1
Preservice Teachers’ Knowledge and Self-efficacy Beliefs Related to Implementing Reading
Instructional Strategies in the Content Areas
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to explore preservice secondary teachers’ (PTs) knowledge
and self-efficacy beliefs related to implementing content-area reading instruction in their future
practice. Specifically, this study investigated PTs’ self-efficacy related to future implementation
of literacy strategies that they learned in a required core course: RED4335 Content Area Reading
for Secondary School Teachers (RED). In this context, we proposed the following research
questions: What knowledge and beliefs (i.e., self-efficacy, intentions) do PTs have about
implementing content area reading instruction? What do PTs perceive as barriers and/or supports
in their teacher preparation program for developing their efficacy to implement reading
instruction? What barriers and/or supports for implementing reading instruction in the content
areas do they anticipate having when they begin teaching?
Theoretical Framework
Teachers’ Beliefs about Literacy Instruction
Literacy plays a critical role in learning in all content areas and research findings about
teachers’ beliefs concerning content-area reading is mixed. Nourie and Lenski (1998) found that
PTs had a generally positive attitude towards content-area reading. However, Akyol and Ulusoy
(2009) indicate that PTs, despite training and implementation of many reading strategies during
their student teaching, admitted to using the strategies in a limited manner. PTs and inservice
teachers agree that they feel inadequately prepared to teach their content area’s reading material
to their students (Kane, 2007; McCoss-Yergian & Krepps, 2010; Stewart & O’Brien,
1989). Despite varying state requirements for content reading training (Come Romine,
2
McKenna & Robinson, 1996), we identified no research on PTs’ perceived self-efficacy to
implement reading strategies in their future content-area classrooms. However, a recent study
(Cantrell & Callaway, 2008) found that practicing content-area teachers who included reading
instruction in their curriculum reported significantly higher levels of personal efficacy (that he or
she had the ability to influence student learning; Ashton & Webb, 1982), as well as collective
efficacy (Goddard, Hoy, & Hoy, 2000) than their counterparts who hardly implemented reading
instruction. Even though both groups valued reading instruction, the high implementers were
more willing to overcome any barriers in order to deliver the instruction. Through coaching and
collaboration, the efficacy of both high and low implementers increased, but those that started
out with higher efficacy were more likely to implement the new strategies in their classrooms
(Cantrell & Hughes, 2008).
Social Cognitive Theory
Self-efficacy can be conceptualized as a teacher’s belief that he or she possesses both the
ability and competence to complete a task (Bandura, 1977). Over the past 30 years, much
research has been done in the area of teaching efficacy to validate a quantitative measure of the
construct and connect it to student outcomes (for a review see Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001).
From a social cognitive point-of-view, self-efficacy affects PTs’ goals and behaviors, which in
turn are influenced by their environment (i.e., teacher-education program, internship, etc.)
(Schunk & Meece, 2006). These beliefs affect how instructional opportunities and barriers are
perceived (Bandura, 2006) and subsequently implementation of instruction, as well as the
amount of effort is spent in preparation of the instruction, and perseverance in the face of
obstacles (Pajares, 1997).
3
Methods
We interviewed twelve junior/senior PTs using a semi-structured protocol, including both
closed- and open-ended questions (Creswell, 2005). These questions were generated after
observing the core course for about one month (three hours a week). We collected course
artifacts, including take-home final exams. The exams captured PTs’ knowledge about course
content such as how to implement reading strategies in the content area. The midterm required
students to develop a lesson plan integrating at least one reading strategy, and the final exam had
four application-level questions about implementing strategies. The interviews took place at the
end of the semester after the students completed the RED course requirements. Four graduate
students conducted theory-driven coding of each source during several line-by-line readings of
the interview transcripts and assignments for the identification and development of themes. Four
of the transcripts were double-coded and inter-rater reliability was examined using a Pearson
correlation.
