160

Teachers’ Instructional Adaptations During Literacy Instruction

Gerald G. DuffySamuel Miller Kathryn Kear Seth Parsons

Stephanie Davis Baxter Williams

University of North Carolina—Greensboro

Researchers have long associated thoughtfully adaptive teaching with effective literacy instruction. However, the empirical evidence for thoughtful adaptation is thin. We know little about the specific kinds of adaptations teachers make, we have no evidence that adaptive teaching improves student performance, and we know little about how teachers develop this ability. The following describes a longitudinal study designed to shed light on these issues.

THEORETICAL LENS

Thoughtfully adaptive teaching has been variously described as teacher decision-making (Clark & Peterson, 1978); as “responsive elaboration” (Duffy & Roehler, 1987), as “adaptive expertise” (Bransford, Darling-Hammond & LePage, 2005); as “adaptive metacognition” (Lin, Schwartz & Hatano, 2005); and as “wise improvisation (Little, Lampert, Graziani, Borko, Clark & Wong, 2007). The common concept across these descriptors is the expectation that good teachers are metacognitive in responding to “teachable moments.” As frequently indicated by studies of exemplary teachers (Allington & Johnston, 2002; McDonald, Pressley & Hampston, 1998; Taylor, Pearson, Clark & Walpole, 1999; Berliner, 1994) and by studies of scaffolding (Maloch, 2002; Many, 2002; Rodgers, 2004-05), good teachers “take advantage of teachable moments by providing many apt mini-lessons in response to student needs” (Pressley, 2002, p. xiii).

While thoughtfully adaptive teaching is generally associated with social constructivism, it can be viewed from a number of theoretical perspectives. When viewed as teacher decision-making, the theoretical perspective tends to be information processing, with teachers using knowledge to make decisions. When adaptive teaching is examined from a metacognitive perspective, teachers are viewed as conscious users of knowledge (Duffy, Miller, Parsons & Meloth, in press). When self-regulated learning theories are applied, thoughtfully adaptive teachers are seen in terms of autonomous monitoring, directing and regulating of pedagogical actions (Randi, 2004). From the Vygotskian view, adaptive instructional actions are seen as evidence of teachers learning as they teach (Tudge & Scrimsher, 2003), while from a communities of practice perspective (Lave, 1996; Lave & Wenger, 1991) teachers’ adaptations are seen as communal and context-driven.

Teachers’ Instructional Adaptations 161

The above-mentioned perspectives, particularly information processing and metacognition, inform our work. That is, our methodology views individual teachers as making decisions to adapt and, in doing so, they make conscious use of knowledge.

BACKGROUND

We report here the second study in a longitudinal effort to understand teachers’ thoughtfully adaptive actions. The research is driven by the desire to prepare thoughtful teachers of reading and writing. Multiple case studies are employed to answer our research questions.

The first study in our research program was conducted in 2005-06 (Duffy, Webb, Parsons, Kear & Miller, 2006). Our research question was, “Can we identify teacher adaptations during literacy instruction?” To answer this question, we observed 13 preservice teachers and six inservice teachers as they taught literacy lessons, and we audio-taped their post-lesson interviews. For those initial case studies we defined thoughtfully adaptive teaching (TAT) as “a form of executive control in which teachers modify professional information and/or practices in order to meet the needs of particular students or particular instructional situations within the framework of the lesson plan” and identified teacher actions as adaptations if during the course of an observed lesson a teacher either provided a response to an unanticipated student contribution or event, or diverged from the lesson plan, or made a public statement of a change. We confirmed whether or not what we observed was unplanned (and, therefore, an adaptation) by asking the teacher in a post-lesson interview. We then used a grounded theory analysis (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) of lessons and teacher interviews to develop a three-category system for coding adaptations.

