reading, literacy, and english language arts teacher education · 2020-02-03 · abstract framed by...

Reading, Literacy, and English LanguageArts Teacher Education

Making Meaning from Self-Studies of Teacher EducationPractices

Christi U. Edge and Elsie L. Olan

ContentsIntroduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Organization of Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Theoretical Perspective: Reading, Writing, Teaching, and Learning as Transactive Processes 4

The Transactional Theory of Reading and Writing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Teaching and Learning as Transactional . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Extending the Transactional Theory to Self-Study of Teaching Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Initial Wonderings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Self-Study Researchers Position Themselves as Active Readers and Meaning-MakersWho Can Explore their Practices Through Self-Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Self-Study Researchers Make Meaning from Studying Tensions as “Texts” fromWhich They Can Discover New Understandings and Wonderings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Self-Study Researchers Use Content-Area Knowledge, Strategies, Skills, and Contexts toFrame, Guide, or Inform Their Self-Study and to Make Meaning from Their ProfessionalPractices with the Goals of Improving Their Practices and Informing Their Field . . . . . . . . . 21

Discussion, Recommendations, and Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31Cross-References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

C. U. Edge (*)Northern Michigan University, Marquette, MI, USAe-mail: [email protected]

E. L. OlanUniversity of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USAe-mail: [email protected]

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020J. Kitchen (ed.), 2nd International Handbook of Self-Study of Teaching and TeacherEducation,Springer International Handbooks of Education,https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-1710-1_27-1

1

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/978-981-13-1710-1_27-1&domain=pdf

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-1710-1_27-1

AbstractFramed by the Transactional Theory of Reading, this systematic review exploresthe meaning self-study researchers made from studying teaching practices in thecontent areas of reading, literacy, and English language arts education. Threegroupings of literature, meeting LaBoskey’s (2004) descriptors of self-studyresearch and published 2006–2017, were collected. In-case and cross-case ana-lyses resulted in discovering three themes in the literature: self-study researchersin reading, literacy, and English language arts education (1) positioned them-selves as active readers and meaning-makers who explored their practicesthrough self-study; (2) studied the tensions they experienced like “texts” fromwhich they discovered new understandings; and (3) utilized content-area knowl-edge, strategies, skills, and contexts to frame, guide, or inform their self-study andto make meaning from their professional practices with the goals of improvingtheir practices and informing their field. Considering these themes in their broadercontent-area contexts, self-study and the content areas of reading, literacy, andEnglish language arts share similar aims: seeking understanding through mean-ing-making, sharing knowledge from meaning made, and making the process ofmeaning-making more visible to self and others. These commonalities can beassets to the knowledge generation informing both education research and read-ing, literacy, and English language arts education; these commonalities can alsobe potential sources of tension and spaces for transformation. Implicationschallenge teacher educators in reading, literacy, and English language arts toconsider self-study of teacher education practices not only in content areas butalso for content areas. Literacy and self-study are transformative tools, trans-actionally moving each other forward.

KeywordsSelf-study · Content area · Meaning-making · Transactional Theory · Reading ·Literacy · English language arts

Introduction

As two literacy and English language arts teacher educators and self-studyresearchers, we immersed ourselves in recent (2006–2017) self-study of teachingand teacher education practices literature related to the content areas of reading,literacy, and English language arts education to discover what we might learn fromthe meanings teachers/teacher educators made from studying their teaching practicesand to consider how the fields of reading, literacy, and language arts education andself-study might contribute to, advance, or challenge one another to move forward.This chapter contributes to the larger bodies of knowledge in teacher education, self-study, and reading, literacy, and English language arts education by addressing self-study research in the content areas of literacy, reading, and English language artseducation.

2 C. U. Edge and E. L. Olan

From our systematic, theoretically driven review, we discovered three themes inthe literature: self-study researchers in reading, literacy, and English language artseducation (1) positioned themselves as active readers and meaning-makers whoexplore their practices through self-study; (2) examined the tensions they experi-enced as “texts” from which they discovered new understandings; and (3) usedcontent-area knowledge, strategies, skills, and contexts to frame, guide, or informtheir self-study and to make meaning from their professional practices with the goalsof improving their practices and informing their field. Considering these themes inthe broader context of our field, we see both self-study and the content areas ofreading, literacy, and English language arts as sharing similar aims: exploringthrough examining stories lived and told and seeking understanding through mean-ing-making. We have come to see these commonalities as assets to the knowledgegeneration informing both education research and reading, literacy, and Englishlanguage arts education. We also see these commonalities as potential sources oftension and spaces for transformation. The stance from which one seeks to read the“texts” of teaching and learning in order to better understand teaching practices, bothframes and guides one’s attention, and thus, the meaning that is made. The collab-orative nature of self-study methodology offers multiple perspectives from whichteaching and learning can be considered. Stance versatility (Beers 2003) is necessaryand critical for generating knowledge that contributes to understanding one’s ownpractices in a particular context as well as generating knowledge to share with others.We see the need to challenge reading, literacy, and English language arts educators toengage in self-study research and to do so from multiple positions or stances towardthe objects or teaching “texts” that they study.

Organization of Review

This review has five major sections:

• Theoretical Perspective: Reading, writing, teaching, and learning as transactionalprocesses

• Methodology: Within-case and cross-case analysis of self-study literature• Findings: Self-study researchers

– Actively read and make meaning through exploring their practices– Examine tensions as “texts” from which they discover new understandings– Use content-area knowledge, strategies, skills, and contexts to frame, guide,

and/or inform their self-study of teaching or teacher education practices• Discussion: (Re)considering self-study of teaching and teacher education prac-

tices through a content-area lens– Sharing purpose– Seeking to make the “invisible” more visible

• Conclusion

Reading, Literacy, and English Language Arts Teacher Education 3

Theoretical Perspective: Reading, Writing, Teaching, andLearning as Transactive Processes

We frame our inquiry within the disciplinary theoretical lens of meaning-making,namely, the Transactional Theory of Reading and Writing (Rosenblatt, 1976/1994,1994, 2005), making specific connections to the aims and purposes of self-study inorder to speak to Vanassche and Kelchtermans’s (2015) and Zeichner’s (2007) callsfor accumulating knowledge across self-studies, “especially within specific contentareas” — knowledge that is committed to a “practice-based, yet theory-buildingresearch agenda” (Vanassche and Kelchtermans 2015, p. 523). Next, recognizingthat “the aim of self-study research is to provoke, challenge, and illuminate ratherthan confirm or settle” (Bullough and Pinnegar 2001, p. 20), we illuminate findingsfrom the existing knowledge gained from a theoretically informed review of reading,literacy, and English language arts education self-study research. Finally, we inciteour fellow self-study researchers and our community of literacy/language artseducators to re-see through a literacy lens the transformative, agentive power,potential, and responsibility of self-study research to inform multiple facets of ourwork. As represented in Fig. 1, at the center of the concentric contexts of literacy,English language arts and reading, teaching and teacher education, and self-study ofteaching practices, we see literacy as a transformative tool. We agree with Moje et al.(2000):

Because literacy practices are shaped by discourses, literacy can be considered a powerfultool that can be used to claim a space or establish an identity or voice in various socialinteractions. The ways one uses literacy can have a profound impact on whether a particularliteracy event, and its concomitant practice, is valued. (p. 166)

We assert that consciously adopting stance versatility, teacher education literacypractices can advance self-study as a transformative space for teaching and teachereducation.

Educational researchers are charged to be explicit about their theoretical stancesand to align those stances with methodologies (LaBoskey 2004; Smagorinsky 2008).We framed our inquiry into reading, literacy, and English language arts educationself-studies with the view that teaching and learning are transactional and thatteaching and learning to read are transactive processes (Barr 2001; Edge 2011;Edge and Betz 2017; Hall 2006; Probst 1987; Purcell-Gates et al. 2017). Transactionrefers to an event, a total situation in which each element or factor is conditioned byand conditions the other. Knowing, the knower, and what is known share anecological relationship, each conditioning the other (Dewey and Bentley 1949;Rosenblatt 1978/1994). Our stance toward teaching and learning is grounded inthe Transactional Theory of Reading and Writing (Rosenblatt 1978/1994, 1985a,1994, 2005) and frames our review of the literature presented in this chapter.


The Transactional Theory of Reading and Writing

The Transactional Theory is most commonly associated with Rosenblatt’s Transac-tional Theory of Reading and Writing (1978/1994) and with Reader ResponseTheory, which is the Transactional Theory applied to literary criticism and to theteaching of literature (Probst 1987). The essence of this theory is that “[e]veryreading act is an event, or a transaction involving a particular reader and a particularpattern of signs, a text, and occurring at a particular time in a particular context”(Rosenblatt 1994/2005, p. 7). The reader and the text are not fixed entities actingupon one another like parts of a machine or colliding billiard balls, explainedRosenblatt; the reader and the text are “two aspects of a total dynamic situation”(1994/2005, p. 7).

Rosenblatt’s Transactional Theory holds particular implications for the constructof meaning. Rosenblatt wrote, “‘meaning’ does not reside ready-made ‘in’ the text or‘in’ the reader but happens or comes into being during the transaction between readerand text” (1994/2005, p. 7). It is the live circuit between a particular reader and aparticular text in a particular context (1978, 1994, 2005). “Meaning—whetherscientific or aesthetic, whether a poem or a scientific report—happens during the

Self-study ofteachingpractices

Teaching andteacher

education

Reading andEnglish

language artseducation

Literacy

Fig. 1 Concentric contexts of literacy, English language arts and reading, teaching and teachereducation, and self-study of teaching practices


interplay between particular signs and a particular reader at a particular time andplace” (Rosenblatt 2005, p. x). Meaning is not an object or even an idea; it is a doing,a making, an event in time (Polkinghorne 1988; Rosenblatt 1969, 1978, 1985, 1994,2005; Unrau et al. 2013).

The Transactional Theory also holds particular implications for the role of thereader in the reading process. Inciting a paradigm shift away from seeing the readeras a generic and passive recipient of knowledge in a text or seeing learners assponge-like recipients of knowledge from a teacher, the Transactional Theorypositions an individual as an active contributor or “world maker” in the dynamicevent of sense-making, of reading, and of knowing; it invites educators “. . .to see thereading act as an event involving a particular individual and a particular text,happening at a particular time, under particular circumstances, in a particular socialand cultural setting, and as part of the ongoing life of the individual and the group”(Rosenblatt 1985b, p. 100). The Transactional Theory positions the reader as aknower who is an active agent in the process of reading and knowing through the“reciprocal, mutually defining relationship” (Rosenblatt 1986, p. 122) between theindividual and the text in a specific context.

Teaching and Learning as Transactional

Building on existing research (Barr 2001; Hall 2006; Rosenblatt 1985a), Purcell-Gates et al. (2017) review of research on teaching literacy and learning to read drawsupon Rosenblatt’s Transactional Theory to extend the ecological relationshipbetween a reader and text in a particular context during a reading event to teachingand learning in the learning to read event. They “use the term transaction to indicatethat teaching and learning are viewed as one process and not an interaction of twoseparate entities” (Purcell-Gates et al. 2017, p. 1220). Purcell-Gates and colleaguesexpand the definition of “‘teaching reading’ to one of ‘teaching/learning to read,’”and they intend “the two terms to be interchangeable” (p. 1220). We agree withPurcell-Gates and colleagues, that teaching and learning are transactional; they areone process not merely an interaction of two separate entities. Teaching and learningshare an ecological relationship; in the transactional paradigm, teaching and learningco-construct each other.

Extending the Transactional Theory to Self-Study of TeachingPractices

Framing our review of existing self-study literature in the content areas of reading,literacy, and English language arts with the theoretical perspective that reading,writing, teaching, and learning are transactive processes, we consciously extendthe definitions of “reader,” ‘text,” and “context” to the situation of self-study ofteacher education practices. Said another way, we found the epistemological tenetsof Rosenblatt’s Transactional Theory to connect with and extend to self-study


methodology. In self-study, one’s self (one’s thoughts, actions, ideas, personalhistory, existing knowledge), one’s contexts, and one’s professional practices canbe objects of study; they are texts self-study researchers compose, read, and makenew meanings from investigating. One purpose of S-STEP research is to articulateand to refine one’s professional expertise and understanding of teacher educationpractices (Vanassche and Kelchtermans 2015). Another purpose is to produceknowledge that can inform “the complex and ever-changing process of teaching”(Gatlin et al. 2002, p. 13) to generate understandings that can be shared with others(LaBoskey 2004). Contexts are varied but clearly articulated in existing literature.“The knowledge developed in and through self-study cannot be disconnected fromthe complex reality it refers to, and is embedded in” (Vanassche and Kelchtermans2015, pp. 515–516). The rich contexts in which knowledge of teaching and teachereducation are evoked or discovered through self-study research have potential toinform, in context-sensitive ways, the broader, multifaceted knowledge bases ofteacher education and reading, literacy, and English language arts education.

Epistemologically, we view individuals – that is, teachers, students, teachereducators, and researchers – as active meaning-makers (Edge 2011). As active,agentive meaning-makers, individuals use their existing knowledge, their linguis-tic-experiential reservoir (Rosenblatt 1978/1994, 1994, 2005), to attend to cues incommunicative signs or texts. Using a combination of senses and framed by partic-ular purpose(s), readers make sense, that is, they read or negotiate the text to makemeaning (Draper and Siebert 2010; Rosenblatt 1978/1994, 1994, 2005). Readersmake sense of external, multimodal texts which may include, for example, class-room situations, learners, curriculum, and alphabetic print texts; readers also com-pose and make sense of their internal texts including their own ongoing conceptualunderstandings and sense of identity. Each reading event is situated in particularcontexts, which include professional practice settings, K-12 classroom teaching andlearning settings, as well as the broader social and cultural contexts outside of“school,” of which they are a part. One’s linguistic-experiential reservoir is coloredby social and cultural contexts and also contributes to those contexts, like a text everbeing revised and (re)composed, as asserted by Geertz (1973/2008) who describedsociety is an ambiguous cultural text that individuals read and compose. Newunderstandings may broaden one’s existing knowledge, and they may deepen orburrow that knowledge (Langer 2011). For individuals whose existing knowledge is“on the verge,” new, revised, or transformed understandings may create a sense of“wobble” (Fecho 2011) as they work to recompose what they know and/or how theyknow. Building from earlier research (Edge 2011), we consciously adopted a stancetoward our review of the literature guided by the Transactional Theory. As weproceeded, we gained additional insights into the connections between self-studymethodology and the theoretical underpinnings sketched in the above section.


Methodology

Findings presented in this chapter emerged from a systematic review, framed by atheoretical perspective, guided by an inquiry question, and resulting in summarizingempirical evidence that fit a priori eligibility criteria. Our process replicatedVanassche and Kelchtermans (2015) systematic review of self-study researchpublished 1990–2012. Attending to the broader terrain of S-STEP, Vanassche andKelchtermans gathered two data sets: one data set “consisted of publications thatwere judged by the S-STEP movement itself (as acting editors or reviewers) to be ofa quality that warranted publication,” while the “second data set consisted of self-study works published in journals and books outside the S-STEP community afterscientific peer review” (p. 511). Our review focused on recent (2006–2017) S-STEPliterature related to the specific content areas of reading, literacy, and Englishlanguage arts education.