Data Sources
Interviews with PTs were conducted face-to-face. Each interview was recorded and
transcribed. Interview questions were mostly open-ended (e.g., “How will you use what you
learned in this class in your content area? Do you feel confident in your ability to do so?”). The
participants majored in science education, social science education, English education, etc.
About half of the participants were male, and all participants were juniors or seniors and had just
completed the RED course at a large, public university in Florida.
Underlying premises of RED4335 are that reading permeates all content area learning
and must be the basis on which course content is built and that every PT must be a reader and a
teacher of reading (Commeyras, Bisplinghoff, & Olson, 2003; Kane, 2007). This course is
4
designed to acquaint PTs with the structures, strategies and approaches to teaching reading in the
content areas. The goal is to help PTs focus on understanding the role of reading in their
particular content areas, while developing the knowledge, skills, and attitudes to meet the reading
needs of their future students. Reading strategies covered in the course include researched-based
strategies such as, creative problem solving, reciprocal teaching, SQ3R, graphic and visual
organizers, brainstorming, think alouds, mapping, journaling, and others (e.g., Anderson &
Pearson, 1984; Eanet & Manzo, 1976; Ogle, 1986; Rosenblatt, 1995).
Results
Inter-rater reliability among the four raters was found to be acceptable (r = .70) in the
four interviews that were double-coded. Table 1 shows some of the ways that PTs’ beliefs vary
in terms of efficacy, anticipation for implementation, perceived barriers and supports for
implementation, and perceived barriers and supports for developing efficacy. PTs conveyed
different degrees of efficacy for different strategies, or for working with struggling students, and
some were more specific in their descriptions and evaluations of their own abilities. Two of the
most common expressed barriers to implementation of specific strategies were time and
curriculum constraints.
Most students anticipated implementing at least some literacy instructional strategies in
their future practice. For example, one social science education major (participant 8) explained in
his final exam that he would use Tolkien’s The Hobbit in his 8th grade World History course and
use “the SQ3R strategy and the use of embedded questions in a Socratic seminar-style discussion
during and between lectures.” In an interview, another PT majoring in mathematics and
education stated, “I think the pre-reading strategy is going to be pretty helpful if I’m going to
5
assign any reading assignments to the students. Just like giving out reading guides and ask[ing]
students to retell the story after they finish… their reading.”
At times PTs could not express verbally the instructional strategies they had learned in
the course, but did express efficacy to help struggling students with reading. Participant 7, a
biology and education double major, expressed her anticipated persistence in teaching students
reading by seeking alternative strategies and reaching out to other resources: “if I see a student
having a difficult time in my class, and my few strategies aren’t working, then I will alert the
English teacher and say hey this kid needs extra help,” and even offering additional help outside
class, “…or I can offer to help the kid after class, so we can work on reading and Biology at the
same time.”
Strategies
The RED course was successful in teaching the preservice teachers (PTs) some strategies
that can be applied across the disciplines. One strategy that both PTs interviewed mentioned was
the snapshots. Snapshots are mini-presentation in which students share an article or current event
with the class orally. The first PT, who wants to teach science, explains that she would
incorporate this strategy into her lesson plans in the future:
I definitely am very interested in doing almost kind of like what we did in RED 4335
where we do snapshots. I am very interested in doing something with my students where
they go online and find a journal article about something new that is happening out there
in the science field (Interview 1).
In the final, the instructor asked each student to reflect on the snapshots that they did in class.
This PT was emphatic about using them in a science classroom:
6
I loved the Snapshots! section of the class because it brought current events into the
classroom. Students in grades 6-college are generally out of the loop when it comes to
current events in society so anything that brings these events into the light for these
students is a positive. For a high school science classroom, snapshots would be a great
way to show students how science is being developed in the real world and show them
how the future is developing for scientists (Document 1).