We identified 187 teacher adaptations in this initial study. Most adaptations dealt with instruction or pragmatic categories, with fewer falling into a third category of student engagement. There was some variation by context, with teachers who employed scripted materials focusing more on pragmatic issues such as student behavior. We concluded that we had succeeded in isolating and categorizing instances of teacher adaptations. It was also clear, however, that we needed to conduct more studies in order to understand the nature of and the effect of teachers’ adaptive teaching. The resulting second set of studies is reported here.

THE STUDIES REPORTED HERE

We asked the following questions in the second set of case studies: (a) what is the quantity and quality of inservice and preservice teachers’ adaptations; (b) what is the quantity and quality of preservice and inservice teachers’ rationales for adaptations; and (c) do teacher adaptations affect student performance?

Participants

During Spring 2007, we conducted four studies involving a total of eight teachers (six preservice and two inservice) in three different Title I schools in a large urban school district in the Southeast. All eight were volunteers. Because our preservice students had been taught about the importance of being adaptive, and because the two inservice teachers were deemed exemplary by their principal, it was assumed these eight teachers would engage in thoughtfully adaptive teaching.

162 National Reading Conference Yearbook, 57

Hence, this was a convenience sample, but one we judged likely to engage in the kind of teaching we wished to study.

The first study examined two second-grade preservice teachers’ adaptations and rationales during tutoring of struggling second-grade Hispanic students. The remaining three studies examined teachers’ adaptations during guided reading on the assumption that guided reading offered authentic reading situations where teacher adaptations were likely to occur. One of these studies examined two preservice second-grade teachers’ adaptations and rationales during guided reading; another examined two fourth-grade preservice teachers’ adaptations and rationales during guided reading; and another examined two first-grade inservice teachers’ adaptations and rationales during guided reading (one had 31 years of experience and the other had 18 years of experience).

Data Collection

Data collection procedures were the same as in our first study. That is, during each observed reading lesson, we used specific criteria to note teacher adaptations in field notes and then, following each lesson, interviewed the teacher to confirm whether the observed action was indeed an unplanned adaptation and to ask why the teacher adapted. Teacher interviews were audio taped and transcribed.

The six preservice teachers and two inservice teachers were observed a total of 48 times (20 observations of the two preservice tutors, 10 observations of the second-grade preservice teachers’ guided reading lessons, 6 observations of the fourth-grade preservice teachers’ guided reading, and 12 observations of the two inservice teachers’ guided reading).

We also targeted students in each classroom and interviewed them following lessons in order to examine whether teacher adaptations are linked to student performance. In each interview, we described for the child the adaptation we saw the teacher make and asked, “Why do you think the teacher said what she said (or did what she did)?” Hence, for this study we defined student performance as “understanding the teacher’s adaptation.” A total of 53 interviews across 15 students were conducted.

Analyzing Teacher Data

Our data analysis procedures changed in three ways in the second set of studies: (a) we changed the definitional criteria for identifying adaptations; (b) we distinguished between adaptations and teachers’ rationales for adapting; and (c) we rated the extent to which metacognitive thought was evident in the adaptations and rationales we identified.

Identifying teachers’ adaptations. In reflecting on our first study, we realized that our three-category coding system for identifying “adaptations” did not rise to the level of “teachable moments” or “improvisation” or “metacognitive thought.” Instead, many appeared to be routine responses, or what Feldon (2007) describes as “automatic” rather than “conscious.”

The following examples from our first set of studies illustrate the difference:Example 1: As a student was reading during guided reading, the teacher had the child re-read

a sentence focusing on the period.Example 2: When a student questioned the meaning of the word “sniffed,” the teacher sniffed

out loud and said, “Like a bunny rabbit’s doing it.”

Teachers’ Instructional Adaptations 163

While it can be argued that the above examples are “on-the-fly” teacher decisions because the teacher had not planned to do what she did, they were made routinely day-after-day. They did not require conscious thought or improvisation. In Feldon’s (2007) terms, they were “automatic.”

