guided reading texts. A majority of PSTs commented on text selection, providing insight into their motives for selecting specific guided reading texts. Participants unfamiliar with the guided reading process and/or their learners would have likely selected texts simply because they were next in a leveled sequence (e.g., DRA, Lexile, Fountas, and Pinnell leveling). However, data from this study revealed that PSTs are capable of selecting texts based on information about their learners. These findings are significant because text selection for guided reading goes beyond simply choosing texts at a student's instructional level to include consideration of the supports and challenges present in each text.</p> <p>Participants were keenly aware of the complexities of guided reading instruction and consequently selected texts for a variety of purposeful reasons <emph>besides</emph> text level. PSTs paid attention to text features to examine what made them easy or hard and how those text demands aligned with the needs of their students. Participants also noticed opportunities for word solving, cross-checking the features of the word with illustrations, and other features their learners needed to practice. These skills align with practices recommended by key guided reading scholars (Fountas &amp; Pinnell, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref68">16</reflink>]; Richardson, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref69">47</reflink>]). Interestingly, thoughtful and deliberate text selection presents challenges for in-service teachers as well. When coaching for teacher growth, Lyons and Pinnell ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref70">36</reflink>]) recommend attention to text selection to help teachers adapt instruction to meet the range of learning needs in the guided reading group. In this study, PSTs demonstrated the ability to think critically about aspects of text selection that align with the recommendations for best practices in guided reading instruction, demonstrating that they are learning to think and act like teachers (Feiman-Nemser, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref71">15</reflink>]).</p> <p>The participants also referenced student reading needs and goals to select guided reading texts. This is an encouraging finding since as Gibson and Moss ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref72">19</reflink>]) explain, teachers must consider moderately challenging goals for students and how they align with Instructional-Level texts in each guided reading lesson experience. Mirroring the Backward Design principles outlined by Wiggins and McTighe ([<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref73">57</reflink>]), these PSTs began planning with goals in mind and purposely selected texts to foster student growth. PSTs selected texts by actively thinking about what their students should "know, understand, and be able to do" in each particular guided reading lesson (Wiggins &amp; McTighe, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref74">56</reflink>], p. 8). Thanks to their "systematic observation of children's literacy behaviors" on the initial visit to the local elementary schools, PSTs were able to determine goals for each child's reading abilities (Gibson &amp; Moss, p. 26). Having a clear idea of each student's reading behaviors allowed PSTs to better select texts in the planning stage and act with "purposeful action toward the intended results" (Wiggins &amp; McTighe, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref75">57</reflink>], p. 13).</p> <hd id="AN0136519851-31">Supporting word solving</hd> <p>Participants used knowledge of learners' decoding skills to plan for thoughtful word solving practice within each guided reading text. In this study, PSTs paid attention to specific word solving strategies their learners did or did not utilize and purposefully found instances in guided reading texts to support the development of these skills. Participants intentionally selected texts that offered a wide range of world solving opportunities, in accord with Fountas and Pinnell's ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref76">16</reflink>]) claim that guided reading does indeed provide "the most intensive and effective opportunity to teach powerful word-solving actions that are essential for processing texts at a particular level" (p. 409).</p> <hd id="AN0136519851-32">Responsive teaching</hd> <p>Just as Fountas and Pinnell ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref77">16</reflink>]) note, "Teaching must be responsive to the learner" (p. 367); the ITM decisions reported in this study reveal that these PSTs were aware of this powerful notion and were capable of adapting to each learner during guided reading instruction. These ITM teaching decisions are the most difficult part of guided reading because they require teachers to notice, assess, and act on what is happening in a matter of seconds. Despite this challenge, by drawing upon knowledge of the learners, the PSTs in this study were able to make many ITM teaching decisions.</p> <p>We did not examine the effectiveness of these decisions in this study; however, all of the decisions PSTs made were characteristic of those an experienced literacy expert would want to see (e.g., word solving strategies and comprehension supports). The fact that participants identified 59 ITM teaching decisions indicates that they are beginning to engage in responsive teaching, that is, "adapting their instruction to provide appropriate support for the students they teach" (Parsons, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref78">45</reflink>], p. 164).