Similarly, the second PT also enjoyed the snapshots and plans on using them in her social
science classroom in the future:
I believe Snapshots would be very useful in my content area! Although, I liked using it in
our class as a simple activity, I would use it as a weekly assignment where students
research and analyze a current event in my classroom. Students would gain knowledge
from the articles' material and are required to apply literacy skills. In addition, teachers
can assess students' comprehension through the students' summary reports. Students will
also be required to present their current events allowing for social interaction and peerexchange of knowledge (Document 2).
In the interview this PT recalls similar presentations in high school. She indicates that the ones in
the RED course were on instructional strategies and that she would use them differently in her
future classes:
Yes, well in high school we didn’t call them snapshots we called them current events, and
each week we had to [do them]. It wasn’t a presentation. It was more like we had to write
what was going on, but I just feel like that’s very important in a government class
because it’s important to know what is going on outside the world, like outside of our
country. And I personally did things and I know the other social science students did
7
things like on the things [that] were going on in Egypt and Libya and I just feel like the
students should know about that because they’re gonna hear bits and pieces of things on
the news and what people are talking about and they should be able to find the
information themselves and write a review or … other peoples snapshots in our class
were just about like teaching tools, so I don’t know, I wouldn’t use it in that way but I
would definitely use it in a way for students to gain more knowledge (Interview 2).
One of these snapshots was taking place when I observed. Two students conducted a mini-lesson
on the SOAPStone strategy which stands for speaker, occasion, audience, purpose, subject, and
tone. This involved students reading two articles on similar topics and then working in pairs to
identify the SOAPStone features in the text. After the presentation there was little debriefing or
discussion about the strategies and how it could apply to the students’ various content areas.
Both PTs also identified discussions as a strategy that they would use in their disciplines
when reading texts and writing journal entries. When asked what strategies she learned in the
RED course that she would use in the future, the first PT stated:
There have been a couple things, a couple reading strategies. Discussions. I really like
those. Those have become really handy when discussing journals, maybe the textbook.
Maybe I would assign a group, pace students in groups and give them a few problems to
work on from the book or maybe they need to read the book to answer the questions
(Interview 1).
This strategy works for all levels of students. When asked what the second PT would do with a
classroom of diverse skill levels, the PT included the use of discussions:
I mean, I would just personally just do more discussions in class and make sure they’re
learning inside the class and just make it more interesting so that the students will want to
8
read and I think a guided worksheet is a good way like maybe to not have it in class time
but to take it home with them so they at least have to read some material to be able to
answer certain questions (Interview 2).
In one of the classes I observed, discussions seemed to be emphasized. Particularly the
importance of questioning students and modeling how to question the text was part of the
discussion. When the instructor asked the class to comment on the readings covering close
reading and questioning strategies, one PT even commented, “I really like how they included
higher-order questions in the readings (Observation 1).”
As far as strategies that the PTs do not plan to use in the future, both PTs mentioned the
running record in their interviews. A running record allows the instructor to assess a student's
reading performance as she/he reads a text. While the student reads the instructor marks the
places in which the student makes a mistake, self corrects, repeats words, etc. The information is
used to determine the student’s fluency and the correct level of text that they should be reading.
The first PT mentioned that she would not have time to perform running records on her students.
She stated, “A big part of this class was the running record. I don’t think I would have the time
one on one with each student to find every error they come up with in a passage (Interview 1).”
The other PT just didn’t think that it would be appropriate to perform running records at the
high-school level:
But I mean running records… I don’t believe I will ever have to do it on that level or
teach phonics to a student. I mean I plan on teaching twelfth grade or even college and I
would hope that students would know how to say certain… I don’t know…easier words
(Interview 2).
9
Although all the PTs in the course are preparing to teach middle and high school, a major part of
the course, a critical task even, was to perform a running record.
