Aligning English Education Teacher Candidates’ Perceptions of Engagement with a “Literacy Practices” Framework

Todd Finley and Sharilyn SteadmanDepartment of Literary Studies, English Education, and History EducationDepartment Chair: Dr. Kathy MisulisCollege of EducationEast Carolina Universityfinleyt@ecu.edusteadmans@ecu.edu

AbstractUsing phenomenological analysis for three semesters to assess 90 English education teacher candidates perceptions of engagement, our study aligned 90 English Education teacher candidates’ perceptions of engagement with five educational frameworks (Beach, et. al., 2012) and found that a majority of our TCs’ perceptions of engagement are shallow, inconsistent, and disparate—aligned with traditional pedagogies not supported by current research. We argue that an engaged ELA literacy practices model should align with a literacy practices framework (Beach, et. al., 2012) because of this model’s emphasis on students actively participating in the ELA for social reasons—reasons that are most likely to forward student engagement. Finally, we identify James Gee’s 36 learning principles—derived from research on games and cognition (2003, 2005)—as a model to concretize the application of engaged ELA literacy practices.

IntroductionEngagement is a lynchpin word that reflects teacher perceptions and shapes them, and has been proven to augment literacy learning (Johannessen & McCain, 2009; Robinson & Hullinger, 2008; Schoenbach & Greenleaf, 2009). However, few studies examine teachers’ conceptions of student engagement (Harris, 2010, p. 133).

To contextualize our TCs’ disparate views of engagement, we employed the five educational frameworks described in Teaching to Exceed the English Language Arts Common Core Standards by Richard Beach, Amanda Haertling Thein, and Allen Webb (2012, p. 78-79): content, formalist, skills, process/strategies, and literacy practices. To summarize, curriculum that uses the content framework focuses on knowledge about literature. The formalist framework describes practices that involve attention to teaching structure and genre. A skills framework involves decoding and comprehending skills that are often practiced in isolation. The process/strategies framework emphasizes teaching cognitive strategies and explicit process stages involved in reading and writing. In contrast to the other more traditional paradigms, the literacy practices framework focuses on what students want to learn as much as what they should learn. Thus, this last framework privileges literacies that advance students’ social practices—“engaging” practices (p. 78-79).

MethodologyOur study focused on English Education teacher candidates’ early, middle, and late program socialization experiences, observations, and perceptions of high school students’ engagement as manifest in their practicum observation/reflection journals subsequent to classroom observations. Specifically, we wanted to answer the following questions: 1) What can TCs teach us about their perceptions of engagement? 2) When and how are students using the term and for what purpose?3) What do the TCs’ perceptions suggest about engaging literary practices?

We used a phenomenological methodology with approximately 90 ENED teacher candidates. For three semesters, we collected data from all of our majors, early to late stage, across multiple classes, and used a number of academic artifacts to assess our TCs’ perceptions of engagement: prompted freewrites, discussions, field journals, prompted journals, and method course blogs. Also, we asked the TCs to voluntarily complete an online survey that featured open-ended questions, including contextual definitions and Likert-scaled items.

In our research, we drew upon mental model theory, which helps researchers explain how individuals perceive phenomenon in order to classify processes that occur in the mind and through social transactions. The mental models are useful for relating TCs’ uses of engagement to their conception of English language arts practices. To code the participant texts, we employed a cognitive mapping approach, triangulated between the two authors, to explore the relationship between students’ words and phrases.

Limitations of the study include a recognition that the mental model approach may be incomplete and this study describes a particular set of individuals and may not be representative of a larger population.

ResultsAs we learned from our earlier study of engagement (Steadman & Finley, 2012), our TCs’ definitions were unstable and imprecise. The results of this study indicate that TCs define engagement along a wide spectrum, from prosaic to inspirational. When asked to reflect under the auspices of college work, the TCs used more interactive descriptions of engagement in contrast to their field observations that indicated the dominance of transmission strategies being used in secondary English classrooms. While TCs often articulated what did not constitute engagement, most could not offer a richer definition, perhaps signaling TCs’ blindness to engagement practices in the field, their shallow understanding of engagement, the lack of exemplars enacted during observation practicums, and/or the dominance of transmission-oriented pedagogies taking place in the local ELA classrooms.

Beach et al (2012, p. 72) offer a useful heuristic of five educational frameworks for viewing our TCs’ prompted responses, survey data, and journals. • Content• Formalist• Skills• Processes/strategies• Literacy practices

We note how the prompted reflections on engagement align most often with the content, formalist, and skills frameworks. Less frequently, TCs’ perceptions of engagement aligned with process/strategies, and they almost never aligned with a literacy practices framework. This was also the case with regard to the experiences and observations that TCs described when asked to note significant encounters with academic engagement. In their observation journals, most TCs labeled transmission-oriented pedagogies as engagement, thereby associating the term with the content and formalist frameworks.

Highlights of Current ApplicationsIn ENED 4323 & 4010…

Microteaching and practicum lesson are now required to be aligned with a literacy practices framework.

All cooperative lessons involve simulations, problem solving, or dramatizations.

TCs watch secondary ELA teaching videos and identify them along an engagement continuum: from “compliance” to “literacy practices” aligned.

TCs become versed in the mechanics of engagement by defining and constructing CCSS ELA-aligned curriculum that targets James Gee’s 36 Learning Principles (See QR code)

In ENED 4960… TCs generate CCSS ELA-aligned unit plans that

integrate UDL and the literary practices framework.

In ENED 3018… Cooperative small group presentations on student

archetypes employ dramatizations and collaborative problem solving.

TCs view and assess secondary ELA teaching videos, identifying effective literary practices.

TCs co-construct components of CCSS ELA-aligned lesson plans that integrate literary practices

References

References Literacy Practices Framework Gee’s 36 Learning PrinciplesTable 1. Educational Frameworks (Beach, et al, 2012)

Examples of TCs’ perceptions of engagement:Engagement occurs when (teachers)…….

Themes ExamplesQuestions/Discussions - Hold class discussions

- Ask students questions and help lead students to form opinions

“Involve” students - Help involve each and every student- Encourage student involvement and assign

interesting activities of assignments

Planning- Prepared, fun, flexible, creative,

- Have a plan and are prepared to enact it- Plan ways of teaching in a unique format- Make class fun, excite their students into learning

Educational Frameworks and Applicable Foci

Frameworks Curriculum Focus

Content Knowledge about literature

Formalist Forms and structure

Skills Decoding and comprehension skills

Process.strategies Synthesizing, predicting, stages, etc.

Literary practices Uses of tests and talk for social practices

Table 2. TCs’ stated perceptions of how teachers foster engagement.

Few studies examine teachers’ conceptions of student engagement (Harris, 2010, p. 133).