Abstract of

A Critical Analysis of Research on Reading Teacher Education

Victoria J. Risko, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA

Cathy M. Roller, International Reading Association, Washington, DC, USA

Carrice Cummins, Louisiana Tech University, Ruston, USA

Rita M. Bean, University of Pittsburgh, PA, USA

Cathy Collins Block, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, USA

Patricia L. Anders, University of Arizona, Tucson, USA

James Flood, San Diego State University, CA, USA

The authors provide a review and critique of 82 empirical investigations conducted in the United States on teacher preparation for reading instruction. These studies were chosen from a pool of 298 based on the authors' coding of research quality indicators. Applying an inductive paradigmatic analysis of the 82 studies, this review suggests that in recent years reading teacher preparation programs have been relatively successful in changing prospective teachers' knowledge and beliefs, and a smaller number of studies documents that under certain conditions pedagogical knowledge influenced actual teaching practice. As in earlier reviews, there were very few studies that included pupil achievement as a measure. In addition, the review suggests that university teaching practices that benefit applications of pedagogical knowledge provide explicit explanations and examples, demonstrations of practices, and opportunities for guided practice of teaching strategies in practicum settings with pupils. This analysis builds on more general teacher education research reviews by identifying contributions and limitations of reading teacher education research and providing recommendations for future research.

[Note: Victoria Risko discusses the research presented in this article in a podcast presented by the “Voice of Literacy”: http://www.voiceofliteracy.org/posts/28688].

Abstract from Risko, V.J., Roller, C.M., Cummins, C., Bean, R.M., Block, C., Anders, P.L., & Flood, J. (2008, July/August/September). A Critical Analysis of Research on Reading Teacher Education. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(3), 252–288. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.43.3.3