Problems with the RED Course
From my observations, there was a lack of interaction in the discussions and
presentations in the course. Of course, this was glimpse of the course because it was observed
only two days. The discussion that did take place involved only a handful of the twenty students
present. This lack of interaction can demotivate students that lose interest in the strategies they
are learning. If they are not interested in the course, they are less likely to recall the strategies
and use them in their future classrooms.
In the interviews, the PTs mentioned a few things about the course that could be changed.
One major theme was a lack of clear expectations for assignments. The second PT stated:
We wouldn’t have time to do our projects, we had no idea what was expected in our
journals, our journals were free-writes so here I’m in seventh grade again writing ‘this is
what happens in the book when I read it’ and I felt like, honestly, I felt a lot of the time
like I was a student again in seventh grade doing certain assignments instead of learning
how to teach it or learning how to be a better teacher. I feel like I was learning all the
things that I was… I don’t know (Interview 2).
Another theme that emerged was a lack of emphasis on the disciplines, aside from
English/Language Arts. The first PT explains this issue:
I do think I had to force it a little bit. I could see myself using some of the techniques any
strategies if I saw a student struggling, as a class as a whole I couldn’t. There were many
things that I thought were too time consuming for long term improvement. Helping
someone become an expert reader is a lifetime process. Being able to take time from what
10
I need to teach in the biology field and being able to stop what I am doing to help them
with their reading and writing capability, I felt like I had to force what I learned into the
content… It was interesting but I don’t think it was focused on anything outside of
English. I could see history or psychology in which you do a lot of reading. I mean
everyone does a lot of reading in class, but having enough time to deal with all the
reading. There were some strategies that would help students become better readers in the
content area but the running record and vowel games… I just don’t see myself taking the
time to do that in my classes (Interview 1).
The instructor was a past English instructor so this could be a reason for the emphasis on that
discipline.
…more to our content area. I mean I could have, and that kind of has the same main
themes as Hunger Games in the fact that I could bring that into a government class and
talk about utopian societies and stuff like that and turn it into a lesson but even like with
the Hunger Games we had to figure out how to make the whole unit lesson plan on our
own like I just felt like a lot of things were sort of our own to interpret (Interview 2).
The second PT sums up the problems with the course:
Well, I wanted to know what was expected of me as a student and how it would even
apply to me in the real world, and I know students that like… the math students and the
science students, I just don’t feel like that had any relevancy to them at all and when
would they actually have time when they’re trying to teach to FCAT standards, would
they have time to assign a book like Number the Stars and incorporate it into their lesson.
I’m just trying to be real (Interview 2).
11
Feeling like there isn’t enough time to teach reading across the disciplines or that these strategies
aren’t relevant is common among practicing teachings and PTs (O’Brien & Stewart, 1990).
There seems to be a trend that these types of method courses do not effectively change these
attitudes among PTs (Nourie & Lenski, 2010). In one study, eight of 10 teachers interviewed
reported using one of the content area literacy strategies from the course in subsequent
practicums (Bean, 1997).
Discussion
Overall, we found four themes that emerged from the analysis of the interviews and final
exams of the 12 PTs in this study:

Medium efficacy for implementing strategies

Multiple barriers for developing efficacy and hardly any supports perceived

Various plans for implementing strategies in the future

Many perceived barriers for implementation and few known supports
The PTs expressed high efficacy in some areas and low efficacy in others. In particular, they felt
that they could use the strategies in their instruction, but were unsure how to instruct a diverse
class of students some of which would be struggling with basic reading. In terms of developing
efficacy, the PTs found that they were not prepared to use the strategies as teachers because they
only played the role of the student in this course. Without subject-specific support, the PTs felt,
overall, unprepared. At times PTs could not express verbally the instructional strategies, but
planned to help struggling students with reading with a variety of text versions and trade books.
Finally, the PTs anticipated many barriers for implementation and were unaware of the resources
in the schools to help them (e.g., reading coaches, school psychologists, other teachers, etc.).