In contrast, look at the following:Example 3: The teacher inserted a mini-lesson on author’s style during a guided reading lesson.

To help students appreciate the artistry required when an author both writes and illustrates, she emphasized personal style in both writing and illustrating, and that some authors write but do not illustrate.

Example 4: While doing a picture walk in a first-grade classroom, the students repeatedly described the character in the pictures as a boy. The teacher said, “Let’s read the first page.” When they did, they discovered that the character was a girl, not a boy. At that point, the teacher spontaneously inserted a lesson on stereotyping, describing both what it meant, and why it should be avoided.

Like Examples 1 and 2, the above teacher actions were unplanned, “on-the-fly” decisions. However, they were not routinely used nor were they automatic. Instead, they required a degree of improvisation and, we found, were often motivated by teachers’ conscious desire to develop a larger goal beyond the lesson objective.

This led us to distinguish between two kinds of observed teacher actions. We called one a “reactive response.” Like Examples 1 and 2 above, a “reactive response” was spontaneous and unplanned but was routinely used, and did not require much teacher thought. For instance, when a teacher cues a child to look at the first letter of an unknown word, it may be spontaneous and unplanned but is not particularly improvisational or metacognitive, so it is coded as a “reactive response,” not an adaptation. On the other hand, if a teacher plans to employ traditional question-and-answer recitation but spontaneously changes her mind and has students work collaboratively with a partner instead, it is not a routine reaction. Some degree of improvisation and metacognitive thought is required. We called this level of teacher response an “adaptation.”

Based on this distinction, we modified our above-stated definition of thoughtfully adaptive teaching by appending the statement: “We will note it as a thoughtful adaptation if the teacher is making a non-routine, proactive decision (i.e., it is not something we see the teacher do in other observations) that requires thought and is invented on the spot in order to make instruction suitable for the goal the teacher is pursuing.” While we continued to note all spontaneous and unplanned teacher responses during observations, we coded a teacher action as an adaptation only if it met three criteria: (a) it was non-routine, proactive, thoughtful and invented; (b) it included a change in the professional knowledge or the professional practices the teacher was using; and (c) it was done to anticipate the needs of students or instructional situations.

Using the above criteria, we then developed a second coding system for use in the current study in order to more closely match what researchers such as Pressley (2002) and others meant by thoughtfully adaptive teaching. We accomplished this by using a grounded theory approach (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) to re-analyze the 187 responses identified in our earlier study. This second analysis resulted in the following seven types of adaptation, which we then used as a coding system for the current study. The seven adaptations were (a) modifies lesson objective; (b) changes the means by which the lesson objective is achieved through elaborating or through changing strategy, task,

164 National Reading Conference Yearbook, 57

activity, or through changing assignment or materials; or through changing routines or procedures); (c) invents examples, metaphors, analogies or verbal or physical illustrations; (d) inserts mini-lesson; (e) suggests different perspectives to students; (f ) omits a planned activity or assignment; and (g) changes the planned order of instruction.

Analysis of teachers’ rationales. In our first study, we did not have a coding system for teachers’ reasons for adapting. Now, however, we distinguished between what teachers did (i.e., their adaptations) and their rationales for adapting in order to examine their metacognitive thought as well as their adaptations. To develop a coding system for teachers’ rationales, we re-analyzed teacher interviews from the first study, again using a grounded theory approach. The following nine kinds of rationales were identified: (a) because the objective was not met; (b) to challenge or elaborate; (c) to teach a specific strategy or skill; (d) to help students make connections to prior knowledge; (e) using knowledge of students or of classroom dynamics to alter instruction; (f ) to check student understanding; (g) anticipation of upcoming difficulty; (h) to manage time; and (i) to promote student engagement.

Analysis of quality. The third change in our analysis of adaptations focused on quality. In our first set of studies, adaptations varied in quality. For instance, a teacher who helps a student understand the meaning of “in-line skates” by spontaneously initiating a discussion about “Heelies” meets our criteria for an adaptation, but the extent of metacognitive thought does not rise to the level of Examples 3 and 4 above.