</p> <p>Guided by their learner knowledge, these PSTs made teaching decisions driven by this desire to adapt instruction to meet a student at their current moment of need, a hallmark of responsive teaching. These responsive decisions were apparent with ITM decisions pertaining to word solving; participants had to use their present knowledge of the learner, by watching and analyzing their reading behaviors, to make tailored ITM decisions. The PSTs' actions indicate that novice teachers can indeed assess reading behaviors during planning as well as in-the-moment, when time is not a luxury. PSTs did not simply teach a lesson; they taught <emph>students</emph>. We anticipate that with additional practice, they will continue to refine those responsive teaching skills.</p> <hd id="AN0136519851-33">Appreciation of reading as a process: scaffolding</hd> <p>PSTs in this study supported ongoing literacy growth by scaffolding their learners, particularly with guided reading text selection. Scaffolding, a developmentally appropriate practice supported by the National Association for the Education of Young Children, helps students "tackle appropriately challenging tasks successfully" (Gibson &amp; Moss, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref79">19</reflink>], p. 48). Scaffolding provides the least amount of support learners need for a task that they cannot yet do entirely independently (Copple &amp; Bredekamp, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref80">9</reflink>]). In this study, PSTs navigated the continuum of text difficulty by adjusting the level of scaffolding as evidenced by their text selection and prompts for word solving strategies. Participants built on learners' preexisting knowledge, but also motivated the Kindergarteners "to stretch a reasonable amount toward a new level of achievement" (Copple &amp; Bredekamp, p. 38). This confirms our belief that early childhood PSTs can become "well versed in the importance of building on the prior knowledge of students, ...understating the importance of supporting each of the domains of the whole child, ... [and] identifying] classroom practices as developmentally appropriate" (Mogharreban, McIntyre, &amp; Raisor, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref81">38</reflink>], p. 244).</p> <hd id="AN0136519851-34">PST reflection</hd> <p>Reflection is important for PSTs, especially when debriefing and evaluating field experiences with real students. After all, effective teaching requires reflecting, both in action and on action (Schön, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref82">48</reflink>]). However, Clark and Byrnes ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref83">6</reflink>]) discovered that "using reflection to become a more effective teacher" is not a high area of concern for most millennial PSTs (p. 387). Knowing this, we believe that teacher preparation programs must continue to infuse reflection into all aspects of learning to foster a reflective mindset. Some, but not all, portions of the Guided Reading Project required PSTs to think about the "whys" behind their actions. Interestingly enough, although "whys" were not always asked of them, PSTs selected for our study did describe deeper reasonings for their teaching decisions. In this case, reflection allowed PSTs to consider how they gathered knowledge of learners, how they continued to learn about the students, and how that knowledge informed teaching decisions.</p> <hd id="AN0136519851-35">Comprehension: the purpose of reading</hd> <p>PSTs in our study used learner knowledge to propel their students towards greater comprehension of texts. During the guided reading lessons, a majority of ITM decisions related to the assessment of comprehension, but there were still many instances of comprehension-extending efforts. The PSTs' actions to build and assess comprehension indicate their awareness of reading as a meaning-making process. Comprehension is the goal of all reading. It is, as Clay ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref84">8</reflink>]) believes, "the source of anticipation, the guide to being on track, and the outcome and reward of the effort" (pp. 1–2). PSTs displayed a crucial understanding of Clay's notion, in addition to understanding that comprehension is not a one-time effort to check student answers, but rather "a dynamic, ongoing process" that takes place before, during, and after reading (Fountas &amp; Pinnell, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref85">16</reflink>], p. 470). PSTs moved beyond assisting with accurate reading, but instead worked to provide ITM teaching decisions that built on the overall messages of text. From these findings, we conclude that ITM decisions about comprehension are more specific when PSTs have detailed knowledge about the learner reading in front of them.</p> <hd id="AN0136519851-36">Limitations</hd> <p>Our research is not without limitations. First, because the Guided Reading Project spanned four weeks and only involved teaching Kindergarten students at a single school, we do not have a clear understanding of how PSTs would make planning and ITM decisions in other contexts or what their decisions would look like over an extended period of time. Additionally, this study relied on self-reported teaching decisions in a reflective way rather than in real-time. Because of this limitation, the inclusiveness, accuracy, and nuanced aspects of the teaching decisions may not have been fully captured in these data.