Besides the time constraints perceived, PTs also cited that they would feel uncomfortable explain
12
the reading process and would most likely just summarize the content for their students. These
findings are comparable to the concerns of inservice teachers. Further research should be
conducted to find school variables and other factors that increase PT self-efficacy in this area to
possibly develop effective interventions or course designs.
Educational Importance
If PTs leave their teacher-education programs without the self-efficacy to implement
reading strategies in the content areas, it is not likely that they will try to implement them, even if
they value them. Researchers suggest that taking a reading content area undergraduate course
may have a positive influence on the future teachers’ students’ reading achievement as they face
complex material (Bean & Readence, 1996; Kane, 2007). Spencer, Carter, Boon and GarciaSimpson (2008) indicated that there is not enough being done to help content-area teachers
“understand their role as teachers of reading” (p. 2). With many Floridian students reading below
grade level, more teachers with reading certifications are needed to meet the needs of the state
(Florida Department of Education, 2006). If PTs leave their secondary institutions confident
about teaching reading, they may be more willing to implement reading strategies in their future
instruction and may pursue reading certification. Most importantly, these findings could lead to a
better understanding of how teacher-education programs can increase the literacy instruction
efficacy of future content-area teachers.
13
Interest to LRA Audience
In the vein of this years’ theme, “Transformative Literacy: Theory, Research, and Reform,”
we need to expand our understanding of PTs’ knowledge, and self-efficacy beliefs about
teaching reading in the content areas in order to transform future educators into experts of
content-area literacy. The new Common Core Standards that many states have adopted place
more responsibility on secondary teachers for the instruction and assessment of literacy skills
(Common Core, 2011). In order to expand the toolbox that our student teachers leave with, we
need to change the expectations of our teacher-education programs. Our study highlights the
perceived barriers and supports in teacher-education programs that may hinder or enable the
development of self-efficacy. Learning more about PTs’ self-efficacy in implementing needed
content-area literacy strategies will assist in this venture.
14
References
Anderson, R. C., & Pearson, P. D. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading
comprehension. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 255–292).
New York: Longman.
Akyol, H., & Ulusoy, M. (2009).Pre-service teachers' use of reading strategies in their own
readings and future classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 878-884.
Ashton, P. T., & Webb, R. B. (1982). Teacher's sense of efficacy: Toward an ecological model.
Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, New York, NY.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
Bandura, A. (2006). Adolescent development from an agentic perspective. In F. Pajares & T.
Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 1-43). Greenwich, Connecticut:
Information Age Publishing.
Bean, T., & Readence, J. (1996). Content area reading: The current state of the art. In Lapp, D.,
Flood, J., & Farnan, N. (Eds.), Content area reading and learning strategies (pp. 15-24).
Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Cantrell, S. C., & Callaway, P. (2008). High and low implementers of content reading
instruction: Portraits of Teacher Efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(7), 17391750.
Cantrell, S. C. & Hughes, H. K. (2008). Teacher efficacy and content literacy implementation:
An exploration of the effects of extended professional development with coaching.
Journal of Literacy Research, 40, 95-127.
15
Come Romine, B. G., McKenna M. C., & Robinson, R. D. (1996). Reading coursework
requirements for middle and high school content area teachers: A U.S. survey. Journal of
Adolescent & Adult Reading, 40(3), 194-198.
Commeyras, M., Bisplinghoff, B.S., & Olson, J. (Eds.). (2003). Teachers as readers:
Perspectives on the importance of reading in teachers' classrooms and lives. Newark,
DE: International Reading Association.
Common Core. (2011). Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/the-standards/englishlanguage-arts-standards
Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative
and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Eanet, M.G., & Manzo, A.V. (1976). REAP--A strategy for improving reading/writing/study
skills. Journal of Reading, 19, 647-652.