We also became aware of similar variations in the quality of teachers’ metacognitive thought when discussing their rationales for adapting. For instance, note the difference between the following two examples:

Rationale 1: “I was on the spot trying to figure out how can I get them to make the link that every author, you know, . . . [has a style] . . . I want them to realize that it can go much deeper than that. I mean to have a true talent to do your own illustrations and do those beautiful kinds of artwork . . . I mean it’s just on a different level to me in terms of artistic ability. I’m thinking, here’s a perfect time to capture that.”

Rationale 2: “I was hoping that they had previous experience with that and would make a connection.”

To capture such qualitative differences in metacognitive thought, we developed a rubric to rate adaptations and rationales as “considerable” metacognitive thought, “thoughtful” or “minimal metacognitive thought.” Once a teacher’s action was coded as an adaptation as opposed to a “reactive response,” it was rated. Likewise, once the teacher’s rationale for that adaptation was coded, it was rated. To be rated as “considerable” in metacognitive thought, an adaptation or rationale must evidence an exemplary or creative use of professional knowledge or practice and be associated with a larger goal the teacher holds for literacy growth. An adaptation or rationale is rated as “minimal” in metacognitive thought if it meets any of the following criteria: it requires little thought, or is a fragmented or unclear or incorrect use of professional knowledge or practice, or does not contribute usefully to a lesson objective or goal. An adaptation or rationale is rated “thoughtful” if it is tied to the specific lesson objective or larger goal and does not meet any of the criteria for “minimal.”

Teachers’ Instructional Adaptations 165

Analyzing Student Data

To determine a relationship between teachers’ adaptations and student performance (i.e., students’ understanding of the adaptation), we analyzed students’ post-lesson responses to the probe, “Why do you think your teacher said what she said (or did what she did?).” The student response had to be specific to what the teacher was doing for it to count as “understanding.” For each of the 53 interviews, we determined, on a “yes” or “no” basis, whether the interviewee understood why the teacher acted as she did. We then tallied the number who answered “yes” and the number who answered “no.”

Summarizing Data Analysis

To answer Research Questions 1 and 2 regarding the quantity and quality of inservice and preservice teachers’ adaptations and rationales, the research team coded confirmed adaptations and rationales using the above noted new coding systems and then rated the quality for each using the rubric. To answer the third question about whether adaptations are linked to student performance, we tallied the number of students who responded “yes” and the number who responded “no” to our student interview probe.

To ensure reliability in coding adaptations and rationales, in rating quality of adaptations and rationales, and in determining student understanding, the total team of six researchers did all the original analyses that resulted in the coding systems for adaptations and rationales, in the rubric for rating metacogntive thought, and in the criteria for determining student understanding. Once the codes, the rubric and the criteria were established, all further coding and rating was done by at least three team members. For any code or rating to be accepted, each of the participating raters had to agree. Thus, group unanimity was required.

Results

The first research question asked about the quantity and quality of teachers’ adaptations. As shown in Table 1, a total of 42 adaptations were noted across the 48 lesson observations. Twenty-seven of the adaptations were observed in the 36 lessons taught by the eight preservice teachers; 15 of the adaptations were observed in the 12 lessons taught by the two inservice teachers. Only one of the preservice teachers’ adaptations was rated as “considerable” in metacognitive thought, while four of the inservice teachers’ adaptations received that rating. Almost half of the adaptations were rated as requiring “minimal” metacognitive thought (17 of the preservice teachers’ total of 27 adaptations and 3 of the inservice teachers’ 15 adaptations). Table 1 also shows that two kinds of adaptations dominated (i.e., “changes means by which the objective is met” and “invents examples, analogies or metaphors”) and that only one other category had more than one observed instance (i.e., “inserts mini-lesson”).