To search and map this terrain, we first utilized databases such as ERIC andGoogle Scholar using the following search terms: self-study and literacy, self-studyand language arts, self-study and English language arts, and self-study and reading.We looked for studies published in the last decade (2006–2017). These search termsgenerated a list of 301 potential articles. For the first round of data collection, weread abstracts and skimmed articles to eliminate studies that were not self-study innature. We utilized the descriptors LaBoskey (2004) laid out for components ofquality self-study research that included as follows: initiated by and focused on theself, improvement aimed, and interactive; utilizes multiple, mostly qualitativemethods; and defines validity in terms of trustworthiness in order to determinewhich studies would be included in our analysis. We eliminated articles that reflectedon or about one’s teaching but did not include research methods or data sources. Wealso eliminated studies that were focused on a directed study of literacy/language artscontent (self-directed or self-initiated studies of content or self-driven study ofEnglish or language skills) as those studies did not provide data relevant to teachereducation or to self-study of teaching practices.

We did not include self-studies focused on language, language learning, linguis-tics, English language learners, or English as a second language, since these topicsare related to another chapter in this volume (see Peercy & Sharkey, “Self-study andEnglish Language Teaching”). Also, while international in scope and in contribu-tions from international S-STEP researchers, this review was limited to publicationswritten in the English language.

Data

We gathered publications from three groupings of literature. The first groupingincluded literacy/language arts teacher education articles, book chapters, and mono-graphs published within the S-STEP community. We searched the seminal Interna-tional Handbook of Self-Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices(Loughran et al. 2004), The Springer Press book series (18 books), and the articles


published in the 13 volumes (2005–2017) of Studying Teacher Education: A Journalof Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices. The second data set included peer-reviewed self-study works published outside of the self-study community in journalssuch as Journal of Curriculum Studies, Teaching and Teacher Education, TeacherEducation Quarterly, and the Australian Journal of Teacher Education in teachereducation and disciplinary journals such as Reading Improvement, English Journal,Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, English Education, Research in theTeaching of English, Language Arts, College English, Reading Teacher, and Journalof Reading. The third data set drew from the Castle Conference proceedings andincluded six volumes, published biennially, in the last decade (2006–2016). In total,our final set included 77 publications with 18 journal articles from Studying TeacherEducation; 17 publications from teacher education and disciplinary journals (includ-ing one dissertation); and 42 papers from the published S-STEP Castle Conferenceproceedings. All sources were peer-reviewed publications.

Initial Wonderings

From our reading of background literature, we formed initial wonderings; thesewonderings became tentative and flexible frames for inquiry into the existing, yetpreviously unexamined disciplinary collection of self-study research related toliteracy/language arts and reading education. We wondered:

1. For what purposes and around what wonderings are teacher educators in thedisciplines of English, language arts, reading, and literacy conducting self-studiesof their teacher education practices – either as a concept (theoretical or method-ological foundations) or as an empirical research practice (Vanassche andKelchtermans 2015)?

2. What tensions are present in and between the content area of literacy/languagearts and reading and self-study research?

3. How, in what ways, or to what extent do the “fields” of (a) literacy/language arts,(b) teaching and teacher education, and (c) the self-study of teacher educationpractices contribute to, advance, or otherwise challenge each other through self-study research?

4. If we use the Transactional Theory to guide our reading of self-study research:(a) What meanings do teachers/teacher educators make?(b) What “texts” do they read and make meaning from?(c) What are the contexts in which they make meaning?(d) What knowledge and experiences do they identify as guiding/informing their

meaning-making?(e) How might the meanings they make contribute to the field(s) of self-study,

teacher education, and/or literacy/language arts education?


Research Questions

As we continued to discuss the background literature and to engage in early dataanalysis, we synthesized our wonderings into the following inquiry questions:

Using the Transactional Theory to frame an analytical, disciplinary reading ofexisting self-study literature related to reading, literacy, and English language artseducation:

1. What is learned from self-study researchers’meaning-making in the content areasof reading, literacy, and English language arts?

2. What meanings might we – two literacy and English language arts teachereducators and self-study researchers – make about how teacher education in ourcontent areas and self-study of teaching/teacher education practices might con-tribute to, advance, or challenge our fields?

Data Analysis

We replicated the in-case and cross-case data analysis approach Vanassche andKelchtermans (2015) utilized for their systematic review of self-study literature.We selected their study as a model since it reviewed all self-study literature from thebeginnings of S-STEP to the present. Our review differed from that of Vanassche andKletchermans (2015) in two ways: (1) our review focused on self-studies related tothe specific content areas of reading, literacy, and English language arts education;and (2) we employed a theoretically informed analytical reading – that is to say, weanalyzed data through systematic interpretive reading that was guided by a theory asa specific disciplinary frame – to address our research questions.

Within-Case AnalysisFirst, we conducted a within-case analysis (Miles and Huberman 1994), examiningeach individual publication as a unit of analysis. We kept notes in charts thatincluded (1) the bibliography for reference; (2) the specific content area – literacy,English language arts, or reading education – (3) the focus of the content area (Wasthe content area the context, the topic, the researcher’s area of expertise, or acombination?); (4) reader/text/context notes (Who are the meaning-makers? What“texts” did they make meaning from? What was the context of the study?); (5)research findings; and (6) meaning-making notes (e.g., Do the researchers addresstheir meaning-making? Is meaning-making explicit/implicit in positioning who theyare in relationship to their research? Is meaning-making implied or stated in themethodological framework? Is meaning-making implied or stated in data analysis?To what extent do the researchers provide examples of making meaning? Do theresearchers address the metacognition/how they made meaning in their inquiry?).During the within-case data analysis stage, we met weekly via Skype to discuss ourmemos, observations, and thinking about what we were reading. We also kept notesas critical friends to track our conversations and meaning-making process. Through


discussion, we engaged in constant comparative analysis (Strauss and Corbin 1998),coding data for emerging themes, patterns, and outliers.

Cross-Case AnalysisNext, we conducted a cross-case analysis (Miles and Huberman 1994) to cluster dataaround themes across publications. Analytic coding and constant comparative anal-ysis continued. The “recursive nature of the data collection-analysis-interpretationprocess” inspired new questions, additional reading, and emerging insights over time(Pinnegar and Hamilton 2009, p. 149). We iteratively checked interpretations againstthe data and modified or refined, if needed, as we proceeded. We then produced anew themes chart with examples across studies. During the writing of this chapter,we further refined our responses to the inquiry questions we asked; thus, employingwriting as data analysis (Richardson and St. Pierre 2005), we continued to engage indiscourse and collaborative meaning-making, checking our interpretations againstthe texts, re-reading as necessary, and parsing out themes in relationship to theemerging whole of the study and the chapter. Once again, our running notes ascritical friends helped to document our collaborative meaning-making processduring the data analysis phase of our review.

Findings

In the literature we reviewed, self-study researchers included teacher educators,university program leaders, K–12 teachers, and combinations of these professionals.Contexts for meaning-making included university settings, K–12 professional devel-opment settings, and K–12 classroom settings.

Self-study researchers’ meaning-making addressed the understandings theydeveloped in relationship to studying their practices. Researchers reported studyingand making meaning from the following “texts”: teacher education programs;teaching practices in light of policy or program changes, mandates, or self-initiatedchanges; methods and approaches utilized or integrated into teaching; transitioning;educators’ ongoing understanding, beliefs, or assumptions about teaching, profes-sional development, and/or teacher education; and K–12 students’ or teachers’learning processes and needs (see Table 1). Few studies (e.g., Kosnick and Beck2008; Kosnick et al. 2009) addressed a longitudinal perspective of student learning;however, several studies referenced or addressed insights into professional practiceover time (e.g., Martin and Dismuke 2014; Sugarman 2011).

In the content areas of reading, literacy, and English language arts education, (1)self-study researchers positioned themselves as active readers and meaning-makerswho explored their practices through self-study. (2) Self-study researchers mademeaning from studying tensions as “texts” from which they could discover newunderstandings. (3) Self-study researchers used content-area knowledge, strategies,skills and contexts to frame, guide, or inform their self-study and to make meaningfrom their professional practices with the goals of improving their practices andinforming their field. Each of these related themes, while consonant with the larger


Table

1“Texts”from

which

self-study

researchersrepo

rted

makingmeaning

Teacher

education

prog

rams

Teaching

practices

inlig

htof

policy

ormandates

Metho

ds,assignm

ents,o

rapproaches

utilizedor

integrated

into

teaching

Transition

s

Teacher/teachereducators’on

going

understand

ing,

beliefs,o

rassumptions

abou

tteaching

,profession

aldevelopm

ent,and/or

teachereducation

K–12stud

ents’or

teachers’

learning

processesandneeds

Kosnik

andBeck

(200

8),

Kosniket

al.(20

09)

Edg

eetal.

(201

4),M

artin

etal.(20

11),

andCiuffetelli

Parker(200

8)

Bartlett,

(200

6),B

artlett

andFrambaug

h-Kritzer

(201

4),E

ricksonandYou

ng(200

8),F

echo

etal.(20

06),

Frambaug

h-Kritzer

and

Stolle

(201

4),H

olbroo

ketal.

(201

0),and

Kew

etal.

(2011),K

osniketal.(20

12),

Martin

andDesmuk

e(201

0),

Martin

andDesmuk

e(201

4),

Miller

(201

5),M

ukeredzi

(201

4),N

icho

lson

and

Galgu

era(201

3)Parrand

Woloshy

n(201

3),P

arsons

(201

5),R

eyno

lds(201

6),

RoseanandTerpstra(201

2).

SanGrego

ry(200

9),T

homas

andGeursen

(201

6),and

Tysselin

gandMcC

ulley

(201

2)

Jarvisetal.

(201

2),

O’Loo

neyetal.

(201

0),P

ratt-

Fartro(201

2),

andCiuffetelli

Parker(200

8)

BartlettandVog

el(201

2),B

oche

(201

4),B

yrd(201

5),C

alderw

ood

andD’A

mico(200

8),C

lift(200

9),

Crafton

andSmolin

(200

8),C

raig

(200

9),E

lliot-Joh

ns(201

4),E

lliot-

John

s,Tessaro

(201

2),E

ricksonand

You

ng(2011),F

letcherandBullock

(201

2),F

rambaug

h-Kritzer

and

Stolle

(201

4),G

islado

ttir(201

4),

Gísladó

ttirandGuð

jónsdó

ttir(201

4),

Groenendijk

etal.(20

13),Jaipal-

Jamanietal.(20

15),Kindleand

Schmidt(201

3),K

osminskyetal.

(200

8),M

cDermott(201

0),M

agee

(200

8).M

orfidi

andSam

aras

(201

5),

O’Loo

neyetal.(20

10),Olanand

Kaplan(201

6),C

iuffetelliParker

(200

8),P

errow(201

3),P

oyas

(201

6),

Rice(2011),P

ratt-Fartro

(201

2),S

andersetal.(20

15),

Sho

ffnerandBoche

(201

4),S

mith

etal.(20

16),Sug

arman

(2011),T

homas

andGeursen

(201

6),T

idwelletal.

(200

6),T

idwelletal.(20

14),and

Vog

elandBartlett,(201

3)

Cam

eron

-Stand

erford

etal.

(201

6),M

artin

andChase

(201

0),K

osnick

etal.(20

09)

Schiller

(2011),S

chim

pf(201

4),S

hoffner

(201

6),S

ugarman

(2011),

andOlanandKaplan(201

4)


body of self-study literature, reflects the content area/disciplinary values in which thestudies were situated. In the following sections, we explicate these three themes,providing some examples and a sense of the relationship between each theme, andthe content area in which the self-studies were situated.

Self-Study Researchers Position Themselves as Active Readers andMeaning-Makers Who Can Explore their Practices Through Self-Study

Teachers’ and teacher educators’ meaning-making from exploring their learningabout practice became a clear theme. In the discipline of English language arts andin reading and literacy theory, particularly the Transactional Theory of Reading andWriting, the act of reading a text can be viewed as a meaning-making event and as anopportunity for exploration (Farrell and Squire 1990; Rosenblatt 1938). InRosenblatt’s (1938) seminal work, Literature as Exploration, reading is viewed asexploration. A reader reads to imagine possibilities; to discover cultural assumptionsvalues, and patterns; to reveal diverse possibilities; and to see and re-see self, others,and the world beyond in relationship to the texts explored. Teacher-researchers whoexplored their practices in the content-area contexts of reading, literacy, and Englishlanguage arts education positioned themselves as active readers who could makemeaning from teaching events through self-study of their teaching practices overtime, from employing literacy/language arts and reading knowledge to exploreprofessional practices and by negotiating tensions.

Exploring Practice Across Texts and Over TimeTeacher educators described how self-study allowed them to frame their individualpractices and comprehensive contexts as “texts” that they read and made meaningfrom in order to see and re-see their teaching and learning. Self-study researchersexplained how across texts their meaning-making involved transactions, negotia-tions, tensions, dialogic interactions and responses, and establishing connectionsbetween practice, theory, and learning (e.g., Bartlett 2006; Bartlett and Frambaugh-Kritzer 2014; Clift 2009; Crafton and Smolin 2008; Fecho et al. 2006; Frambaugh-Kritzer and Stolle 2014).

As self-study researchers studied and engaged with the texts of their teachingexperiences, they made meaning over time and in collaborative spaces. Self-studyresearchers acknowledged that even though learning may be an individual activity,collaboration led to transformative practices (Frambaugh-Kritzer and Stolle 2014;Martin and Dismuke 2014). Although self-study researchers initially struggled tofind the focus of their literacy and educational exploration, it was over time (andfrom previous self-study) and in collaboration with others that they were able toshare an insider/outsider deeper understanding of their own teaching and learning(Bartlett and Frambaugh-Kritzer 2014; Cameron-Standerford et al. 2016; Edge et al.2014; Elliott-Johns 2014; Martin and Dismuke 2014; Olan and Kaplan 2014). Forexample, Frambaugh-Kritzer and Stolle (2014) state that:


After our ten-year dedication into understanding new literacies, we now know our teachingof new literacies would not be as effective without experiencing these phases of investigationand investment; which not only informs us but makes us confident in our recommendationsto other teacher educators. (p. 86)

It is in the dedication of exploration and examination that the discussion ofteaching as well as subject-specific knowledge and learning are addressed. Forexample, Bartlett (2006) stated self-study provided her with opportunities to reflectand grow, as well as critically look at her own practice over time. Sugarman (2011)utilized an action research approach to her self-study of teaching practices andexamined teaching nonfiction reading strategies to her third grade students overthree cycles of data collection, discussion with critical friends, and reflection on herteaching. Over time and through interactions with colleagues, Sugarman exploredthe relationship between her personal content knowledge and her reading instructionand discovered how she and her students co-constructed content knowledge.Sugarman wrote that studying her personal content knowledge in teaching herstudents to read “changed [her] understanding of the way knowledge is constructedin [her] classroom” (p. 31). She also unexpectedly discovered how empathizing withher students enabled her to co-construct content knowledge with them; developingempathy enabled her to discover opportunities to co-construct knowledge with herstudents. Critically exploring her teaching practices over time impacted her students’reading abilities and also enabled Sugarman to reconceptualize Shulman’s (1986)conception of pedagogical content knowledge to include teacher’s “self-knowledgeas it intersects with pedagogy and content” (Sugarman 2011, p. 40).