</p> <hd id="AN0136519851-37">Implications for future research</hd> <p>Despite its limitations, this study points to opportunities for future research related to PSTs' professional knowledge and teaching decisions. For example, our work involved PST whose work was determined to be above average compared to their classmates. A logical next step would be to examine planning and in-the-moment decisions of PSTs' at varying levels of skill, and to consider how those decisions are linked to overall performance in the methods course and as 1st-year teachers. Additionally, the effectiveness of PSTs' decisions, along with student outcomes of those decisions, are worth considering. Additionally, PSTs' decisions could be examined in more diverse contexts and grade levels, in order to inform teacher educators about how decision-making skills develop in different situations.</p> <hd id="AN0136519851-38">Conclusion</hd> <p>As demonstrated by participants in this study, when armed with powerful knowledge of their learners PSTs are capable of making developmentally appropriate teaching decisions in guided reading that "stretch [students] a reasonable amount toward a new level of achievement" (Copple &amp; Bredekamp, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref86">9</reflink>], p. 38). These decisions, stemming directly from the PSTs' assigned work with Kindergarteners, shed light on the range of decisions required in the context of guided reading instruction, both ITM and during lesson planning. Educators—both novice and seasoned—can benefit from knowledge of their learners to deliver effective instruction.</p> <p>In regards to decisions that occur prior to instruction, findings from this study reveal the importance of teacher preparation programs instructing PSTs to identify students' strengths and needs, and to plan instruction accordingly. Additionally, findings indicate that guided reading instruction is more likely to be effective when PSTs are able to use learner knowledge in tandem with an understanding of text selection components. For ITM decisions, our findings underscore the importance of using knowledge of the learner—including reading and comprehension levels—to make effective teaching decisions. Collectively, this study's findings suggest that teacher preparation programs should provide PST with foundational knowledge and authentic opportunities to observe, teach, and reflect on children's reading behaviors.</p> <p>In this study, learner knowledge enabled PSTs to make developmentally appropriate guided reading decisions with Kindergarteners. Given that decision-making skills are imperative for effective teaching, we were encouraged to see early career teachers beginning to cultivate these skills using the power of learner knowledge.</p> <hd id="AN0136519851-39">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.</p> <hd id="AN0136519851-40">Appendix</hd> <p>Guided Reading Prompts by Week</p> <p>Week One</p> <p>General Observations:</p> <p>■ Record the title, author, and text level. As the student reads a familiar text, take anecdotal notes as you observe his/her reading behaviors. Use the language of the Important Behaviors to Notice and Support handout to guide your "noticings." What type of reader (Emergent, Early, Transitional, or Self-Extending Reader do you believe your student to be? Why?</p> <p>Planning Decisions</p> <p>■ Looking ahead to the next lesson, what teaching decisions will you make as you plan the next lesson?</p> <p>In-the-Moment Decisions</p> <p>■ You began the lesson with a detailed and thoughtful plan, but teaching does not always go according to plan. Teachers make hundreds of "in-the-moment" teaching decisions every day. What "in-the-moment" teaching decisions did you make? Why did you make them? What sources of teacher knowledge were you drawing upon to make those decisions? Were they effective and how do you know?</p> <p>Reflection</p> <p>■ As you reflected on these questions, how did the Teacher Decision Making Framework (TDM) guide your decisions?</p> <p>Week Two</p> <p>Planning Decisions</p> <p>■ What level is this text, and why did you select this particular book? Carefully consider the characteristics that make this text easy/hard and explain how these characteristics match the strengths/needs of the readers in this student.</p> <p>Week Three</p> <p>Planning Decisions</p> <p>■ What level is this text, and why did you select this particular book? Carefully consider the characteristics that make this text easy/hard and explain how these characteristics match the strengths/needs of the readers in this student.</p> <p>■ As you PLANNED this lesson, what teaching decisions did you make? Why did you make them? What sources of teacher knowledge were you drawing upon to make those decisions? (Be specific.)</p> <p>In-the-Moment Decisions</p> <p>■ Observe the readers and "dip in" to support word solving and/or comprehension. Take anecdotal notes as you observe. Be ready to prompt for strategic reading. Record the notes on a separate paper and <bold>summarize your observations</bold> including specific examples from the lesson.</p> <p>■ Explain how you supported comprehension after the reading and how you praised or supported strategy development after the lesson.</p> <p>● You began the lesson with a detailed and thoughtful plan, but teaching does not always go according to plan. What "in-the-moment" teaching decisions did you make? Why did you make them? What sources of teacher knowledge were you drawing upon to make those decisions? Were they effective and how do you know?</p> <p>Reflection</p> <p>■ As you reflected on these questions, how did the Teacher Decision Making Framework (TDM) guide your decisions?