The second research question asked about the quantity and quality of teachers’ rationales for their adaptations. As shown in Table 2, teachers provided 44 rationales for their 42 adaptations (some teachers provided more than one rationale for an adaptation). More than half of the rationales for both preservice and inservice teachers fell into two categories (i.e., “objective not met” and “to help students make connections to prior knowledge”). Only six of the 44 rationales were rated as requiring “considerable” metacognitive thought (two for preservice teachers and four for

166 National Reading Conference Yearbook, 57

inservice teachers), and more than half of the rationales (n=25) were rated as requiring “minimal” metacognitive thought (19 for preservice teachers and six for inservice teachers). Also of potential interest is the fact that the six adaptations rated as requiring “considerable” metacognitive thought also received ratings of “considerable” or “thoughtful” for the amount of metacognitive thought evident in teachers’ rationales for those adaptations.

The third research question explored whether students understood teachers’ adaptations. That is, when a teacher adapted during a lesson, did target students understand the teacher’s intention? Of the 53 such interview probes across 15 students and 28 observations, there were 46 “yes” responses (they did understand) and 13 “no” responses (they did not understand). That is, 78% of the students’ responses indicated they understood what the teacher meant. Further, when sorted by quality rating, teachers’ adaptations receiving a “considerable” rating for the amount of metacognitive thought resulted in 100% of the students indicating an understanding of what the teacher was doing, adaptation ratings of “thoughtful” resulted in 80% of the students understanding, and when the adaptation was rated as “minimal,” 70% of the students understood. The same basic relationship also occurred when we compared the quality of teachers’ rationales with students’ understandings of adaptations.

Summary of results. Given these data, our answer to Research Questions 1 and 2 is that the range in the quantity and quality of preservice and inservice teachers’ adaptations and rationales is

Table 1. Quantity and Quality Ratings for Preservice and Inservice Teachers’ Adaptations

Quality Ratings

Adaptations # Considerable Medium Minimal

Modifies lesson objective 0 0 0 0

Changes means by which objectives are met (e.g., materials, strategy, activity, assignment, procedures or routines)

15 3 7 5

Invents examples, analogy, or metaphor 20 0 6 14

Inserts mini-lesson 5 2 3 0

Suggests different perspective to students 1 0 1 0

Omits planned activity or assignment 1 0 0 1

Changes planned order of instruction 0 0 0 0

Totals 42 5 17 20

NOTE: While grounded theory analysis of data from our first study resulted in examples of each of the above seven categories of adaptations, none of the teachers in the current study “modified the lesson objective” or “changed the planned order of instruction,” hence there are zeroes in those two categories.

Teachers’ Instructional Adaptations 167

wide. While our results suggest that inservice teachers adapt more often and have more adaptations rated “considerable,” there appeared to be little difference in the kind of adaptations made by our preservice teachers and by the two veteran inservice teachers. Likewise, there appeared to be little difference in the types of rationales cited most frequently by our preservice teachers and by the two inservice teachers.

Regarding Research Question 3, the student interview technique shows some potential for linking teacher adaptations to student understanding of a teacher’s adaptation. However, we were still left with no direct evidence of students’ improved literacy performance.

Discussion

While we are cautious in interpreting the results of this current study because our sample remains limited, we nonetheless believe we have made a start on understanding literacy teachers’ “on-the-fly” adaptations. Primary in that regard is the fact that we did find evidence of teacher adaptations, as well as evidence that some adaptations and some rationales rise to a “considerable” level of metacognitive thought. While both the number and quality of adaptations and rationales were less than one might expect given that the participants were selected for their perceived propensity for adaptive actions and given the importance placed on teacher thoughtfulness in the teaching literature, it is important that we were able to capture instances of both adaptations and metacognitive thought.