Similar to existing knowledge about how readers of traditional (alphabetic print)texts explore literature to discover new possibilities, self-study researchers in thecontent areas of reading, literacy, and English language arts discovered new under-standings resulting from exploring their practices over time. This process of discov-ery and exploration served to challenge and ignite self-study researchers’ teachingpractices.

Exploring Practices in Literacy, Reading, and English Language ArtsContent-Area ContextsNumerous self-study researchers (e.g., Fletcher and Bullock 2012; Magee 2008; Parrand Woloshyn 2013; Reynolds 2016; Rosean and Terpstra 2012; Shoffner andBoche 2014; Sugarman 2011) used reading, literacy, and English language artscontent-area knowledge to explore their teaching for purposes of improving theirpractice and developing understanding. A second theme, explicated later, addresseshow self-study researchers used content-area knowledge, skills, and strategies toframe or to guide their self-study; in this section, we highlight how self-studyresearchers explored their practice by actively and critically reading their own andothers’ professional practices.

Magee (2008), for example, explored her teaching, unarticulated assumptions,and professional identity by making meaning from her written metaphors aboutteaching. Citing Berliner (1990), Magee explained metaphors are powerful tools that


“can reveal a deeper sense of who we are as professionals, uncovering aspects aboutourselves that perhaps we did not know existed in our practice (p. 223). Knowing theimportant role motivation plays in reading, Miller (2015) set out to rethink herapproach to reading instruction by bringing a love for reading back into her fourthgrade classroom. After she observed a colleague’s reading instruction and realizedthe culture for reading was positive, engaging, and interactive through the use ofsmall groups, Miller explored the relationship between small, differentiated readinggroups and her students’ reading motivation. Miller wrote that exploring the rela-tionship between small groups and reading motivation “had profound effects on ourclassroom culture, on [her] students’ motivation to read, and on [her] own self-concept as a teacher” (p. 112).

Reynolds (2016) utilized dialogic instruction as a theoretical perspective toexplore whole-class discussions in his English language arts methods class and tohelp him shift away from the initiation-response-evaluation (IRE) pattern of talk inhis university classroom. Inspired by knowledge of English/language arts andreading scholarship (e.g., Applebee et al. 2003; McCallum et al. 2011; Nystrand2006; Wilkinson and Son 2011) that documents the effectiveness of dialogic instruc-tion, Reynolds aimed to include dialogic, whole-class discussion as a key instruc-tional method in his class. He sought to provide students with the opportunity to uselanguage and discussion in collaborative ways that resulted in co-constructingknowledge and understanding. As a result of his study, Reynolds began to noticestudents’ gaze was on him during long discussions; that he asked questions he hadanswers for; and that discussions followed a back-and-forth pattern. Through self-study, Reynolds explored his teaching and the theoretical view of discussion stem-ming from research in his content area; as a result, he made changes to his teachingand proposed alternative ways to consider Nystrand’s (2006) view of dialogicinteraction in the classroom.

Parr and Woloshyn (2013) used knowledge of reading comprehension andstrategy instruction to conceptualize their self-study into integrating strategy instruc-tion into Parr’s first-year university elective English course. Understanding thatreaders who are metacognitively aware are able to monitor understanding, Parrand Woloshyn explored Parr’s explicit teaching of comprehension strategies anddetailed insights related to documenting and analyzing Parr’s textualized teachingpractices (field notes, weekly reflections), student responses (pre- and post-instruc-tional questionnaires, written reflections), and transcribed discussions with a criticalfriend (author 2). Findings detailed patterns and insights related to implementingstrategic comprehension instruction into postsecondary teaching practices aimed atpromoting first-year university students’ metacognitive awareness through strategyinstruction.

While the majority of articles included one or more self-study researchers whoself-identified as a literacy or language arts educator, Fletcher and Bullock (2012)were science and physical education teacher educators who used literacy as a centralframe for exploring their teaching and making meaning from learning about practicein practice. Communicating that multiliteracies was an “attractive and useful frame-work on which we could hang our theoretical hats” (p. 21), these teacher educators


engaged in a self-study in order to (1) to “interpret and analyze the meaning ofliteracy in [their] respective content areas and (2) to challenge one another to analyzethe enactment of pedagogies based on [their] understandings” (p. 19). Fletcher andBullock made meaning from examining their understandings of research in physicalliteracy and scientific literacy, as well as their approaches to engaging teachercandidates in thinking about literacy in their content areas. Data included blogsand transcribed bi-weekly meetings “and focused on the dynamic interplay between[their] conceptual understanding of physical and scientific literacy as concepts and[their] attempts to model literacy-based pedagogies explicitly for [their] students” (p.29). Fletcher and Bullock summarize:

Self-study provided a methodology that allowed us to develop our understandings ofphysical literacy and scientific literacy. Our ongoing discussions encouraged us to findmeaning within the existing literature and to make meaning as we encountered problemsof practice in our teacher education classrooms. Significantly, we learned that our developingunderstanding of literacy in our disciplines did not immediately or directly translate intopractice; collaborative self-study again provided a means for us to challenge one another tolive our values as teacher educators.” (p. 31)

Findings resulted in deepening their understandings of literacy in their specificdisciplines and also in discovering the challenge of enacting in their teaching whatthey had come to understand about disciplinary literacy. Fletcher and Bullock statedthat they found meaningful connections in the existing literature that enabled them tounderstand how literacy related to science education and physical education. Whenenacting their knowledge about literacy in their teacher education classes, theydiscovered the challenge.

Navigating and Negotiating Tensions While Exploring ProfessionalPracticesLearning through self-study can result in meaning-making that inspires new visionsfor teaching and continued research; however, it can also make meanings that aretroubling. Nevertheless, navigating and/or negotiating these tensions was anotherway that self-study researchers frequently learned through self-study. For example,Fletcher and Bullock (2012), whose study was presented as an exemplar of learningfrom literacy frameworks in the preceding section, also noted that learning “aboutthe research on physical and scientific literacy were made problematic by thepotential challenges of practice” (p. 25). Data focused on “the dynamic interplay”between conceptual understanding of literacy concepts and their efforts to explicitlymodel literacy-based practices for their students. “The ways in which we enacted ourpedagogies often created new problems of practice that required further analysis,which encouraged us to seek help and insight from one another as critical friends,which then led to new actions” (p. 29).

Tysseling and McCulley (2012) acknowledged the struggles they experiencedimplementing “wikis as a digital resource that serves a vital role as a digital space forteacher education” (p. 291). As self-study researchers navigated, grappled with, andquestioned the tensions they faced, dialogic interactions and additional learning


occurred. Ciuffetelli Parker (2008) problematized and wondered about how to “shiftaway” (p. 55) from a prescribed curriculum and a top-down, transmission model ofteaching. Beyond navigating with the tension of questioning the curriculum used,Ciuffetelli Parker realized how possessing and enacting academic freedom led to aninternal struggle about enlightening the team of part-time instructors who relied onthe prescribed curriculum. Navigating and negotiating curricula changed whileexploring her teaching practices; enacting wonderings and valuing experienceswere part of Ciuffetelli Parker’s meaning-making self-study journey.

In the studies we reviewed, self-study researchers realized tensions betweenlearning, teaching, wondering, knowing, and acting are present within contextualand pedagogical spaces (Elliott-Johns 2014; Erickson et al. 2012; Erickson andYoung 2008; Fecho et al. 2006; Kosminsky et al. 2008; Magee 2008). Whilelearning from practice often prompted new tensions, self-study researchers identifiedand described moments in their meaning-making transactions when they experi-enced internal turmoil or tensions (Berry 2007) as they explored their teachingpractices. Navigating and negotiating tension from enacting their wondering fromtheir teacher education practices led to additional learning through meaning-makingand additional inquiry.

Self-Study Researchers Make Meaning from Studying Tensions as“Texts” from Which They Can Discover New Understandings andWonderings

Self-study methodology enabled educators to negotiate tensions and to make mean-ing from their experiences. Utilizing self-study methods to study the tensionsexperienced by self-study researchers resulted in the helpful exchange of ideas,collaboration, a validation of teaching and learning, and the exploration and addi-tional inquiry about pedagogy (Magee 2008; Martin and Chase 2010; Pratt-Fartro2012).

Experiencing TensionsWhile negotiating tensions was a way self-study researchers explored their practice,tensions were also fertile ground for engaging in discourse and collaboration; forsituating and resituating professional practices; and for generating new understand-ings through self-study where struggle, conflict, and/or discomfort were encoun-tered. During the comprehensive analysis of self-study researchers’ studies, wenoticed how their pedagogies, learning, and socially constructed ideas were shared,problematized, critiqued, unpacked, and clarified or extended.

Self-study researchers identified and described how internal tensions rooted inpractice had the potential to encourage interrogation of those tensions as dilemmasand opportunities for examining the institutional experience (Elliot-Johns 2014).Through self-study methodology, teacher-researchers were able to externalize andcritically examine tensions that they were previously unable to identify in an explicitmanner (Frambaugh-Kritzer and Stolle 2014, p. 86). For example, Pratt-Fartro


(2012) addressed challenges and dilemmas teachers and teacher educators experi-enced when they received feedback, evaluations, or comments from students andcolleagues. Erickson and Young (2008) discovered their teaching practices were notcongruent with their beliefs about learning; nevertheless, this discovery generated anew tension, as they weighed the desire to enact their beliefs against the desire tocover curriculum that might be necessary for teacher candidates to know. Self-studymethodology led to altering their teaching practices but also prompted new tensionsas practitioners considered the impact of enacting their understandings in theirteaching contexts.

Tensions Prompt Discourse and CollaborationOne’s history of literacy experiences impacted private understandings and the wayan individual researcher interacted with others; yet, self-study, through collaborationwith critical friends and the use of an heuristic approach, enabled self-studyresearchers to reposition their orientation; to see anew; to deal with the challengesof engaging in the intricacies of disciplines, pedagogies, and programmatic evalua-tions (Kosnik et al. 2008); and to interact with trusted colleagues in safe spaceswhere exploration permeated (Boche 2014; Crafton and Smolin 2008; Fletcher andBullock 2012; Gísladóttir and Guðjónsdóttir 2014).

Self-study promoted opportunities for researchers to step back and repositiontheir orientation or stance toward their work (Boche 2014; Crafton and Smolin 2008;Erickson and Young 2008; Fletcher and Bullock 2012; Gísladóttir and Guðjónsdóttir2014; O’Looney et al. 2010). Self-study researchers acknowledged the importanceof sharing, exchanging, and engaging in collaboration through layers of interactionsfor meaning-oriented understanding (Fletcher et al. 2016). Boche (2014) declared:

In order for teacher educators to stay abreast of current classroom practice to inform theirpractice as well as how they teach pre-service teachers, continued collaboration withpracticing teachers is needed. As this study has shown, there is no ‘right’ way to collaborateand guidelines that reflect working with practicing teachers are needed. In my subsequentresearch experiences with practicing teachers, I have learned to focus on hearing and puttingtheir voice ahead of mine, as that is where the power for change exists. Success, for me, is nolonger determined by teacher or student satisfaction of a given project, but rather through theinsight gained through the process and what can be gained from this insight in the broadereducational field. Only upon further reflection and study can teacher educators betterarticulate how these interactions can better serve both populations of practicing teachersand pre-service teachers. (p. 34)

As self-study researchers engaged in pedagogical and theoretical dialogue(Gísladóttir and Guðjónsdóttir 2014), they checked data and clarified, validated,and reframed ideas and assumptions about respective classroom communities;enacted literacy theories in practice; and generated, revisited, and/or retained ideasthat lead to inquiry, exploration, and tension (Fletcher and Bullock 2012; Craftonand Smolin 2008; O’Looney et al. 2010).

Self-study researchers claimed that as they ventured into inquiry and study ofteaching practices, collaboration helped them revisit and enact literacy data and ideas


in practice and theory while engaging in dialogue with experts from their fields ofpractice (O’Looney et al. 2010; Tidwell et al. 2006). Self-study researchers sharedand expanded their private thoughts and tensions with other experts from their fields,obtaining different views and possibilities for their inquiries and tensions as texts.

Tension as a Text That Can Be Repositioned and Reframed ThroughSelf–Study ResearchSelf-study researchers grappled with maintaining their own practices, beliefs, per-spectives, and vision of self throughout their explorations and inquiries (Craig 2009;Elliott-Johns and Tessaro 2012; Erickson and Young 2008; Pratt-Farto 2012;Shoffner 2016). The more self-study researchers grappled with their tensions, themore they engaged in internal dialogue in an attempt to make sense of their tensions(Erickson and Young 2008; Shoffner 2016). For these researchers it became evidentthat tensions were a text that, when analyzed and examined through self-study,repositioned and resituated their explorations. For example, Erickson and Young(2008) revisited their ongoing tensions related to promoting teacher candidates’owning their learning. They questioned if they were willing to resituate and reposi-tion themselves in a space of constant tensions. Similarly, Pratt-Fartro (2012) framedher internal tension, situated in a particular context, as a text she could examine. Shereframed her vision of herself as leader in a community of teacher educators andrepositioned herself as a self-study researcher who could contribute to pre-serviceand in-service teachers’ literacy growth.

Miller (2015) situated her teaching and tensions within the context of “the fourth-grade slump” (p. 104), when students’ test scores tended to drop, and when she feltthe pressure to help her diverse students perform adequately on high-stakes testing.Miller positioned this tension as a text that she can read through an alternate lens.Miller (2015) writes, “While high-stakes testing is one way to approach the troublingreality of poor performance in the middle grades, I wanted to explore an alternativeresponse: What would happen if I built a reading program that emphasized enjoy-ment of the reading process?” (p. 104). Observing another teacher’s reading instruc-tion helped Miller to envision new possibilities through teaching approaches thatresonated with what she wanted to incorporate into her classroom. Through system-atically examining the tension between what was and the idea of what could bethrough the use of small, differentiate groups, Miller reenvisioned her practice. Sheexplained, “I was driven to understand more deeply within my own context. As Ibegan dismantling, addressing, and rethinking the roadblocks that I saw standing inmy way, a shift took place” (p. 112). It is through “re-reading” the context and thetension in her teaching with an alternate lens that Miller reimagined and re-createdher teaching to foster her students’ motivation to read.