</p> <p>Week Four</p> <p>Planning Decisions</p> <p>■ What level is this text, and why did you select this particular book? Carefully consider the characteristics that make this text easy/hard and explain how these characteristics match the strengths/needs of the readers in this student.</p> <p>In-the-Moment Decisions</p> <p>■ Observe the readers and "dip in" to support word solving and/or comprehension. Take anecdotal notes as you observe. Be ready to prompt for strategic reading. Record the notes on a separate paper and <bold>summarize your observations</bold> including specific examples from the lesson.</p> <p>■ Explain how you supported comprehension after the reading and how you praised or supported strategy development after the lesson.</p> <ref id="AN0136519851-41"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref5" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., &amp; Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59 (5), 389 – 407. doi: 10.1177/0022487108324554</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref1" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Barbour, N. (1986). Teachers can make decisions. Childhood Education, 62 (5), 322 – 324. doi: 10.1080/00094056.1986.10520745</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref65" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Boocock, C., McNaughton, S., &amp; Parr, J. M. (1998). The early development of a self-extending system in writing. Literacy Teaching and Learning, 3 (2), 41 – 58.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref16" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Borko, H., &amp; Putnam, R. T. (1996). Learning to teach. In D. Berliner &amp; R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 673 – 798). New York, NY : Macmillan.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref56" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Brantlinger, E., Jimenez, R., Klingner, J., Pugach, M., &amp; Richardson, V. (2005). Qualitative studies in special education. Exceptional Children, 71 (2), 195 – 207. doi: 10.1177/001440290507100205</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref83" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Clark, S. K., &amp; Byrnes, D. (2015). What millennial preservice teachers want to learn in their training. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 36 (4), 379 – 395. doi: 10.1080/10901027.2015.1100148</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref22" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Clay, M. M. (1982). Observing young readers: Selected papers. Portsmouth, NH : Heinemann.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref58" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Clay, M. M. (1991). Becoming literate: The construction of inner control. Auckland, NZ : Heinemann.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref14" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Copple, C., &amp; Bredekamp, S. (2009). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8 (3rd ed.). Washington, DC : National Association for the Education of Young Children.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Corbin, J., &amp; Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Corno, L. (2008). On teaching adaptively. Educational Psychologist, 43 (3), 161 – 173. doi: 10.1080/00461520802178466</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duffy, G. G., Miller, S. D., Kear, K. A., Parsons, S. A., Davis, S. G., &amp; Williams, J. B. (2008). Teachers' instructional adaptations during literacy instruction. In Y. Kim, V. J. Risko, D. L. Compton, D. K. Dickinson, M. K. Hundley, R. T. Jimenez, ... D. W. Rowe (Eds.), 57th yearbook of the national reading conference (pp. 160 – 171). Oak Creek, WI : National Reading Conference.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duke, N. K., &amp; Pearson, P. D. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. In A. E. Farstrup &amp; S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading (3rd ed., pp. 205 – 242). Newark, DE : International Reading Association, Inc.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Feiman-Nemser, S. (2008). Teacher learning: How do teachers learn to teach? In M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman-Nemser, D. J. McIntyre, &amp; K. E. Demers (Eds.), The handbook on research in teacher education: Enduring questioning in changing contexts (3rd ed., pp. 697 – 705). New York, NY : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fountas, I. C., &amp; Pinnell, G. S. (2017). Guided reading: Responsive teaching across the grades (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH : Heinemann.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fullerton, S. K., &amp; DeFord, D. E. (2000). Teaching for reciprocity: Developing a self-extending system through reading and writing. The Running Record: A Review of Theory and Practice for Reading Recovery Teachers, 12 (2), 3 – 10.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gambrell, L. B., Malloy, J. A., &amp; Mazzoni, S. A. (2007). Evidence- based best practices for comprehensive literacy instruction. In L. B. Gambrell, L. M. Morrow, &amp; M. Pressley (Eds.), Best practices in literacy instruction (3rd ed., pp. 11 – 29). New York, NY : The Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gibson, S. A., &amp; Moss, B. (2016). Every young child a reader: Using Marie Clay's key concepts for classroom instruction. New York, NY : Teachers College Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goldstein, J. (2007). Easy to dance to: Solving the problems of teacher evaluation with peer assistance and review. American Journal of Education, 113 (3), 479 – 508. doi: 10.1086/512741</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graham, C. R., Borup, J., &amp; Smith, N. B. (2012). Using TPACK as a framework to understand teacher candidates' technology integration decisions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28, 530 – 546. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00472</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Griffith, R. (2008). The impact of a scripted reading program on teachers' professional spirits. Teaching &amp; Learning: the Journal of Natural Inquiry and Reflective Practice, 22 (3), 121 – 133.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Griffith, R. (2014). Using guided writing conferences to guide teaching decisions during interactive writing. Journal of Reading Education, 39 (3), 14 – 21.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Griffith, R. (2017). Preservice teachers' in-the-moment teaching decisions in reading. Literacy, 51 (1), 3 – 10. doi: 10.1111/lit.12097</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Griffith, R., Bauml, M., &amp; Barksdale, B. (2015). In-the-moment teaching decisions in primary grade reading: The role of context and teacher knowledge. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 29, 444 – 457. doi: 10.1080/02568543.2015.1073202</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Griffith, R., Bauml, M., &amp; Quebec-Fuentes, S. (2016). Promoting metacognitive decision-making in teacher education. Theory Into Practice, 55 (3), 242 – 249. Themed issue: Adaptive teaching: Theoretical implications for practice. doi: 10.1080/00405841.2016.1173997</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Griffith, R., Massey, D., &amp; Atkinson, T. (2013). Examining the forces that guide teaching decisions. Reading Horizons, 52 (4), 305 – 332.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grossman, P. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. New York, NY : Teachers College Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gudmundsdottir, S., &amp; Shulman, L. (1987). Pedagogical content knowledge in social studies. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 31 (2), 59 – 70. doi: 10.1080/0031383870310201</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Henze, I., van Driel, J. H., &amp; Verloop, N. (2008). Development of experienced science teachers' pedagogical content knowledge of models of the solar system and the universe. International Journal of Science Education, 30 (10), 1321 – 1342. doi: 10.1080/09500690802187017</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hiebert, E. H. (2009). The (mis)match between texts and students who depend on schools to become literate. In E. H. Hiebert &amp; M. Sailors (Eds.), Finding the right texts: What works for beginning and struggling readers (pp. 1 – 22). New York, NY : The Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hoffman, J. V., &amp; Pearson, P. D. (2000). Reading teacher education in the next millennium: What your grandmother's teacher didn't know that your granddaughter's teacher should know. Reading Research Quarterly, 35 (1), 28 – 44. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.35.1.3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Juttner, M., Williams, B., &amp; Park, S. (2013). Development and use of a test instrument to measure biology teachers' content knowledge (CK) and pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Accountability, 25 (1), 45 – 67. doi: 10.1007/s11092-013-9157-y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL : University of Chicago Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Loughran, J., Mulhall, P., &amp; Berry, A. (2008). Exploring pedagogical content knowledge in science teacher education. International Journal of Science Education, 30 (10), 1301 – 1320. doi: 10.1080/09500690802187009</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lyons, C., &amp; Pinnell, G. S. (2001). Systems for change in literacy education: A guide to professional development. Portsmouth, NH : Heinemann.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McGee, L. M., Kim, H., Nelson, K. S., &amp; Fried, M. D. (2015). Change over time in first graders' strategic use of information at point of difficulty in reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 50 (3), 263 – 291. doi: 10.1002/rrq.98</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mogharreban, C. C., McIntyre, C., &amp; Raisor, J. M. (2010). Early childhood preservice teachers constructions of becoming an intentional teacher. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 31 (3), 232 – 248. doi: 10.1080/10901027.2010.500549</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morrow, L. M., Tracey, D., Woo, D., &amp; Pressley, M. (1999). Characteristics of exemplary 1st grade literacy instruction. The Reading Teacher, 52 (5), 462 – 476.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Association for the Education of Young Children. (1991). Position statement: Guidelines for appropriate curriculum content and assessment in programs serving children ages 3 through 8. Young Children, 46 (3), 21 – 38.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nilsson, P. (2008). Teaching for understanding: The complex nature of pedagogical content knowledge in pre-service education. International Journal of Science Education, 30 (10), 1281 – 1299. doi: 10.1080/09500690802186993</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Owoki, G., &amp; Goodman, Y. (2002). Kidwatching: Documenting children's literacy development. Portsmouth, NH : Heinemann.