Table 2. Quantity and Quality Ratings for Preservice and Inservice Teachers’ Rationales

Quality Ratings

Rationale # Considerable Medium Minimal

Objectives not met 10 1 2 7

To challenge or elaborate 2 1 1 0

To teach a specific strategy or skill 3 0 3 0

To help students make connections to prior knowledge 16 1 3 12

Uses knowledge of student(s) or classroom dynamics to alter instruction 2 1 1 0

To check students’ understanding 4 1 1 2

Anticipation of upcoming difficulty 2 0 0 2

To manage time 1 0 0 1

To promote student engagement 4 1 2 1

Totals 44 6 13 25

168 National Reading Conference Yearbook, 57

We also believe that the definitional distinction we made between “adaptations” and “reactive responses” is important. By distinguishing between actions requiring substantial thought as opposed to actions that are automatic or routine responses, we are suggesting that not all spontaneous teacher decisions are equal. If all unplanned actions are counted, it is true that literacy teachers make many “on-the-fly” decisions daily (see, for instance, Jackson, 1968). If one only counts unplanned actions that rise to the level of “teachable-moment-like” actions, however, fewer are found.

The above definitional distinction raises other important questions. Three particularly important ones are: “ Given that not all adaptations are appropriate or helpful, what kinds of “teachable-moment-like” actions are appropriate? From a teacher education perspective, “How can we teach literacy teachers to engage in substantive adaptive actions and to employ more metacognitive thought in explaining those adaptations? Finally, and of particular importance, “If we teach teachers to be more metacognitive in making adaptations, does it improve student literacy learning?”

Our finding of relatively few high-quality adaptations and high-quality rationales also raises questions about why this is so, especially in light of the prominence of these ideas in the professional literature. Part of the explanation may be that our study was conducted in schools where there is immense pressure to raise test scores, and where teachers are subject to restrictive mandates. Guided reading provides a good illustration. While we anticipated that guided reading would provide many occasions for teachers to adapt, this did not occur as often as we expected because there are district rules for how guided reading is to be conducted. Operating under those conditions, preservice and inservice teachers alike may have felt they could not risk adapting. It is possible, therefore, that teachers in this school district are not as adaptive or as metacognitive as has been assumed in the literature because the context limits teachers’ ability to adapt instruction.

Another possible explanation for seeing relatively few high-quality adaptations and rationales may be related to how we educate teachers. In this regard, the results for the six preservice teachers were of particular concern for us. The six preservice teachers were our own students; they were selected for study because thoughtfully adaptive teaching is emphasized in our teacher education program. Despite that emphasis, however, our preservice teachers made only 32 adaptations across 36 observations, and only one of those adaptations was rated as requiring “considerable” metacognitive thought. Similarly, their rationales were generally rated as “minimal” (only 6 rationales were rated “considerable”). It therefore seems obvious to us, as teacher educators, that we must do more to develop adaptive literacy teachers who are metacognitive in using knowledge to analyze their decisions. More explicit instruction, more carefully constructed scaffolds, case-based examples, Japanese lesson study, and other techniques are all being considered as ways to increase our students’ ability to display metacognitive thought “on-the-fly” when teaching.

We have also examined whether our results are limited or constrained by our unit of analysis. That is, we have asked whether we would find different results if we looked at teachers in places other than Title I schools, or if we did not look at them one lesson at a time, or if we did not interview them immediately following observed lessons. Would we find more examples of highly rated adaptations and rationales if we looked only at teachers who were nominated as “exemplary,” or if we conducted our research in a school district that was less constrained by No Child Left Behind mandates, or if we observed a sequence of linked lessons rather than one lesson at a time,

Teachers’ Instructional Adaptations 169

or if we did delayed teacher interviews rather than interviewing immediately following the observed lesson? These are all possibilities, and are being considered as we continue our longitudinal work.