Florida Department of Education. (2006). Legislative Requirements for Content Area Reading
Professional Development. Retrieved from http://www.justreadflorida.com/CAR-PD/carpd.pdf
Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning,
measure, and impact on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal,
37(2), 479-507. doi:10.3102/00028312037002479
Kane, S. (2007). Literacy and learning in the content areas. 3rd ed. Scottsdale, AZ: Holcomb
Hathaway.
McCoss-Yergian, T., & Krepps, L. (2010). Do teacher attitudes impact literacy strategy
implementation in content area classrooms? Journal of Instructional Pedagogies, 4, 1-18.
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/759652468?accountid=4840
16
Nourie, B., & Lenski, S. (1998). The (in)effectiveness of content area reading instruction.
Clearing House, 71(6), 372-374. Retrieved from
http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?hid=9&sid=b3a44a68-1c9a-4b72-9af28dae9cbe1da1%40sessionmgr14&vid=1&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d
#db=a9h&AN=752773
Ogle, D. M. (1986). K-W-L: A teaching model that develops active reading of expository test.
The Reading Teacher, 39(6), 564-570.
Pajares, F. (1997). Current directions in self-efficacy research. In H. W. Marsh, R. G. Craven, &
D. M. McInerney (Eds.), International advances in self research (pp. 1-49). Greenwich,
Connecticut: Information Age Publishing.
Rosenblatt, L. M. (1994). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary
work. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Schunk, D. H., & Meece, J. L. (2006). Self-efficacy development in adolescence. In F. Pajares,
& T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 71-96). Greenwich,
Connecticut: Information Age Publishing.
Spencer, V. G., Carter, B. B., Boon, R. T., & Garcia-Simpson, C. (2008). If you teach-you teach
reading. International Journal of Special Education, 23(2), 1-7.
Stewart, R. A., & O’Brien, D. G. (1989).Resistance to content area reading: A focus on
preservice teachers. Journal of Reading, 32(5), 396-401.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783-805. doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00036-1
17
Table 1
Examples of Themes found Across Interviews and Exams
Themes
Efficacy
High
efficacy
Medium
efficacy
Examples
“Yeah. It's definitely gone up from what it was. I could do a majority of the
tasks that we've gone over in class to help students in the content area. I feel
like I could do them rather well.” –P2 interview
“Comfortable. (laughs) Um, it’s going to be pretty difficult, but if I am using
the strategy presented in the text, then I’ll be fine. Just like using echo—I
mean echo reading or the reader theatre. I think those are techniques that can
be used to, uh, help those students in reading orally or silently.” –P25
interview
“not very confident, I mean if some told me like you know use this, I’d be able
to do it but I don’t know like what right now I would use or anything like that”
–P11 interview
For Developing Efficacy Now
Barriers
“It was interesting, but I don’t think it was focused on anything outside of
English. I could see history or psychology in which you do a lot of reading. I
mean everyone does a lot of reading in class, but having enough time to deal
with all the reading. There were some strategies that would help students
become better readers in the content area, but the running record and vowel
games… I just don’t see myself taking the time to do that in my classes” –P1
interview
Low
efficacy
“Primarily, it's been discussion modes, because in my content area I plan on
relying heavily on discussion with my students and having possibly work in
front of them, discussing with them, and just creating multi-modes of
promoting literacy through speaking, through reading, through writing” –P2
interview
For Future Implementation
Barriers
“Primarily the time issue. It would be really time consuming trying to get
people who may be struggling with reading up to par with other students
without sacrificing the rest of the class' learning gains with the actual content.”
–P2 interview
Supports
Anticipated
“I would conduct a book talk on The Hunger Games as a pre-reading activity.
Future
Along with the book talk I would assign students to write about another book
Implementation which they have read that is similar to The Hunger Games…” –P3 final
“I plan to teach students to use context clues and reference materials to
enhance vocabulary. For specialized words, I will use direct instruction and
teach definitions at the beginning of a lesson. As a result, students will be able
to comprehend and gain knowledge with more ease.” –P7 final