Self-study researchers positioned their tensions as texts that could be studied andrecomposed in light of re-contextualized beliefs, knowledge, teaching practices,visions, assertions, and ideologies that could better inform teacher education, self-study research methods, and teacher-researchers’ own understandings (Elliot-Johnsand Tessaro 2012: Shoffner 2016).


Tensions as a Text from Which New Meanings, New Understandings,and Transformations Are GeneratedSelf-study researchers engaged in dialogic interactions that enabled them to connecttheir tensions and experiences as a means to make meaning; revisit; and make newunderstandings from their actions, existing assumptions, biases, ideas, and visions;and acknowledge spaces where transformative learning and teaching takes place, notonly for the self but for others as well (Crafton and Smolin 2008; Elliott-Johns andTessaro 2012; Erickson and Young 2008; Erickson and Young 2011; Gísladóttirand Guðjónsdóttir 2014; Kosminsky et al. 2008; Olan and Kaplan 2016; Shoffner2016; Ciuffetelli Parker 2008; Thomas and Geursen 2016; Tidwell et al. 2006).

For example, recognizing the tension between the theoretical grounding of theirmethods courses and the policies and procedures in their classroom practices,Erickson and Young (2008) studied changes to their courses as well as their livedexperiences through the process of aligning classroom practices with their beliefsabout teaching and learning. “Making even small changes to our teaching practiceswas challenging. Our data were laced with words like struggle, concern, difficult orambivalent” (p. 116). Erickson and Young studied artifacts from their interactionswith one another, interactions with students, and their individual reflective journals.Erickson and Young documented how they experienced new tensions as they madepedagogical and procedural changes meant to align their practices with their beliefsabout teaching. However, new tensions these new tensions led to opportunities fortheir students to take more responsibility in their learning and for them to model thepractices they hoped their students would implement in their future classrooms. Bothself-study researchers and students made new meanings and understandings aboutlearning and teaching where knowledge was not solely transmitted, but constructedin a transactional manner.

As self-study researchers experienced and embraced tensions, they looked at theirpractice from different perspectives and in multiple roles while questioning theirlearning and teaching and the transformations that may transpire from the explora-tion of tensions. Shoffner (2016), an experienced academic, problematized howdilemmas and tensions with practice provided new understandings and perspectivesas she examined those tensions from the different perspective of a learner or noviceduring a fellowship experience.

When self-study researchers explored new understandings in the context ofdialogic interactions, both social constructions and the social and dialogic natureof language led to transformation. Crafton and Smolin’s (2008) research depictedtheir initial explorations about and insights gained from their work to include a moreintentional use of language within a social practice to achieve transformation. Theauthors also emphasized how their work expanded self-study literature “by takingseriously the essential social and dialogic nature of language and what that can meanfor a deeper, expanded understanding of collaborative self-study” (p. 85). Similarly,Ciuffetelli Parker’s (2008) sense of pedagogical self-discovery and tensions (grap-pling between her self-identified ego and instructional and theoretical approaches)enabled her to take a step back, look closer, and understand the value teachers have


as curriculum planners. She also used reflective and narrative approaches as a lens toview teachers’ professional development. Expounding on her self-study journey,Ciuffetelli Parker explained her self-study of her teacher education practices andengaging in collaborative self-studies with others led to insight about policies andprocedures for assessing teacher candidates during their practicum, her own devel-opment as a new assistant professor in academe, restructuring a teacher educationprogram, and changing practices. The exploration of tensions in the self-studyresearch not only served as a conduit for new meanings, new understandings, andnew transformations but also served as key process for self-study researchers’meaning-making.

Self-Study Researchers Use Content-Area Knowledge, Strategies,Skills, and Contexts to Frame, Guide, or Inform Their Self-Study andto Make Meaning from Their Professional Practices with the Goals ofImproving Their Practices and Informing Their Field

Self-study research in reading, literacy, and language arts education demonstratedhow self-study researchers (a) used disciplinary strategies and/or techniques in theirself-study; (b) tapped into content-area experiences to make meaning; and (c) useddisciplinary knowledge as a frame to explore teaching, teacher education, or self-study methodology.

Considering the theoretical framework guiding our study, we recognize thedynamic relationship between meaning-making, the researcher as meaning-maker,and the particular contexts in which meaning is made. In the transactional theory, anindividual’s meaning-making process is informed by their linguistic-experientialreservoir – the language and experiences one brings to the meaning-making event– and is guided by one’s attention and stance toward the text. With this in mind, wekept notes during the data analysis stage, charting the stated purpose of each study,the context(s) of the study, and the knowledge and experiences self-study researchersidentified as either prompting their study, informing their study, or guiding theirstudy. In attending to self-study researchers’ identified knowledge and to languageindicating sense-making in their published manuscripts, we aimed to consider thepotential relationship between each researcher’s content-area knowledge and expe-riences to their self-study. While no means exhaustive, we provide some examples ofthe reading, literacy, and language arts knowledge and experiences self-studyresearchers identified in their study and either directly stated or implied in connec-tion to the meaning that they made from their self-study.

Reading, Literacy, and English Language Arts Strategies and TechniquesUsed in Self-StudySelf-study researchers utilized strategies and techniques commonly found in reading,literacy, and English language arts education. These strategies and techniques were,at times, studied after having been utilized as an approach to teaching and thenrepositioned as a text or object that the researcher(s) critically examined in their self-


study of teaching practices. In other studies, the strategies and techniques were ameans to make sense of data or to represent findings. Across examples, we clearlysaw that teachers and teacher educators writing about self-study in reading, literacy,and English language arts content-area contexts utilized knowledge of disciplinaryviews, strategies, and techniques.

Metaphorical ThinkingRecognizing that metaphorical thinking is a way that she represented her pedagog-ical theory, Magee (2008) read the metaphors in her dissertation as texts she couldexamine, deconstruct, and interpret. Comparing and contrasting her metaphors, shereflected upon them as a way to further inform herself about her philosophy ofteaching and learning. Making meaning from her written metaphors also became avehicle to understand the tensions and conflicts she discovered between her beliefsand the expression of those beliefs on the written pages of her completed disserta-tion. Reading and analyzing her use of metaphors, she addressed the way educatorscan use metaphors and metaphorical thinking to understand self and the relationshipbetween self and the assumptions one brings to teaching.

Using New Literacy StrategiesThe multiliteracies view of literate practices influenced by cultural and linguisticdiversity, multimodality, and new media and digital technologies (Cope andKalantzis 2000; New London Group 1996) are also evident in self-studies. Severalself-study researchers (e.g., Kew et al. 2011; Martin and Dismuke 2014; Pithouse-Morgan and Samaras 2014; Rosean and Terpstra 2012) demonstrated using knowl-edge, skills, and approaches as strategies related to the sociocultural perspective oflanguage and literacy in the New Literacy Studies (Gee 1999; Lankshear and Knobel2006). Other researchers utilized approaches to diverse literacy practices acrosscontexts from studies of new literacies (Kew et al. 2011; Lankshear and Knobel2006). These views “share the theoretical stance that literacy practices are multiple,social, and situated” (Rosean and Terpstra 2012).

Seeking to address the disconnect between knowledge of literacy and languageresearch and teacher education in language and literacy, Kew et al. (2011) engaged inusing new literacies as a strategy to bridge a theory-practice divide and to explorehow self-study might initiate teachers into the New Literacy Studies. In the contextof a graduate course, practicing teachers documented situated understanding of newliteracies through engagement in using selected multimodal, digital, tools and socialpractices (blogging and online gaming), course readings, discussion, and self-study.Findings included shifts in mindsets, connections to classroom teaching, situatedunderstandings, and illustrated how two teachers (Kew and Given) began toapproach literacy and learning from a sociocultural perspective. The authors wrote,“We see these qualitative self-studies as small but positive steps towards moreextensive engagements with new literacies in teacher education” (p. 80). Self-study was a way to capture and examine learning about new literacies by engagingin literate practices in social settings.


Martin and Dismuke (2014) focused on changes they made to their writingmethods course as a result of incorporating new literacies composition with digitaltools in social contexts through collaborative self-study in their writing methodscourses. In addition to the focus of the classes, writing was used as a method ofunderstanding self, with “teachers freewriting their way to understanding themselvesand their histories as writers” (p. 148); as a medium for making explicit connectionsbetween theory and practices; as a way for teacher educators to understand multi-modal composition processes; and as self-study data. Referring to insights from theirprevious self-study (Martin and Dismuke 2010), the teacher education researchers“considered it essential that teachers engaged in experiences as both writers andteachers” in their courses, and they “purposefully engaged students as adult learnersin order to foster development of powerful experiential understandings” (2014, p.148). Students in these methods classes composed types of writings typical for K–8classrooms (e.g., memoir, interview/feature article, poetry, reading response, multi-genre product), in multiple genres and using new technologies for writing andrepresentation across multiple modalities. Model compositions produced by formerstudents served as examples to new students; Martin and Dismuke also implied thatthese compositions were data examined to illuminate their teaching practices andchanges in those practices over time. The authors reported realizing that althoughstudent-produced compositions increased in use of technology and multimodalelements such as music or color to communicate tone, showing student-producedmodels was not sufficient for instruction. Teacher modeling and explicit instructionwere equally important. Martin and Dismuke realized that to understand the processthemselves and provide instruction that would make explicit connections betweenuniversity course experiences and K–8 classrooms, they wrote alongside theirstudents. Understandings from participating as writers themselves resulted inchanges to their course instruction. Meanings made from engaging in writing andstudying students and researchers’ own writing over time resulted in understandingsabout teaching and the role of teacher educators. Martin and Dismuke wrote that theydid not water down their curriculum to infuse digital writing products and processesinto their courses. “Instead, our evolving curriculum and instruction seems richer tous and thoughtfully interwoven as we continue to focus on and build understandingsof writing and effective writing instruction” (p. 150). Having used writing as a wayto understand how to compose and how to model the composition process for theirstudents, they stated:

The key to our efforts has been that we are journeying in concert with our students, teachers,colleagues, and each other (Tyselling and Laster 2013) towards greater understandings [;]writing and technology has to occur systematically, with teacher educators in the lead, notleft haphazardly to factors such as teachers’ prior knowledge or dispositions about digitaltools.” (p. 150.)

Martin and Dismuke (2014) utilized their knowledge of writing-to-learn, of model-ing the writing process as writers alongside their students, and of explicit teaching as


they taught; they also implied that they read student examples and their teaching likemultimodal compositions.

In a transcontinental (USA and South Africa) self-study of teaching practices withuniversity educators from diverse disciplines and working in diverse contexts,Samaras et al. (2016) sought to “gain insight into the network of the interconnec-tedness of [their] transcontinental experiences: the similar and dissimilar, the con-tiguous and non-contiguous, and the linear and nonlinear nature and impact of [their]work” (p. 164). Data from their study included found poems constructed collabora-tively by 21 conference participants attending a presentation led by the 2 lead authors(Pithouse-Morgan and Samaras 2014) at the tenth International Conference on theSelf-Study of Teacher Education Practices. Data analysis and the representation offindings included composing found poems from data. Samaras et al. (2016) wrote:

Found poetry is a literary arts-based research practice that involves selecting words andphrases from data sources and rearranging them into poetic form (Butler-Kisber 2005).Found poems are composed “with the expressed purpose of presenting data that remainfaithful to the essence of the text, experience, or phenomena being represented” (Furman etal. 2006, p. 27). The found poems were written on posters and performed by the groups. (p.166)

The coauthors also wrote poems in response to the found poems, generated a doublevoice poem (Johri 2015), made found poems from written reflections, and composeda poem written in response to these poems. Their poetic dialogue process evolvedfrom composing found poetry to represent research data to interpreting that data inthe form of new poems which allowed for the subjective responses of theresearchers. The sequence of composing poems thematically portrayed “multi-dimensional conversation, which served to pull together significant threads woventhrough the diverse data sources” (Samaras et al. 2016, p. 167). Their collaborativewriting resulted in a multiverse manuscript which represented their findings, com-municated their understandings, made visible the network of human knowledge, anddemonstrated methodological bricolage. Generating, performing, and analyzingfound poems as a multimodal literacy strategy communicates the poetic dimension-ality of polyvocal learning and the fluid, connected process of the researchers’collaborative self-study.

Mental Modeling: Making the Invisible VisibleMany self-study researchers reported attempts to make the implicit explicit (e.g.,Kosnik et al. 2008; Martin and Dismuke 2014) and to make the invisible process ofthinking about literacy (e.g., Calderwood and D’Amico 2008; Fletcher and Bullock2012) or thinking about teaching (Edge et al. 2014), or about mentoring (Olan andKaplan 2014) more visible. Mental modeling and making the complex process ofthinking visible are approaches shared with literacy/reading instruction (e.g., Beers2003; Buehl 2014, 2017). Often, modeling was a strategy employed to make visiblethe what, how, when, and why educators know, do, and are.


For instance, Kindle and Schmidt (2013) discovered the first author’s use ofmodeling professional language when interacting with preservice teachers (PTs) as adiscipline-informed approach to scaffolding PTs development as teachers. In anotherstudy, Martin et al. (2011) modeled their sense-making about educational contexts inorder to help prospective teachers to navigate state-mandated assessment of literacysubject matter and instructional practices; the complexity of teaching and of reading;as well as the “delights of teaching” (p. 365) from candidates’ field experiences.They wrote, “Our experiences help clarify the importance of being conscious of whatis and what is not being taught and modeled in one’s courses through curriculumchoices and instruction/assessment practices” (p. 367). Addressing the dual roles inwhich teacher candidates reside – that of student and beginning teacher–Martin andcolleagues explicitly attended to students’ social/emotional needs as students whilefurthering candidates’ professional knowledge and action and concluded that teachereducators need to recognize the implications of their attention or inattention to thecomplexities of candidates’ roles as learners and as beginning teachers. Modelingenabled these teacher educators and self-study researchers to purposefully attendboth to their own and to PTs’ sense-making. In the discipline of reading and literacyeducation, in particular, attending to purpose, modeling sense-making, and makingthe invisible process of thinking visible are each key tenets; Martin and colleaguesemployed these tenets, not just as content for PTs to learn but also as teachingmethods and as data utilized for self-study.

Think-Aloud StrategyA think-aloud strategy (Davey 1983; Olshavsky 1976) is a metacognitive strategyoften used in reading instruction to make visible the largely invisible process ofthinking while reading (Beers 2003; Wilhelm 2001). Some teacher educators (e.g.,Berry 2004; Crowe and Berry 2007; Kosnik 2007; Loughran 2006; Loughran 2007)have studied think-aloud as a metacognitive strategy for explicitly modeling think-ing processes about teaching.