Another frequently asked question is whether we should be looking at teacher thinking in the planning stage instead of looking at teachers’ “on-the-fly” adaptations. Teachers no doubt do think through creative and entrepreneurial projects and activities in advance. However, we seek to validate the frequent claim, such as that by Kennedy (2006) below, that effective teachers employ on-the-fly “teachable moments: […teaching is]…an endeavor that…happens in real time where the merits of alternative courses of action must be weighed in the moment” (p. 206).

Hence, we are interested in studying the “weighed in the moment” or “on-the-fly” decisions teachers make.

Finally, of course, we are firmly committed to determining whether there is a link between teachers’ on-the-fly adaptations and student outcomes. While thoughtfully adaptive teaching is often discussed as if it is inherently good in and of itself, we believe that teaching exists to improve student performance. Therefore, adaptive literacy teaching can be justified only if we can demonstrate improved student literacy performance. Consequently, our exploratory attempt reported here will be extended in future studies to include student performance on near-transfer literacy tasks associated with the teacher’s adaptation.

WHERE TO FROM HERE?

We continue to study teachers’ thoughtfully adaptive actions. In addition to exploring methodological concerns about who to study, how long to examine their practice, and when to interview them, we are also examining two other major issues.

First, we are examining the relationship between adaptations, rationales and student literacy growth as these relate to the openness (i.e., the challenge level) of students’ tasks. Because guided reading did not result in more adaptive teacher actions in current studies as we had hoped, we are now teaching teachers to implement high-challenge tasks for students and then observing the number and quality of adaptations and rationales in subsequent lessons. Our assumption is that by helping teachers provide high-challenge student tasks, we will see more and better adaptive teacher actions. Three such studies involving 14 inservice teachers are underway: one examines four third- grade teachers; another examines six teachers (one at each grade level from K through 5); and a third examines four teachers, two who are required to use scripted materials and are prevented from providing open tasks, and two who use unscripted material and are being taught to provide open tasks.

Our second focus examines the origin of teacher adaptations and rationales. For instance, when teachers adapt, what causes them to adapt? Is the adaptation rooted in particular kinds of professional knowledge? That is, when a teacher responds to a “teachable moment” by spontaneously inserting a mini-lesson, what kind of knowledge is the teacher calling on? Or are adaptations a function of a dispositional propensity to act rather than a conscious accessing of a particular kind of professional knowledge? For instance, we noted in our grounded theory analysis of teacher rationales that teachers who had highly rated adaptations frequently referred to some larger goal beyond the lesson objective as the rationale. So are adaptations rooted in teachers’

170 National Reading Conference Yearbook, 57

visions for accomplishing such larger goals, or are they rooted in more straightforward employment of declarative and procedural knowledge? We are currently examining questions such as these in a study of two experienced inservice teachers.

Closely related to these considerations are questions about the developmental aspect of teacher adaptations. One might logically expect a developmental phenomenon to appear, with experienced teachers demonstrating significantly more and better adaptations and rationales than less experienced preservice teachers or neophytes. However, to date we have not observed such a developmental progression. To the contrary, we found very little difference in quantity or quality of adaptations and rationales among our six preservice teachers and our two inservice teachers. This may be simply a function of our limited sample. Another possible explanation is that after a certain point in their careers, experienced teachers become less adaptive because they believe they have experienced virtually everything previously, and no longer need to invent new adaptations. Another possibility is that they become more adept planners, so there is less need to depart from the plan. Similarly, experienced teachers may become less metacognitive about explaining their adaptations because they have seen it all before (i.e., they are victims of “expert blindness”). Still another possibility is that inservice teachers’ interviews suffered because they were not experienced in reflecting on their work. We will continue to explore these possibilities, as well as other aspects of teacher development.

CONCLUSION

At the outset of this paper, and as a means for informing our teacher education efforts, we set a goal to validate that effective teachers make substantive “weighed-in-the-moment” adaptations by making conscious use of knowledge. Toward this end, we have now accumulated 27 cases of teachers’ adaptations during literacy instruction (19 in the first set of studies and 8 in the studies reported here). As noted above, our efforts to date have yielded more questions than answers.