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Parker, W., &amp; Gehrke, N. (1986). Learning activities and teachers' decision making: Some grounded hypotheses. American Educational Research Journal, 23 (2), 227 – 242. doi: 10.3102/00028312023002227</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Parsons, S., Massey, D., Vaughn, M., Faircloth, B., Howerton, S., Atkinson, T., ... Scales, R. (2011). Developing teachers' reflective thinking and adaptability in graduate courses. Journal of School Connections, 3 (1), 91 – 111.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Parsons, S. A. (2012). Adaptive teaching in literacy instruction: Case studies of two teachers. Journal of Literacy Research, 44 (2), 149 – 170. doi: 10.1177/1086296X12440261</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pressley, M., Allington, R. L., Warton-McDonald, R., Block, C. C., &amp; Morrow, L. M. (2001). Learning to read: Lessons from exemplary first grade classrooms. New York, NY : Guildford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Richardson, J. (2017). The next step forward in guided reading: An assess-decide-guide framework for supporting every reader. New York, NY : Scholastic.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schön, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco, CA : Jossey Bass.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schwab, J. (1973). The practical 3: Translation into curriculum. The School Review, 81 (4), 501 – 522. doi: 10.1086/443100</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shavelson, R., &amp; Stern, P. (1981). Research on teachers' pedagogical thoughts, judgments, decisions, and behavior. Review of Educational Research, 51 (4), 455 – 498. doi: 10.3102/00346543051004455</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shavelson, R. J. (1973). What is the basic teaching skill? Journal of Teacher Education, 24 (2), 144 – 151. doi: 10.1177/002248717302400213</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Snow, C.E., Burns, M.S., &amp; Griffin, P. (1999). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, D.C : National Academy Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sung, P., &amp; Yang, M. (2013). Exploring disciplinary background effect on social studies teachers' knowledge and pedagogy. Journal of Educational Research, 106 (1), 77 – 88. doi: 10.1080/00220671.2012.658453</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Texas Education Agency. (2015-2016). Texas academic performance report. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.tea.state.gov">www.tea.state.gov</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vaughn, M., &amp; Parsons, S. A. (2013). Adaptive teachers as innovators: Instructional adaptations opening spaces for enhanced literacy learning. Language Arts, 91, 81 – 93.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wiggins, G., &amp; McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA : Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wiggins, G., &amp; McTighe, J. (2001). What is backward design? Understanding by design (pp. 7 – 19). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wilson, S. M., Shulman, L. S., &amp; Richert, A. E. (1987). 150 different ways of knowing: Representations of knowledge in teaching. In J. Calderhead (Ed.), Exploring teachers' thinking (pp. 104 – 124). London, UK : Cassell.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wood, E. (2003). Pedagogical content knowledge: An example from secondary school mathematics. The Mathematics Teacher, 7 (1), 49 – 61.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Allison Davis; Robin Griffith and Michelle Bauml</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref82"></nolink> |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: EJ1216303 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: How Preservice Teachers Use Learner Knowledge for Planning and In-the-Moment Teaching Decisions during Guided Reading – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Davis%2C+Allison%22">Davis, Allison</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Griffith%2C+Robin%22">Griffith, Robin</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8910-978X">0000-0001-8910-978X</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Bauml%2C+Michelle%22">Bauml, Michelle</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2033-4051">0000-0003-2033-4051</externalLink>) – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Early+Childhood+Teacher+Education%22"><i>Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education</i></searchLink>. 2019 40(2):138-158. – Name: Avail Label: Availability Group: Avail Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals – Name: PeerReviewed Label: Peer Reviewed Group: SrcInfo Data: Y – Name: Pages Label: Page Count Group: Src Data: 21 – Name: DatePubCY Label: Publication Date Group: Date Data: 2019 – Name: TypeDocument Label: Document Type Group: TypDoc Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research<br />Tests/Questionnaires – Name: Audience Label: Education Level Group: Audnce Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education%22">Early Childhood Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Kindergarten%22">Kindergarten</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Primary+Education%22">Primary Education</searchLink> – Name: Subject Label: Descriptors Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preservice+Teachers%22">Preservice Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Decision+Making%22">Decision