Kosminsky et al. (2008), teacher educators from special education, physicseducation, secondary science education, and English education, investigated theiruse of think-alouds in order to understand their own perspectives and reasoning;their use of think-alouds (how, when, and what to think aloud); and an ecologicalperspective of the environment that enabled think-alouds to be open and safe spacesfor learning despite the risk of criticism from others when thinking out loud.Commenting on the rich findings from using and studying think-alouds, one of theauthors (Kane) wrote:

Think-alouds create opportunities to expose the dialogic nature of tensions that emergewithin the daily practice of teachers. Think-alouds reveal to students that teaching is far morethan what is observable as a teaching practice. [Author 1] demonstrates that a think-aloudenables her to use her own practice as a teachable moment, and this suggests that the timingof the think-alouds may be critical. The challenge of exposing and negotiating the tensionbetween content and process and between knowledge and experience should be tied to themoment or site of the tension. (p. 199)


Kosminsky, Russell, Berry, and Kane conclude:

Sharing think-aloud experiences may be a productive way for teacher educators to shareengaging moments in their teaching with others interested in self-study and in opening up theprocess of becoming a teacher to those who are learning to teach. Think-alouds facilitatestudent teachers examining themselves as teachers and as learners. (2008, p. 200)

Similar to its use in literacy, reading, and English language arts education, the think-aloud was a strategy utilized for teacher education practices and studied as ametacognitive tool by self-study researchers.

Exit TicketsExit tickets are an after-reading and after-learning strategy utilized to help learnerssynthesize or possibly extend their thinking about what they read or what theylearned in class before leaving (exiting) the class and/or to communicate learning,questions, connections, or parts of a lesson that a learner enjoyed (Beers 2003).Kosnik et al. (2008) report that their use of “ticket-out-the-door” (p. 204) served asan innovation that enabled students to communicate with their teacher educators, toreflect on their learning, and to identify what they were learning. In the context of anafter-reading strategy, learners can become more agentic by using exit tickets as atool to attend to their own reading and learning, as well as to communicate theirneeds as learners. In the context of self-study, teacher-researchers foster learners’agency to see, own, and communicate learning and needs. Exit tickets were and canbe data to examine pre-service teachers’ learning and teacher educators’ teachingpractices.

Visual ImagesIn the reading and literacy education knowledge base, sketching images can be a wayto provide readers and learners with an opportunity to comprehend, to make mean-ing, and to discover new meanings. When a reader or learner sketches an image ofwhat she/he has read or learned, the sketch transmediates communication from onesign system to another (e.g., from print to visual) (Harste 2000). Jarvis et al. (2012)generated images about being teacher educators as a strategic way to help newfaculty transition from their former work in school-related settings (e.g., teaching orleadership) to their new roles in a school of education in a UK university.

Creating visual images for reflection was a process introduced by the first author at the initialgroup meeting. Gauntlett suggests that this is one of many creative and visual methods thatcan be used for exploring identities and can also provide a starting point for thinking aboutissues, and communicating them to others (Gauntlett and Holzwarth 2006). This form ofrepresentation allows for the metaphorical; the being able to express something difficult toput into words (Gauntlett 2007). Visual images also allow colleagues to document percep-tions of practice without writing. This was important as writing in an academic context wasseen as an issue for some new staff from professional backgrounds. What was also importantwas that drawing was not a requirement but a suggestion. The drawing of ‘How I see myselfin my practice now’ formed a key element of each session because the new staff membersrequested this, not because it was expected. (Jarvis et al. 2012, p. 43)


Generating, sharing, and discussing visual images became a way to explore issuesand tensions related to pedagogy and professional identity in higher education. Asindividuals moved from a position of expert to novice again, they explored tacitprofessional knowledge that needed to become explicit so that the new staff couldhave the tools necessary to identify aspects of their practice, articulate underpinningtheories, and explain and model their knowledge to students of teaching. Visualimages also served as data to capture the new faculty participants’ perceptions andchanges over time. This visual data was utilized to analyze the role of collaborativeself-study as a strategy for faculty induction into higher education.

Edge et al. (2014) also used visual images to make meaning through collaborativeself-study. As three members of a group of eight teacher educators representing thecontent areas of literacy, special education, educational leadership, and one elemen-tary (grades K–5) reading specialist teacher, this group inquired into how they usedvisuals as texts to re-see their worlds and to help others to construct meaning. Dataincluded university students’ images, images in picture books used to teach inuniversity and elementary classrooms, images teacher educators produced to com-municate complex ideas in university classes, and images that graduate and under-graduate students responded to, through class discussions or through writtenresponses in online discussion forums. The group of eight self-study researchersalso produced the image of an iceberg to communicate the experience of self-studyand the phenomenon of re-seeing their practice from new points of view that enabledthem to see beneath the surface of their instructional decisions and use of visualimages to construct or to convey meaning.

Content–Area Experiences to Inform Self–StudySeveral self-study researchers noted that their reading, literacy, and English languagearts-related experiences initiated a self-study, informed the basis of their self-study,or became evident in the findings of their self-study (e.g., Cameron-Standerford et al.2016; Edge et al. 2014; Kew et al. 2011; Kindle and Schmidt 2013; McDermott2010; Martin et al. 2011; Sugarman 2011). For example, Kindle and Schmidt (2013)collaboratively explored the way that one instructor’s scaffolding and strategicprompting guided the development of PTs. Kindle and Schmidt explicitly statedthat experience teaching reading guided Kindle’s instructional approaches andinteractions with individual PTs:

Karen’s experience in reading instruction in Reading Recovery (Clay 1993) had had aprofound influence on her teaching. The principles of starting with the known, followingthe child, and strategic prompting within the zone of proximal development (ZPD) areingrained in her teaching interactions, with both children and PTs. This parallel was notapparent at first, but emerged in the course of our analysis of transcripts of Dialogic InquiryGroups (DIGs); small groups that met regularly during the semester to support PTs during acase study assignment and to foster collaborative inquiry and problem solving. (p. 83)

In this study, the first author’s experiences teaching reading became readily evidentto the second author who observed Kindle interacting with PTs. Findings from theirself-study resulted in rich descriptions of four “key moves” the instructor made that


appeared to facilitate PTs’ knowledge development, skills, and professional dispo-sitions. These key moves included shifting instructor stance from authority figure toexpert peer; using strategic prompts to promote inquiry, problem-solving, andcritical thinking; modeling professional language; and the transfer of responsibility(p. 89). Kindle and Schmidt concluded their article with meanings that they madeabout the role of self-study and the use of their disciplinary knowledge and experi-ences to frame their study. They noted that Schmidt’s perspective as an outsiderhelped Kindle to see her teacher moves and her scaffolding preservice teachers’learning and independence, actions that had become less visible to Kindle becausethey had become routine. The first author’s experiences as a reading teacher guidedher interactions with PTs and her efforts to scaffold their development. The relation-ship between her prior experiences as a reading teacher, her disciplinary knowledge,and her teacher education practices became evident through collaborative self-study.In addition, Kindle and Schmidt consciously and purposefully used their content-area knowledge to frame the analysis and the discussion of their study.

It is our belief that by framing our analysis and discussion into the familiar contexts ofscaffolding and strategic prompting with the metaphor of balanced literacy instruction, wecan make the findings applicable to a wider audience and begin to build a framework forenvisioning teacher education in literacy in terms that are related to our professionalDiscourse community. (p. 98)

Kindle and Schmidt’s meaning-making from their self-study resulted in thinkingabout ways to contribute to the broader discourse community (Gee 1999, 2001).Thinking about how PTs “need the scaffolding provided by the instructor and theprompts at critical moments” (p. 99), the researchers made plans for continuedresearch that could help to problematize the politically charged climate in whichteachers face scripted curriculum and in which schools of education find themselvesfacing scrutiny and accusations of limited efficacy. Through their collaborative self-study, the richness of experience in teaching reading, knowledge of scaffolding, andrealizations about how this experience and knowledge informed a teacher educator’sinteractions with PTs came to light led to improving teacher education practices andspurred plans for further research.

Content-Area Knowledge as a Frame to Explore Teaching, TeacherEducation, and Self-Study Methodology in Self-StudyContent-area knowledge acted as a frame for conceptualizing teaching, teachereducation, or self-study methodology in several self-studies in literacy, reading,and English language arts education (e.g., Cameron-Standerford et al. 2016; Fletcherand Bullock 2012; Kindle and Schmidt 2013; Kosnik et al. 2012; Parr and Woloshyn2013; Parsons 2015; Rosean and Terpstra 2012; Sugarman 2011; Vogel and Bartlett2013). For example, Kosnik et al. (2012) integrated technology and multiliteraciespedagogy into two co-taught literacy courses. They concluded their self-study byframing teaching from a multiliteracies inquiry stance:


In addition to expanding readings to include literature on multiliteracies, discussion of theconcept, and greater use of digital technologies, we adopted the question “What does it meanto be literate in the 21st century?” as an overarching question for our literacy courses. Havingthis question as the framework for the course immediately sent a message to students that wewere thinking very broadly about literacy, encouraging them to think beyond the textbookand consider how their personal literacy practices inform their views of literacy. (p. 177)

In asking an overarching literacy question for their courses, these teacher educatorsposition themselves and their students as inquiring learners who can criticallyconsider teaching and learning through the lens of literacy. Furthermore, there isan implied relationship between an individual’s “personal literacy practices” (p.177), texts that are read, and how teachers and learners understand twenty-firstcentury literacy.

Parsons (2016) explicitly framed her literature for adolescents course with twoliteracy/language arts literary theories: Rosenblatt’s (1978, 1994) transactional the-ory and Langer’s (1995) theory of envisionment building. Parsons wrote that thesetwo theories shaped her approach to teaching, responding to, and discussing litera-ture. She also demonstrated that she read her students’ written transactions toliterature, in order to make meaning about her teaching, through the lens of thesesame theories. Throughout the course, students read one novel each week and crafteda three-part written response. Part one encouraged an aesthetic stance and part two,an efferent stance in order to shift from “being in and moving through” the text to“stepping back and objectifying the experience” (Langer, 1995; Rosenblatt 1978/1994). Part three was written after discussing the text and students’written responsesto parts one and two in class; this part encouraged students to communicate themeaning that they made from reading and discussing the texts. Through self-study,Parsons examined her students’written responses to the final three course texts, threetrans-themed novels – literature, that is, a subset of LGBTQ literature, featuringcharacters who identify as transgender and that explore the transgender experience.Reading and making meaning from these responses through a clearly articulatedposition toward literature, toward students’ responses to literature, and toward theLGBTQ community, Parsons proposed to make changes to her teaching, and thenshe problematized those very changes:

Students’ responses indicate that I could improve my teaching practice around trans-themednovels by teaching them how to employ critical theories to interrogate sociocultural assump-tions. Their responses also indicate that a single trans-themed novel cannot foster under-standing and acceptance of gender variation. Good practice might include multiple texts andintegrating trans-themed literature within other themes, including queer consciousness/community novels, including novels with transgender narrators, and including biographies,memoirs, and informational texts. As I present my rationale for changes in practice, I alsotrouble those same practices. “While students critiqued ‘society’ they expressed minimalawareness that ‘society’ is a construction.” (p. 942)

Parsons’ response to her students’ written responses to literature model the kind ofmultiple stances and critical reading that she articulated in her summary ofRosenblatt’s Transactional Theory (1978/19940 and Langer’s (1995) envisionment


building. From these two theoretical frames, Parsons made the point that readers canadopt a primarily aesthetic stance to immerse themselves in the experience of thereading; they could also adopt a more critical efferent stance that aims to examinetheir own reading and to take a more informed view from the reading experience.Parsons demonstrates each of these stances toward her students’ written responses toliterature and to her own teaching practices. Her stances and meaning-making areclearly framed by the literary theoretical frameworks.

Kindle and Schmidt (2013) explicitly state that as reading teacher educators, theyframed their teaching and their self-study research in literacy/reading teacher edu-cation research, self-study teacher education research, and literature related toscaffolding, particularly during classroom discourse. For instance, specifically draw-ing from research on reading, literacy, and English language arts methods instructionand programs (e.g., Clift and Brady 2005, Lacina and Block 2011; Sailors et al.2005; Snow et al. 2005), Kindle and Schmidt wrote that “Reading teacher educatorsshould structure courses in ways that guide PTs in analyzing instructional situationsand constructing appropriate responses to these real-life teaching contexts” (p. 85).Their self-study documents their aim to do just this. Findings from their studyincluded four “key moves” (p. 89) that they liken to the types of scaffolding seenin early reading instruction. They concluded:

It is our belief that by framing our analysis and discussion into the familiar contexts ofscaffolding and strategic prompting within the metaphor of balanced literacy instruction, wecan make the findings applicable to a wider audience and begin to build a framework forenvisioning teacher education in literacy in terms that are related to our professionalDiscourse community. (p. 98)

Kindle and Schmidt made direct connections between their study’s findings, theirmeaning-making, and implications to the broader field of teacher education througha literacy/reading frame.

Drawing from 4 years of collaborative self-study, Cameron-Standerford et al.(2016) utilized transactional reading and learning theory (e.g., Dewey 1938; Deweyand Bentley 1949; Rosenblatt 1978/1994; Rosenblatt 2005) to frame their view ofthemselves as teacher educators and researchers and as active meaning-makers whocould read, discuss with critical friends, and learn from their teacher educationpractices (LaBoskey 2004).

We defined text in a broader sense to include the idea that lived experiences once textualized(Edge 2011) could then be shared, interpreted, reinterpreted, and analyzed. Textualizing ourlived experiences and studying them through collaborative self-study methodology, we havelearned how to construct meaningful understating about our teaching practices. We havelearned how to empower others—prospective teachers, practicing teachers, administrators,and colleagues to intentionally study their own lived experiences like texts. (p. 371)

However, making meaning from teaching is not enough. They assert there is still aneed to articulate the process for making meaning from experiences. Citing theirearlier work (Edge et al. 2016), they concluded:


It is in harnessing our experiences—textualizing them—that we can see them as an object, atext we can read and learn from. Textualizing experiences goes beyond reflection; itobjectifies a lived experience in a way that permits both an individual and others to firstsee the experience outside of themselves and then to re-enter the reading of that experienceas a new event through which one makes meaning. (As cited in Cameron-Standerford et al.2016. p. 375)

Framing their self-study with the Transactional Theory of Reading and learning,these authors examined their teacher education practices as texts.

Discussion, Recommendations, and Conclusion

From the outset of our review, we wondered, “How might meanings made fromreading, literacy, and English language arts education self-studies continue to con-tribute to, advance, or challenge the purposes and goals of self-study, understandingsof teacher education, and the work of reading, literacy, and English language artsleaders and educators?” These foci need not be viewed as separate or exclusive;throughout this systematic review and metasynthesis of the literature, we notedmany instances these three foci explicitly intersected (or transacted) in a singleself-study. In other instances, the interactive nature of knowledge and experiencefrom teacher education, self-study, and the content areas was implied, but not overtlystated.