Nonetheless, we expect that when we complete the 14 cases currently being studied, bringing us to a total of 41 cases, our understanding of the nature of teachers’ “on-the-fly” adaptations and its impact on student performance will be much advanced. Therefore, we continue to expect that what we learn will inform our efforts to develop and sustain thoughtful teachers who develop high levels of student literacy learning.

REFERENCES

Allington, R., & Johnston, P. (Eds.). (2002). Reading to learn: Lessons from exemplary fourth-grade classrooms. New York: Guilford.

Berliner, D. (1994). Expertise: The wonder of exemplary performances. In J. Mangleri & C.C. Block (Eds.), Creating powerful thinking in teachers and students: Diverse perspectives (pp. 161-186). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.

Bransford, J., Darling-Hammond, L., & LePage, P. (2005). Introduction. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 1-39). San Franciso: Jossey-Bass.

Clark, C., & Petersen, P. (1978). Teachers’ reports of their cognitive processes during teaching. American Educational Research Journal, 15(4), 555-565.

Teachers’ Instructional Adaptations 171

Duffy, G., Miller, S., Parsons, S., & Meloth, M. (in press). Teachers as metacognitive professionals. In D. Hacker, J. Dutilosky & A. Glasser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education. Matwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Duffy, G., & Roehler, L. (1987). Improving classroom reading instruction through the use of responsive elaboration. The Reading Teacher, 40, 514-521.

Duffy, G., Webb, S., Parsons, S., Kear, K., & Miller, S. (2006, December). Does thoughtfully adaptive teaching exist? Paper presented at the National Reading Conference, Los Angeles, CA.

Feldon, D. (2007). Cognitive load and classroom teaching: The double-edged sword of automaticity. Educational Psychologist, 42, 123-137.

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Hawthorne, NY: Aldinede Gruyter.

Jackson, P. (1968). Life in classrooms. NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Kennedy, M. (2006). Knowledge and vision in teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 57, 205-211.Lave, J. (1996). Teaching, as learning, in practice. Mind, Culture, Activity, 3, 149-164.Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

University Press.Lin, X., Schwartz, D. L., & Hatano, G. (2005). Toward teacher’s adaptive metacognition. Educational

Psychologist, 40(4), 245-255.Little, J., Lampert, M., Graziani, F., Borko, H., Clark, K., & Wong, N. (2007, April). Conceptualizing and

investigating the practice of facilitation in content-oriented teacher professional development. Symposium conducted at the 2007 Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association, Chicago.

Maloch, B. (2002). Scaffolding student talk: One teacher’s role in literature discussion groups. Reading Research Quarterly, 37(1), 92-111.

Many, J. (2002). An exhibition and analysis of verbal tapestries: Understanding how scaffolding is woven into the fabric of instructional conversations. Reading Research Quarterly, 37, 376-406.

McDonald, R., Pressley, M., & Hampston, J. (1998). Literacy instruction in nine first-grade classrooms: Teacher characteristics and student achievement. The Elementary School Journal, 99(2), 101-128.

Pressley, M. (2002). Foreword. In R. Allington & P. Johnston, Reading to learn (pp. x-xvi). New York: Guilford.

Randi, J. (2004). Teachers as self-regulated learners. Teachers College Record, 106, 1825-1853.Rodgers, E. M. (2004-05). Interactions that scaffold reading performance. Journal of Literary Research, 36,

501-532.Taylor, B., Pearson, P.D., Clark, K., & Walpole, S. (1999). Effective schools/accomplished teachers. Reading

Teacher, 53, 156-159.Tudge, J., & Scrimsher, S. (2003). Lev S. Vygotsky on education: A cultural-historical, interpersonal, and

individual approach to development. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Educational psychology: A century of contributions (pp. 207-228). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.