Making</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Directed+Reading+Activity%22">Directed Reading Activity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Instruction%22">Reading Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Kindergarten%22">Kindergarten</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education%22">Early Childhood Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Young+Children%22">Young Children</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Private+Colleges%22">Private Colleges</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Field+Experience+Programs%22">Field Experience Programs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Urban+Schools%22">Urban Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+Schools%22">Elementary Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Hispanic+American+Students%22">Hispanic American Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Material+Selection%22">Reading Material Selection</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Comprehension%22">Reading Comprehension</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Strategies%22">Reading Strategies</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Scaffolding+%28Teaching+Technique%29%22">Scaffolding (Teaching Technique)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reflective+Teaching%22">Reflective Teaching</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Lesson+Plans%22">Lesson Plans</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Developmentally+Appropriate+Practices%22">Developmentally Appropriate Practices</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Individual+Needs%22">Individual Needs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Literacy%22">Literacy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Word+Study+Skills%22">Word Study Skills</searchLink> – Name: Subject Label: Geographic Terms Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Texas%22">Texas</searchLink> – Name: DOI Label: DOI Group: ID Data: 10.1080/10901027.2018.1534161 – Name: ISSN Label: ISSN Group: ISSN Data: 1090-1027 – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: Decision-making is essential for the work of teaching. Preservice teachers must learn to leverage knowledge about young readers' strengths, needs, and interests in order to plan and teach guided reading lessons skillfully. However, limited research examines preservice teachers' decision-making based on what they know about individual children. In this qualitative case study, we report findings from 12 preservice teachers enrolled in a reading methods course who used teacher knowledge to inform their teaching decisions for guided reading lessons with Kindergarteners. Findings reveal how participants used knowledge of learners to make planning as well as in-the-moment teaching decisions. The data show that most of these decisions were lesson planning decisions about text selection and word solving strategies, indicating that participants were beginning to engage in responsive teaching strategies. This study makes a new contribution to early childhood teacher education literature by underscoring the significance of learner knowledge in the context of authentic teaching practice while learning to teach guided reading to young children. – Name: AbstractInfo Label: Abstractor Group: Ab Data: As Provided – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 2019 – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: EJ1216303 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1216303 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1080/10901027.2018.1534161 Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 21 StartPage: 138 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Preservice Teachers Type: general – SubjectFull: Decision Making Type: general – SubjectFull: Directed Reading Activity Type: general – SubjectFull: Reading Instruction Type: general – SubjectFull: Kindergarten Type: general – SubjectFull: Early Childhood Education Type: general – SubjectFull: Young Children Type: general – SubjectFull: Private Colleges Type: general – SubjectFull: Field Experience Programs Type: general – SubjectFull: Urban Schools Type: general – SubjectFull: Elementary Schools Type: general – SubjectFull: Hispanic American Students Type: general – SubjectFull: Reading Material Selection Type: general – SubjectFull: Reading Comprehension Type: general – SubjectFull: Reading Strategies Type: general – SubjectFull: Scaffolding (Teaching Technique) Type: general – SubjectFull: Reflective Teaching Type: general – SubjectFull: Lesson Plans Type: general – SubjectFull: Developmentally Appropriate Practices Type: general – SubjectFull: Individual Needs Type: general – SubjectFull: Literacy Type: general – SubjectFull: Word Study Skills Type: general – SubjectFull: Texas Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: How Preservice Teachers Use Learner Knowledge for Planning and In-the-Moment Teaching Decisions during Guided Reading Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Davis, Allison – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Griffith, Robin – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Bauml, Michelle IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 01 Type: published Y: 2019 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 1090-1027 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 40 – Type: issue Value: 2 Titles: – TitleFull: Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