While reading the three groupings of culled literature with our question in mind,we observed that many studies seemed to stop short of including discussion orproviding implications for the content-area disciplines in which the studies and/orresearchers were situated. Self-study researchers frequently offered insights andrecommendations for self-study research and for teaching; however, few addressedcontent-area implications of their self-study research. Given the scope of the journalsin which we found the self-study literature (typically teacher education focused) orother sources for dissemination (such as the Castle Conference proceedings), wewondered if self-study researchers “stopping short” of considering their disciplinesas more than a research context was a purposeful intention (e.g., to reach a broaderaudience, to fit within the assumed or real boundaries of a particular publicationvenue, or to focus on teacher education), if it was a tacit assumption laden withinself-study teacher education practices or perhaps a combination. Our discussion ledus to reflect on and to wonder about our individual research as well as the collectivebody of S-STEP research in our content areas:

• To what extent are we, as S-STEP researchers, generating and communicatingknowledge that impacts our content-area fields?

• As teacher educators and self-study researchers, is our scholarly focus on contentareas of literacy, reading, and English language arts of a proximal-distal nature(Polanyi 1966, 2009)?


• If we are attending to teacher education from our content-area contexts, howmight we “turn” and “look back” to purposefully consider how our findingsshape, contribute to, and construct our content areas?

• How can we purposefully and consciously attend to self-study, teacher education,and the content areas in S-STEP research?

• How can or do we, as an S-STEP community, contribute to the knowledge base inthe content areas through S-STEP research?

• While the inclusion of self-study in the content areas is an important S-STEPadvancement taken up in this handbook, the positioning of “in the content areas”might be a problem – a wondering, a tension, and an exploration for future S-STEP inquiry. How might we consider S-STEP research for the content areas?

As we move forward, as individuals and as a field, ever situated in the dynamicintersections of self-study, teacher education and the content areas of literacy,reading, and English language arts, we are reminded by the literature we reviewedto revisit our positionality, to take a step back from our work and from our self-studyresearch to re-see what we already understand through collaborative discussion. AsMartin and Dismuke (2014) aptly described, deeper understandings, new connec-tions, and opportunities for improved practice come from the iterative processes ofcollaborative discussion. With the aim of creating an opportunity to discuss theexisting knowledge generated by self-study research in literacy, reading, and Englishlanguage arts education, we now take a step back from our findings to aim to re-seethese findings through the multivocal, multifaceted prism of voices from our broaderfield. In doing so, we consciously return to the purpose of this review and to theconcentric contexts of self-study, teacher education, and the field of literacy Englishlanguage arts and reading education. Within this multifaceted context, we framed ourinquiry utilizing the disciplinary theoretical lens of meaning-making, namely, theTransactional Theory of Reading and Writing (Rosenblatt 1978/1994, 1994, 2005).Once again, at the center of the concentric contexts of literacy, language arts andreading, teaching and teacher education, and self-study, we see literacy as a transfor-mative tool.

Reviewing the literature, we came to see that both self-study and the discipline ofliteracy and language arts share purposes of seeking understanding through mean-ing-making and generating new knowledge from meaning made. Self-study researchin the content areas of literacy, English language arts, and reading clearly reflectedself-study researchers sought understanding and learned from studying their profes-sional practices. They learned about their practices, about their students, about theirprofessional milieu, and about being and ever becoming as educators. This findingresonates with the broader self-study theme that “when seriously adopted, self-studyof teaching and teacher education practices supports meaningful learning aboutpractice” (Loughran 2004, p. 183). Nevertheless, we assert that self-studyresearchers did not learn simply from going through the motions of doing self-study in the same way that a reader’s eyes moving over printed words on a page doesnot equate comprehension. It is through transaction with the “texts” of teachereducation practices and through discourse with others that self-study researchers


made meaning. We see the common purposes guiding self-study and guiding thecontent areas of literacy and English language arts as an asset to the knowledgegeneration informing both educational research and literacy, English language arts,and reading education. Nevertheless, we see this commonality as a source of tension;the stance from which one seeks to read “texts” in order to understand, both framesand guides one’s attention, and, thus, the meaning that is made. Stance versatility(Beers 2003) is necessary and critical for generating knowledge that contributes tounderstanding self, teaching and teacher education, and content-area education. Wesee the need to challenge reading, literacy and language arts educators to engage inself-study research from multiple positions or stances toward the objects or teaching“texts” that they study.

Connecting these shared purposes, we envision how both self-study and literacyin language arts seek to make the largely invisible process of meaning-making morevisible to self and to others. Self-study methodology was how teachers and teachereducator-researchers made meaning from their professional practices. Framed by theTransactional Theory, it was clear to us that self-study researchers transacted withinternal texts and external texts (Durkin 1993); they attended to communicativesigns in their interactions with one another, their internal tensions, teaching artifacts,student artifacts, methods of instruction, programs, and contexts of practice. In asociocultural perspective of literacy, reading and writing are meaning-makingendeavors through which humans search for meaning, construct it, negotiate it,communicate it, refine it, and even contest it within the many contexts (e.g., social,cultural, historical, political, economic) of which they are a part and to which theycontribute (Gee 1996, 2008; Lankshear and Knobel 2007; Smagorinsky 2001;Smagorinsky and O’Donnell-Allen 1998; Wilhelm et al. 2001). Literacy in thediscipline of English language arts “revolves around the desire to understand thehuman condition” as expressed through texts (Manderino and Wickens 2014, p. 29).Self-study is “one way of understanding the world” (Kovach 2009, p. 29). We see inthe overlapping spaces of self-study and of the content areas of literacy, Englishlanguage arts and reading the potential to challenge, discover, question, and informwhile making more visible the complex and valuable work of educators.

We situate the above assertions in relationship to the two tensions Vanassche andKelchtermans (2015) posited that “self-study researchers need to consciously posi-tion themselves time and time again: the tension between relevance and rigour on theone hand, and the tension between effectiveness and understanding on the otherhand” (p. 518). We assert that consciously adopting stance versatility as a literacypractice can advance self-study as a transformative space for teaching and teachereducation. Ultimately, we hope to incite our fellow self-study researchers and ourcommunity of literacy, English language arts, and reading educators to re-see thetransformative power, potential, and responsibility of self-study research to informmultiple facets of our work.

Reviewing self-study literature through a theoretical lens – through the episte-mological and pragmatic underpinnings of the Transactional Theory of Reading andWriting (Rosenblatt 1978/1994, 1994, 2005) – afforded us with the ability to see andre-see existing scholarship from a particular, critical vantage point. Given the


importance of this theoretical frame in the context of the content areas of Englishlanguage arts, literacy, and reading education (Purcell-Gates et al. 2017), the findingsfrom our review offer insights from a disciplinary, theoretically informedperspective:

• Literacy/reading, teaching, and teacher education are complex processes andpractices.

• Teaching, teacher education, and reading/literacy include cognitive-in-the-headskills, strategies and processes set within socioculturally constructed literacypractices which are situated within the context of power relationships, values,beliefs, histories, and attitudes.

• Teaching and learning share an ecological relationship, mediated by events, andfacilitated by similar literate skills, practices, and processes.

• Teaching and learning, teaching and teacher education, and reading and writingare transactive processes.

Through our systematic review and metasynthesis, we made meaning about whatwe reviewed. That meaning-making is both rooted in and guided by the frameworkwe employed and the questions that we asked. In this final section of this chapter, weaimed to communicate those meanings as a way to engage the broader self-studycommunity in discourse. These ideas are not offered to “fix” or solve problems but,rather, to evoke additional conversations – points from which we may, throughcontinued discourse and action, continue to make new meanings that ever nudgeour understandings forward; our steps, surer-footed, onward; and our hearts andminds present, awake, and open to the prismatic possibilities ahead.

Cross-References

▶Advancing an Epistemology of Practice for Research in Self-Study of TeacherEducation Practices

▶Methods and Tools of Self-study▶Role of Positioning, Identity and Stance in Becoming S-STTEP Researchers▶ Self-Study Across Teacher Education Subject Disciplines▶ Self-Study in Elementary and Secondary Teaching▶ Self-study in English Language Teaching▶Teacher Educator Knowledge, Practice, and S-STTEP Research

References

Applebee, A. N., Langer, J. A., Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (2003). Discussion-based approachesto developing understanding: Classroom instruction and student performance in middle andhigh school English. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 685–730. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312040003685.


http://link.springer.com/search?facet-eisbn=978-981-13-1710-1&facet-content-type=ReferenceWorkEntry&query=Advancing an Epistemology of Practice for Research in Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices

http://link.springer.com/search?facet-eisbn=978-981-13-1710-1&facet-content-type=ReferenceWorkEntry&query=Advancing an Epistemology of Practice for Research in Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices

http://link.springer.com/search?facet-eisbn=978-981-13-1710-1&facet-content-type=ReferenceWorkEntry&query=Methods and Tools of Self-study

http://link.springer.com/search?facet-eisbn=978-981-13-1710-1&facet-content-type=ReferenceWorkEntry&query=Role of Positioning, Identity and Stance in Becoming S-STTEP Researchers

http://link.springer.com/search?facet-eisbn=978-981-13-1710-1&facet-content-type=ReferenceWorkEntry&query=Self-Study Across Teacher Education Subject Disciplines

http://link.springer.com/search?facet-eisbn=978-981-13-1710-1&facet-content-type=ReferenceWorkEntry&query=Self-Study in Elementary and Secondary Teaching

http://link.springer.com/search?facet-eisbn=978-981-13-1710-1&facet-content-type=ReferenceWorkEntry&query=Self-study in English Language Teaching

http://link.springer.com/search?facet-eisbn=978-981-13-1710-1&facet-content-type=ReferenceWorkEntry&query=Teacher Educator Knowledge, Practice, and S-STTEP Research

https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312040003685

https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312040003685

Barr, R. (2001). Research on the teaching of reading. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of researchon teaching (4th ed., pp. 390–415). Washington, DC: American Educational ResearchAssociation.

Bartlett, A. (2006). Updating reading methods courses for the challenges of today’s schools. In L.M. Fitzgerald, M. L. Heston, & D. L. Tidwell (Eds.), Collaboration and community: Pushingboundaries through self-study (pp. 27–30). Proceedings from the Sixth Annual Conference onSelf-Study of Teacher Education Practices, Herstmonceux Castle, East Sussex, England. CedarFalls: University of Northern Iowa.

Bartlett, A., & Frambaugh-Kritzer, C. (2014). Problematizing a graduate course assignment tobetter prepare literacy coaches. In D. Garbett & A. Ovens (Eds.), Changing practices forchanging times: Past, present and future possibilities for self-study research (pp. 26–28).Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference of Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices,Herstmonceux Castle, East Sussex, England. Auckland: University of Auckland.

Bartlett, A., & Vogel, A. P. (2012). Extending inquiry communities through cross-experience self-study. In J. R. Young, L. B. Erickson, & S. Pinnegar (Eds.), Extending inquiry communities:Illuminating teacher education through self-study (pp. 44–47). Proceedings from the NinthInternational Conference on Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices, Herstmonceux Castle,East Sussex, England. Provo: Brigham Young University.

Beers, K. (2003). When kids can’t read: What teachers can do. Portsmouth: Heinemann.Berliner, D. C. (1990). If the metaphor fits, why not wear it? The teacher as executive. Theory Into

Practice, 29(2), 85–93.Berry, A. (2004). Making the private public: Giving preservice teachers access to their teacher

educator’s thinking via an electronic journal. Nordic Journal of Teaching and Learning: Forpractitioners and researchers, 14(1), 17–24.

Berry, A. (2007). Tensions in teaching about teaching: Understanding practice as a teachereducator (Vol. 5). New York: Springer.

Boche, B. (2014). Making sense of collaborative research projects: A self-study of teacher educatorpractices. In D. Garbett & A. Ovens (Eds.), Changing practices for changing times: Past,present and future possibilities for self-study research (pp. 29–32). Proceedings of the TenthInternational Conference of Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices, Herstmonceux Castle,East Sussex, England. Auckland: University of Auckland.

Buehl, D. (2014). Classroom strategies for interactive learning (4th ed., pp. 207–225). Newark:International Reading Association. Newark: International Reading Association.

Buehl, D. (2017). Developing readers in the academic disciplines (2nd ed.). Portland: Stenhouse.Bullough, R. V., & Pinnegar, S. (2001). Guidelines for quality in autobiographical forms of self-

study research. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 13–21.Butler-Kisber, L. (2005). Inquiry through poetry: The genesis of self-study. In C. Mitchell, S.

Weber, & K. O’Reilly-Scanlon (Eds.), Just who do we think we are? Methodologies forautobiography and self-study in teaching (pp. 95–110). London/New York: RoutledgeFalmer.

Byrd, B. (2015). Good readers get smart: Reading orientations in a second-grade classroom.Studying Teacher Education, 11(2), 124–142.

Calderwood, P. E., & D’Amico, K. M. (2008). Balancing acts: Negotiating authenticity andauthority in shared reflection. Studying Teacher Education, 4(1), 47–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/17425960801976347.

Cameron-Standerford, A., Edge, C., & Bergh, B. (2016). Toward a framework for reading livedexperiences as texts: A four-year self-study of teacher education practices. In D. Garbett & A.Ovens (Eds.), Enacting self-study as methodology for professional inquiry (pp. 371–377).Herstmonceux: S-STEP.

Ciuffetelli Parker, D. (2008). Restructuring program, changing practice: A professor’s enactment ofa pedagogy of teacher education. In M. L. Heston, D. L. Tidwell, K. K. East, & L. M. Fitzgerald(Eds.), Pathways to change in teacher education: Dialogue, diversity and self-study (pp.54–58). Proceedings from the Sixth Annual Conference on Self-Study of Teacher Education


https://doi.org/10.1080/17425960801976347

https://doi.org/10.1080/17425960801976347

Practices, Herstmonceux Castle, East Sussex, England. Cedar Falls: University of NorthernIowa.

Clift, R. T. (2009). Repurposing my professional practice: Learning from my students over time andplace. Studying Teacher Education, 5(2), 129–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/17425960903306567.

Clift, R. T., & Brady, P. (2005). Research on methods courses and field experiences. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. M. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education (pp. 309–424). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (Eds.). (2000).Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of socialfutures. New York: Routledge.

Crafton, L. K., & Smolin, L. (2008). The language of collaboration: Moving beyond self and other.In M. L. Heston, D. L. Tidwell, K. K. East, & L. M. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Pathways of change inteacher education: Dialogue, diversity and self-study (pp. 82–86). Proceedings from the Sev-enth International Conference on Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices, HerstmonceuxCastle, East Sussex, England. Cedar Falls: University of Northern Iowa.

Craig, C. J. (2009). Flights from the field and the plight of teacher education: A personal perspective.Curriculum Studies, 41(5), 605–624. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220270802424716.

Crowe, A. R., & Berry, A. (2007). Teaching prospective teachers about learning to think like ateacher: Articulating our principles of practice. In T. Russell & J. Loughran (Eds.), Enacting apedagogy of teacher education: Values, relationships and practices (pp. 31–44). London:Routledge.

Davey, B. (1983). Think-aloud: Modeling the cognitive process of reading comprehension. Journalof Reading, 27(1), 44–47.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Simon & Schuster.Dewey, J., & Bentley, A. F. (1949). Knowing and the known. Boston: Beacon.Draper, R. J., & Siebert, D. (2010). Rethinking texts, literacies, and literacy across the curriculum.

In (Re)Imagining content-area literacy instruction (pp. 20–39). New York: Teachers CollegePress.

Durkin, D. (1993). Teaching them to read (6th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Edge, C. (2011). Making meaning with “readers” and “texts”: A narrative inquiry into two

beginning English teachers’ meaning-making from classroom events. Graduate School Thesesand Dissertations. http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/3722/

Edge, C., & Betz, J. (2017). Expanding understanding of meaningful literacy practices in teacher-student paper conferences: Discovery, agency, and relationship-building through transactionalevents. Literacy Research Association Annual Conference: Tampa.

Edge, C., Cameron-Standerford, A., & Bergh, B. (2014). Using self-study to navigate the changingseas of standards-based education. In D. Garbett & A. Ovens (Eds.), Changing practices forchanging times: Past, present and future possibilities for self-study research (pp. 63–66).Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference of Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices,Herstmonceux Castle, East Sussex, England. Auckland: University of Auckland.

Edge, C., Bergh, B., & Cameron-Standerford, A. (2016). Critically reading lived experiences astexts: A four-year study of teacher education practices. Washington, DC: American EducationalResearch Association Annual Meeting.

Elliot-Johns, S. E., & Tessaro, M. L. (2012). Storied course outlines: Uncovering and understandingassumptions about teaching about teaching and learning about teaching. In J. R. Young, L. B.Erickson, & S. Pinnegar (Eds.), Extending inquiry communities: Illuminating teacher educationthrough self-study (pp. 94–97). Proceedings from the Ninth International Conference on Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices, Herstmonceux Castle, East Sussex, England. Provo:Brigham Young University.

Elliott-Johns, S. E. (2014). (Re)-visioning self as educator in and through critical reflection onexperience. In D. Garbett & A. Ovens (Eds.), Changing practices for changing times: Past,present and future possibilities for self-study research (pp. 67–69). Proceedings of the TenthInternational Conference of Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices, Herstmonceux Castle,East Sussex, England. Auckland: University of Auckland.


https://doi.org/10.1080/17425960903306567

https://doi.org/10.1080/00220270802424716

http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/3722/

Erickson, L., & Young, J. (2008). Increasing candidate choice and responsibility: Inherent tensionsfor teacher educators. In M. L. Heston, D. L. Tidwell, K. K. East, & L. M. Fitzgerald (Eds.),Pathways to change in teacher education: Dialogue, diversity and self-study (pp. 115–119).Proceedings from the Sixth Annual Conference on Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices,Herstmonceux Castle, East Sussex, England. Cedar Falls: University of Northern Iowa.

Erickson, L. B., & Young, J. R. (2011). Toward transparency: Competing discourses of teachereducators and teachers. Studying Teacher Education, 7(1), 93–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/17425964.2011.558399.

Erickson, L. B., Pinnegar, S., & Young, J. (2012). A programmatic self-study of practice: Exploringteacher educator knowledge. In J. R. Young, L. B. Erickson, & S. Pinnegar (Eds.), Extendinginquiry communities: Illuminating teacher education through self-study (pp. 98–101). Proceed-ings from the Ninth International Conference on Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices,Herstmonceux Castle, East Sussex, England. Provo: Brigham Young University.

Farrell, E. J., & Squire, J. R. (Eds.). (1990). Transactions with literature: A fifty year perspective.Urbana: National Council of Teachers of English.

Fecho, B. (2011). Teaching for the students: Habits of heart, mind, practice in the engagedclassroom. New York: Teachers College Press.

Fecho, B., Lassonde, C., Mallozzi, C. E., Mazaros, C., & Mclean, C. A. (2006). Teachering on thebrink. . .together: A collaborative look at tensions in critical inquiry teacher education class-rooms. In L. M. Fitzgerald, M. L. Heston, & D. L. Tidwell (Eds.), Collaboration and commu-nity: Pushing boundaries through self-study (pp. 80–84). Proceedings from the Sixth AnnualConference on Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices, Herstmonceux Castle, East Sussex,England. Cedar Falls: University of Northern Iowa.

Fletcher, T., & Bullock, S. M. (2012). Enacting literacy pedagogies: A collaborative self-study byteacher educators in physical education and science. Studying Teacher Education, 8(1), 19–33.https://doi.org/10.1080/17425964.2012.657011.

Fletcher, T., Ni Chroinin, D., & O’Sullivan, M. (2016). Multiple layers of interactivity in self-studyof practice research: An empirically-based exploration of methodological issues. In D. Garbett& A. Ovens (Eds.), Enacting self-study as methodology for professional inquiry (pp. 19–25).Herstmonceux: S-STEP.

Frambaugh-Kritzer, C., & Stolle, E. P. (2014). Our present journey with new literacies: Drawing onthe past to impact the future. In D. Garbett & A. Ovens (Eds.), Changing practices for changingtimes: Past, present and future possibilities for self-study research (pp. 85–87). Proceedings ofthe Tenth International Conference of Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices, HerstmonceuxCastle, East Sussex, England. Auckland: University of Auckland.

Furman, R., Lietz, C. A., & Langer, C. L. (2006). The research poem in international social work:Innovations in qualitative methodology. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(3),24–34. Retrieved from http://www.ualberta.ca/~iiqm/backissues/5_3/PDF/furman.pdf.

Gatlin, A., Peck, M., Aposhian, N., Hadley, S., & Porter, A. (2002). Looking again at insiderknowledge: A relational approach to knowledge production and assessment. Journal of TeacherEducation, 53(4), 303–315.

Gauntlett, D. (2007). Creative explorations: New approaches to identities and audiences. London:Routledge.

Gauntlett, D., & Holzwarth, P. (2006). Creative and visual methods for exploring identities. VisualStudies, 21(1), 82–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/14725860600613261.

Gee, J. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (2nd ed.). London:Falmer.

Gee, J. P. (1999). The new literacy studies and the “social turn.” https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED442118.pdf

Gee, J. P. (2001). Reading as situated language: A sociocognitive perspective. Journal of Adoles-cent and Adult Literacy, 44(8), 714–725.

Gee, J. P. (2008). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (3rd ed.). New York:Routledge.


https://doi.org/10.1080/17425964.2011.558399

https://doi.org/10.1080/17425964.2011.558399

https://doi.org/10.1080/17425964.2012.657011

http://www.ualberta.ca/~iiqm/backissues/5_3/PDF/furman.pdf

https://doi.org/10.1080/14725860600613261

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED442118.pdf


Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.Gísladóttir, K. R. (2014). “Tjaa, I do have ears, but I do not hear”: New literacy studies and the

awakening of a hearing teacher. Studying Teacher Education, 10(2), 179–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/17425964.2014.910760.

Gísladóttir, K. R., & Guðjónsdóttir, H. (2014). Confronting the hearing teacher in education: Acollaborative self-study. In D. Garbett & A. Ovens (Eds.), Changing practices for changingtimes: Past, present and future possibilities for self-study research (pp. 100–102). Proceedingsof the Tenth International Conference of Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices,Herstmonceux Castle, East Sussex, England. Auckland: University of Auckland.

Groenendijk, R. Kooy, M., Coppen, P. A., Imants, J., Van de Ven, P. H. (2013). Striving for literarydevelopment in secondary literature students: A teacher’s self-study. English Teaching: Practiceand Critique, 12(3), 41-64.

Guðjónsdóttir, H. & Jónsdóttir, S. R. (2016). Emancipatory pedagogy for inclusive practices,enacting self-study as methodology. In D. Garbett & A. Ovens (Eds.). Enacting self-study asmethodology for professional inquiry, (pp. 299-304). Herstmonceux, UK: S-STEP.

Hall, L. A. (2006). IRA outstanding dissertation award for 2006: Anything but lazy: New under-standings about struggling readers, teaching, and text. Reading Research Quarterly, 41(4),424–426. Retreived from https://www.academia.edu/165630/Anything_but_lazy_New_understandings_about_struggling_readers_teaching_and_text.

Harste, J. C. (2000). Six points of departure. In B. Berghoff, K. A. Egawa, J. C. Harste, & B. T.Hoonan (Eds.), Beyond reading and writing: Inquiry, curriculum, and multiple ways of knowing(pp. 1–16). Urbana: National Council Teachers of English.

Holbrook, T., Moore, C., & Zoss, M. (2010). Equitable intent: Reflections on universal design ineducation as an ethic of care. Reflective Practice, 11(5), 681–692. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2010.516985.

Jaipal-Jamani, K., Figg, C., Gallagher, T., Scott, R. M., Ciampa, K. (2015). Collaborative profes-sional development in higher education: Developing knowledge of technology enhanced teach-ing. Journal of Effective Teaching, 15(2), 30–44.

Jarvis, J., Dickerson, C., Chivers, L., Collins, C., & Lee, L. (2012). A personalized needs-led groupapproach to induction: Perceptions of early academics in a university school of education.Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37(11), 37–59.

Johri, A. K. (2015). Multiple narrators: Using double voice poems to examine writing personas. InK. Pithouse-Morgan & A. P. Samaras (Eds.), Polyvocal professional learning through self-studyresearch (pp. 173–196). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Kew, B., Given, K., & Brass, J. (2011). Teachers as researchers of new literacies: Reflections onqualitative self-study. Journal of Language and Literacy Education, 7(2), 67–84. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1097057.pdf.

Kindle, K. J., & Schmidt, C. M. (2013). Developing preservice teachers: A self-study of instructorscaffolding. Reading Improvement, 50(3), 83–100.

Kosminsky, L., Russell, T., Berry, A., & Kane, R. (2008). The boundaries of think-aloud aspracticed by teacher educators. In M. L. Heston, D. L. Tidwell, K. K. East, & L. M. Fitzgerald(Eds.), Pathways to change in teacher education: Dialogue, diversity and self-study (pp.197–201). Proceedings from the Sixth Annual Conference on Self-Study of Teacher EducationPractices, Herstmonceux Castle, East Sussex, England. Cedar Falls: University of NorthernIowa.

Kosnick, C., & Beck, C. (2008). We taught them about literacy but what did they learn? The impactof a preservice teacher education program on the practices of beginning teachers. StudyingTeacher Education, 4(2), 115–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/17425960802433603.

Kosnik, C. (2007). Still the same yet different: Enduring values and commitments in my work as ateacher and teacher educator. In T. Russell & J. Loughran (Eds.), Enacting a pedagogy ofteacher education: Values, relationships and practices (pp. 16–30). London: Routledge.

Kosnik, C., Beck, C., & Cleovoulou, Y. (2008). Using research on our graduates to restructure ourcourses: Challenges and promising practices. In M. L. Heston, D. L. Tidwell, K. K. East, & L.


https://doi.org/10.1080/17425964.2014.910760

https://doi.org/10.1080/17425964.2014.910760

https://www.academia.edu/165630/Anything_but_lazy_New_understandings_about_struggling_readers_teaching_and_text

https://www.academia.edu/165630/Anything_but_lazy_New_understandings_about_struggling_readers_teaching_and_text

https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2010.516985

https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2010.516985

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1097057.pdf

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1097057.pdf

https://doi.org/10.1080/17425960802433603

M. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Pathways to change in teacher education: Dialogue, diversity and self-study (pp. 206–206). Proceedings from the Sixth Annual Conference on Self-Study of TeacherEducation Practices, Herstmonceux Castle, East Sussex, England. Cedar Falls: University ofNorthern Iowa.

Kosnik, C., Beck, C., Cleovoulou, Y., & Fletcher, T. (2009). Improving teacher education throughlongitudinal research: How studying our graduates led us to give priority to program planningand a vision for teaching. Studying Teacher Education, 5(2), 163–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/17425960903306880.

Kosnik, C., Menna, L., & Bullock, S. (2012). No longer digital novices: Integrating technology intoour literacy methods courses. In J. R. Young, L. B. Erickson, & S. Pinnegar (Eds.), Extendinginquiry communities: Illuminating teacher education through self-study (pp. 175–178). Pro-ceedings from the Ninth International Conference on Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices,Herstmonceux Castle, East Sussex, England. Provo: Brigham Young University.

Kovach, M. (2009). Indigenous methodologies: Characteristics, conversations, and contexts.Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

LaBoksey, V. K. (2004). The methodology of self-study and its theoretical underpinnings. In J. J.Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V. K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching practices (pp. 817–869). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Lacina, J., &Block, C. C. (2011).Whatmattersmost in distinguished literacy teacher education programs?Journal of Literacy Research, 43(4), 319–351. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X11422033.

Langer, J. A. (1995). Envisioning literature: Literary understanding and literature instruction. NewYork: Teachers College Press & International Reading Association.

Langer, J. A. (2011). Envisioning knowledge: Building literacy in the academic disciplines. NewYork: Teachers College Press.

Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2006). New literacies: Changing knowledge in the classroom (2nded.). Maidenhead: Open University.

Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2007). Sampling “the new” in new literacies. In M. Knobel & C.Lankshear (Eds.), A new literacies sampler (pp. 1–24). New York: Peter Lang.

Loughran, J. (2004). Learning through self-study: The influence of purpose, participants, andcontext. In J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V. K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), Internationalhandbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 151–192). Dordrecht:Kluwer.

Loughran, J. (2006). Enacting a pedagogy of teacher education: Understanding teaching andlearning about teaching. London: Routledge.

Loughran, J. (2007). Enacting a pedagogy of teacher education. In T. Russell & J. Loughran (Eds.),Enacting a pedagogy of teacher education: Values, relationships and practices (pp. 1–15).London: Routledge.

Loughran, J., Hamilton, M. L., LaBoskey, V. K., & Russell, T. (Eds.). (2004). Internationalhandbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices. Dordrecht: KluwerAcademic.

Magee, D. (2008). I am the airplane: The use of metaphor as a nodal moment. In M. L. Heston, D. L.Tidwell, K. K. East, & L. M. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Pathways to change in teacher education:Dialogue, diversity and self-study (pp. 222–225). Proceedings from the Sixth Annual Confer-ence on Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices, Herstmonceux Castle, East Sussex,England. Cedar Falls: University of Northern Iowa.

Manderino, M., & Wickens, C. (2014). Addressing disciplinary literacy in the common core statestandards. Illinois Reading Council Journal, 42(2), 28–39.

Martin, S., & Chase, M. (2010). Sharing our writing with students: Examining tensions andquestioning our motives. In L. Erickson, J. R. Young, & S. Pinnegar (Eds.), Navigating thepublic and private: Negotiating the diverse landscape of teacher education (pp. 156–159).Proceedings from the Eighth Annual Conference on Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices,Herstmonceux Castle, East Sussex, England. Provo: Brigham Young University.


https://doi.org/10.1080/17425960903306880

https://doi.org/10.1080/17425960903306880

https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X11422033

Martin, S. D., & Dismuke, S. (2010). Sharing our writing with students: Examining tensions andquestioning our motives. In L. B. Erickson, J. R. Young, & S. Pinnegar (Eds.), Navigating thepublic and the private: Negotiating the diverse landscape of teacher education (pp. 156–159).Provo: Brigham Young University.

Martin, S. D., & Dismuke, S. (2014). Keeping current: Including technology in a writing methodscourse. In D. Garbett & A. Ovens (Eds.), Changing practices for changing times: Past, presentand future possibilities for self-study research (pp. 148–150). Proceedings of the Tenth Inter-national Conference of Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices, Herstmonceux Castle, EastSussex, England. Auckland: University of Auckland.

Martin, S. D., Chase, M., Cahill, M. A., & Gregory, A. E. (2011). Minding the gate: Challenges ofhigh-stakes assessment and literacy teacher education. The New Educator, 7(4), 352–370.https://doi.org/10.1080/1547688X.2011.619949.

McCallum, R. S., Krohn, K. R., Sinner, C. H., Hilton-Prillhart, A., Hopkins, M., Waller, S., &Polite, F. (2011). Improving reading comprehension of at-risk high school students: The ARTofreading program. Psychology of Schools, 48, 78–86.

McDermott, P. (2010). Teaching with IRA in the Mwanza region of Tanzania. The Language andLiteracy Spectrum, 20, 69–82.

Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Miller, R. (2015). Learning to love reading: A self-study on fostering students’ readingmotivation in small

groups. Studying Teacher Education, 11(2), 103–123. https://doi.org/10.1080/17425964.2015.104.Moje, E. B., Dillon, D. R., & O’Brien, D. (2000). Reexamining roles of learner, text, and context in

secondary literacy. Journal of Educational Research, 93(3), 165–180. Retrieved from http://www-personal.umich.edu/~moje/pdf/Journal/ReexaminingRolesOfLearnerTextContext.pdf.

New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. HarvardEducational Review, 66(1), 60–92.

Nicholson, J., & Galguera, T. (2013). Integrating new literacies in higher education: A self-study ofthe use of twitter in an education course. Teacher Education Quarterly, 40(3), 7–26. Retrievedfrom http://www.jstor.org.nmu.idm.oclc.org/stable/43684698.

Nystrand, M. (2006). Research on the role of classroom discourse as it affects reading comprehen-sion. Research in the Teaching of English, 40, 392–412.

O’Looney, J. M., McIlwain, M. J., & Pratt-Fartro, T. (2010). Reading with critical friends: Usingself-study to examine the impact of a professional reading group on the public and privatepractices of literacy educators. In L. Erickson, J. R. Young, & S. Pinnegar (Eds.), Navigating thepublic and private: Negotiating the diverse landscape of teacher education (pp. 192–195).Proceedings from the Eighth Annual Conference on Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices,Herstmonceux Castle, East Sussex, England. Provo: Brigham Young University.

Olan, E. L., & Kaplan, J. S. (2014). Narratives and dialogic interactions in a teacher preparationwriting workshop: Self-study of practice, change and reflection. In D. Garbett & A. Ovens(Eds.), Changing practices for changing times: Past, present and future possibilities for self-study research (pp. 160–163). Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference of Self-Studyof Teacher Education Practices, Herstmonceux Castle, East Sussex, England. Auckland: Uni-versity of Auckland.

Olan, E. L., & Kaplan, J. S. (2016). Realizing, recognizing and refining a mentoring relationship: Aself-study of becoming and being an English language arts teacher educator. In D. Garbett & A.Ovens (Eds.), Enacting self-study as methodology for professional inquiry (pp. 285–290).Herstmonceux: S-STEP.

Olshavsky, J. E. (1976). Reading as problem solving: An investigation of strategies. ReadingResearch Quarterly, 12(4), 654–674.

Parr, C., & Woloshyn, V. (2013). Reading comprehension strategy instruction in a first-year course:An instructor’s self-study. The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning,4(2), 1–19.


https://doi.org/10.1080/1547688X.2011.619949

https://doi.org/10.1080/17425964.2015.104

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~moje/pdf/Journal/ReexaminingRolesOfLearnerTextContext.pdf

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~moje/pdf/Journal/ReexaminingRolesOfLearnerTextContext.pdf

http://www.jstor.org.nmu.idm.oclc.org/stable/43684698

Parsons, L. T. (2016). Learning from preservice teachers’ responses to trans-themed young adultliterature: Improving personal practice in teacher education. Discourse: Studies in the CulturalPolitics of Education, 37(6), 933–947. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2015.1084105.

Perrow, M. (2013). “Welcome to the real world”: Navigating the gap between best teachingpractices and current reality. Studying Teacher Education, 9(3), 284–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/17425964.2013.833902.

Pinnegar, S., & Hamilton, M. L. (2009). Self-study of practice as a genre of qualitative research:Theory, methodology, and practice. Dordrecht: Springer.

Pithouse-Morgan, K., & Samaras, A. P. (2014). Thinking in space: Learning about dialogue asmethod from a trans-continental conversation about trans-disciplinary self-study of professionalpractice. In D. Garbett & A. Ovens (Eds.), Changing practices for changing times: Past, presentand future possibilities of self-study research. Proceedings of the Tenth International Conferenceon the Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices (pp. 167–170). Auckland: University ofAuckland.

Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Polanyi, M. (2009). The tacit dimension. New York: Random House.Polkinghorne, D. E. (1988). Narrative knowing and the human sciences. Albany: State University

of New York Press.Poyas, Y. (2016). “Don’t sell me the enemy’s literature”: A self-study of teaching literature in

politically fraught contexts. Studying Teacher Education, 12(3), 267–283.Pratt-Fartro, T. (2012). Walking the walk as servant?: A self-study of learning, teaching, and

leading. In J. R. Young, L. B. Erickson, & S. Pinnegar (Eds.), Extending inquiry communities:Illuminating teacher education through self-study (pp. 235–238). Proceedings from the NinthInternational Conference on Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices, Herstmonceux Castle,East Sussex, England. Provo: Brigham Young University.

Probst, R. E. (1987). Transaction theory in the teaching of literature. ERIC Clearinghouse onreading and communication skills. Urbana. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED284274.pdf

Purcell-Gates, V., Duke, N., & Stouffer, J. (2017). Teaching literacy: Reading. In D. H. Gitomer &C. A. Bell (Eds.),Handbook of research on teaching (5th ed., pp. 1217–1267). Washington, DC:American Educational Research Association.

Reynolds, T. (2016). Striving for discussion: An analysis of a teacher educator’s comments inwhole-class conversation. Studying Teacher Education, 12(2), 205–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/17425964.2016.1192035.

Rice, M. (2011). Examining my assessment literacy instruction practices with teacher candidates.Brock Education Journal, 21(1), 84–97.

Richardson, L., & St. Pierre, E. A. (2005). Writing: A method of inquiry. In N. K. Lincoln & Y. S.Lincoln (Eds.), The sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 959–978). ThousandOaks: Sage.

Rosean, C., & Terpstra, M. (2012). Widening worlds: Understanding and teaching new literacies.Studying Teacher Education, 8(1), 35–49.

Rosenblatt, L. (1938). Literature as exploration. New York: Modern Language Association.Rosenblatt, L. (1969). Toward a transactional theory of reading. Journal of Reading Behavior, 1(1),

31–47.Rosenblatt, L. (1978/1994). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary

work. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Rosenblatt, L. (1985a). The transactional theory of the literary work: Implications for research. In C.

Cooper (Ed.), Researching response to literature and the teaching of literature (pp. 33–35).Norwood: Ablex.

Rosenblatt, L. (1985b). Viewpoints: Transaction versus interaction – A terminological rescueoperation. Research in the Teaching of English, 19, 96–10.

Rosenblatt, L. (1986). The aesthetic transaction. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 20(4), 122–128.


https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2015.1084105

https://doi.org/10.1080/17425964.2013.833902

https://doi.org/10.1080/17425964.2013.833902


https://doi.org/10.1080/17425964.2016.1192035

https://doi.org/10.1080/17425964.2016.1192035

Rosenblatt, L. (1994). The transactional theory of reading and writing. In R. R. Ruddell, M. R.Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading (4th ed.)(pp. 1057–1092). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Rosenblatt, L. M. (1994/2005). The transactional theory of reading and writing. InMaking meaningwith texts: Selected essays (pp. 1-37). Portsmouth: Heinemann.

Rosenblatt, L. (2005). Making meaning with texts: Selected essays. Portsmouth: Heinemann.Sailors, M., Keehn, S., Martinez, M., & Harmon, J. (2005). Early field experiences offered to and

valued by preservice teachers at sites of excellence in reading teacher education programs.Teacher Education and Practice, 18(4), 458–470.

Samaras, A. P., Pithouse-Morgan, K., Chisanga, T., Connolly, J. L., Constantine, L. S., Meyiwa, T.,Smith, L., & Timm, D. N. (2016). Networkism: Dialoguing about co-facilitating transdisciplin-ary self-study professional learning communities. In D. Garbett & A. Ovens (Eds.), Enactingself-study as methodology for professional inquiry (pp. 163–170). Herstmonceux: S-STEP.

SanGregory, M. J. (2009). A self-study: Pedagogical practices in a multicultural literature course.Electronic Theses & Dissertations. http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1242666130

Schiller, L. S. (2011). Literacy coach: A self-study of the complexities of coaching from adiscursive, interactional perspective. Dissertations and Theses. https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/89737.

Schimpf, K. (2014). How I used Lucy Calkins’ units of study writing program to support my firstgrade students’ writing development: A self-study. Education and Human Development Mas-ter’s Theses. https://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1438&context=ehd_theses

Shoffner, M. (2016). From expert to novice: Studying a second discipline. In D. Garbett & A. Ovens(Eds.), Enacting self-study as methodology for professional inquiry (pp. 213–218).Herstmonceux: S-STEP.

Shoffner, M., & Boche, B. (2014). What are we doing with technology? Studying our teaching ofliteracy in English education. In D. Garbett & A. Ovens (Eds.), Changing practices for changingtimes: Past, present and future possibilities of self-study research. Proceedings of the TenthInternational Conference on the Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices (pp. 192–194).Auckland: University of Auckland.

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. EducationalResearcher, 15(2), 4–14.

Smagorinsky, P. (2001). If meaning is constructed, what is it made from? Toward a cultural theoryof reading. Review of Educational Research, 71(1), 133–169.

Smagorinsky, P. (2008). The method section as conceptual epicenter in constructing social scienceresearch reports. Written Communication, 25(3), 389–411.

Smagorinsky, P., & O’Donnell-Allen, C. (1998). Reading as mediated and mediating action:Composing meaning for literature through multimedia interpretive texts. Reading ResearchQuarterly, 33(2), 198–226.

Smith, P., Warrican, J., & Kumi-Yeboah, A. (2016). Linguistic and cultural appropriations of animmigrant multilingual literacy teacher educator. Studying Teacher Education, 12(1), 88–112.https://doi.org/10.1080/17425964.2016.1143811.

Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (2005). Knowledge to support the teaching ofreading: Preparing teachers for a changing world. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures fordeveloping grounded theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Sugarman, S. (2011). Read, baby read: Developing personal content knowledge to positively impactthe practice of teaching nonfiction reading. Journal of Language and Literacy Education, 7(2),22–43. Retrieved from http://jolle.coe.uga.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/sugarman.pdf.

Thomas, L., & Geursen, J. (2016). Relinquishing and renegotiating control in an undergraduatemethods course to improve engagement and learning. In D. Garbett & A. Ovens (Eds.),Enacting self-study as methodology for professional inquiry (pp. 403–410). Herstmonceux: S-STEP.


http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1242666130

https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/89737

https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/89737

https://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1438&context=ehd_theses

https://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1438&context=ehd_theses

https://doi.org/10.1080/17425964.2016.1143811

http://jolle.coe.uga.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/sugarman.pdf

Tidwell, D., Manke, M., Allender, J., Pinnegar, S., & Hamilton, M. L. (2006). Contexts for usingillustrative nodal moments. In L. M. Fitzgerald, M. L. Heston, & D. L. Tidwell (Eds.),Collaboration and community: Pushing boundaries through self-study (pp. 257–262). Pro-ceedings from the Sixth Annual Conference on Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices,Herstmonceux Castle, East Sussex, England. Cedar Falls: University of Northern Iowa.

Tidwell, D., Thompson, B., Kingston, S., & Staples, A. (2014). Improving practice through self-study: Making literacy accessible for students with significant developmental disabilities. In D.Garbett & A. Ovens (Eds.), Changing practices for changing times: Past, present and futurepossibilities of self-study research (pp. 198-200). Proceedings of the Tenth International Con-ference on the Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices. [Herstmonceux Castle, UK]. Auck-land, NZ: University of Auckland.

Tysseling, L. A., & Laster, B. P. (2013). Taking technology from clinic to classroom. In E. T. Ortlieb& E. H. Cheek Jr. (Eds.), Advanced literacy practices: From the clinic to the classroom.Bingley: Emerald.

Tysseling, L. D., & McCulley, M. (2012). Going mobile: Reframing discussion groups for 21stcentury classrooms. In J. R. Young, L. B. Erickson, & S. Pinnegar (Eds.), Extending inquirycommunities: Illuminating teacher education through self-study (pp. 289–292). Proceedingsfrom the Ninth International Conference on Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices,Herstmonceux Castle, East Sussex, England. Provo: Brigham Young University.

Unrau, N. J., Alvermann, D. E., & Ruddell, R. B. (2013). Section three: Models of reading andwriting processes. In N. J. Unrau, D. E. Alvermann, & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical modelsand processes of Reading (6th ed., pp. 691–697). Newark: International Reading Association.

Vanassche, E., & Kelchtermans, G. (2015). The state of the art in self-study of teacher educationpractices: A systematic literature review. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 47(4), 508–528.https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2014.995712.

Vogel, A. P., & Bartlett, A. (2013). Passing on a teacher educator’s knowledge: Self-study of adoctoral teaching internship. Studying Teacher Education, 9(2), 130–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/17425964.2013.808048.

Wilhelm, J. D. (2001). Improving comprehension with think-aloud strategies. New York:Scholastic.

Wilhelm, J. D., Baker, T. N., & Hackett, J. D. (2001). Strategic reading: Guiding students tolifelong literacy (pp. 6–12). Portsmouth: Heinemann.

Wilkinson, I. A. G., & Son, E. H. (2011). A dialogic turn in research on learning and teaching tocomprehend. In M. L. Kamil, P. D. Pearson, E. B. Moje, & P. P. Afflerbach (Eds.), Handbook ofreading research (Vol. 4, pp. 359–387). New York: Routledge.

Zeichner, K. (2007). Accumulating knowledge across self-studies in teacher education. Journal ofTeacher Education, 58, 36–46.


https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2014.995712

https://doi.org/10.1080/17425964.2013.808048

https://doi.org/10.1080/17425964.2013.808048

reading, literacy, and english language arts teacher education · 2020-02-03 · abstract framed by...

Documents