Tratándose de menores de dieciocho años de edad, aquellos que impliquen:

Just as in the coursework section of the original Survey of Perceptions, the coursework section of the follow-up survey asked one major question: How well prepared are you to teach specified reading activities or concepts given the instruction you received in your reading courses at the

University of Pittsburgh? In addition to the original 15 prompts, six new prompts were added to the question to get at the respondents preparedness to work with diverse learners, classroom management skills, teaching reading in the content areas and using expository text during instruction. This question, as well as the entire follow-up survey, can be found in Appendix C.

Table 24 includes the average self-rating of respondents to prompts on the follow-up survey and a comparison of those results to the initial findings from the original Survey of Perceptions. Within the two major headings – Survey of Perceptions and Follow-up Survey of Perceptions – the data are broken down into three groups: respondents from the MAT program; respondents from the PY program; and overall average.

Survey of Perceptions Average Self-Rating

Follow-up Survey of Perceptions Average Self-

Rating

Area of Instruction MAT PY Overall MAT PY Overall

Phonemic Awareness 2.32 2.13 2.23 2.09 2.14 2.11 Phonics 2.27 2.16 2.21 1.82 2.14 1.94 Comprehension 2.66 2.50 2.58 2.58 2.29 2.47 Vocabulary 2.48 2.56 2.52 2.33 2.38 2.40 Fluency 2.43 2.36 2.39 2.42 1.86 2.21 Spelling 2.57 2.29 2.43 2.25 1.67 2.06 Writing 2.35 2.16 2.26 1.92 2.13 2.00

A sequence of lessons from a basal reading program 2.47 2.50 2.48 2.25 2.71 2.42

Discussions about a story from a basal reader 2.65 2.51 2.58 2.42 2.43 2.42

Discussions related to a trade book, chapter book or novel 2.63 2.48 2.56 2.42 2.00 2.26

Activities related to a trade book, chapter book or novel 2.53 2.48 2.51 2.33 2.14 2.26

Formal assessments 2.59 2.13 2.36 2.42 2.43 2.42

Informal assessments 2.69 2.33 2.51 2.50 2.43 2.47

Students' interest in reading or motivation to read 2.57 2.51 2.54 2.25 2.13 2.20

Differentiating instruction based on assessment data 2.57 2.17 2.37 2.00 2.13 2.05

Average across the first 15 areas: 2.52 2.35 2.44 2.27 2.20 2.25

Managing the classroom during reading instruction 1.67 2.13 1.85

Teaching reading in the content areas 2.25 2.29 2.26

Activities related to the reading of expository text 2.17 2.14 2.16

Adapting instruction to meet the needs of struggling readers

(non-Special Needs students) 1.83 1.57 1.74

Adapting instruction to meet the needs of students with Special Needs 1.83 1.71 1.79

Adapting instruction to meet the needs of students that are English

candidates, as well as the overall average. The final six areas of instruction have been shaded out in the columns under Survey of Perceptions since they were not part of the original assessment. Looking first at the original 15 areas of instruction, the overall average obtained from the follow-up survey is lower in every category except formal assessments. This indicates that the respondents to the follow-up actually now perceive themselves as being somewhat less prepared in every category except for the use of formal assessments than they originally perceived themselves as being in the spring, when they were finishing their program at the University.

Overall, there were three areas of instruction in which there were statistically significant differences (α = .05) between average scores from the original administration and the follow-up. These areas were: phonemic awareness instruction; spelling instruction; and administering informal assessment. In all three areas, the average score on the follow-up survey was lower than the average score on the original Survey of Perceptions, indicating that with experience in their own classroom, former MAT and PY teacher candidates found that they were actually less prepared to do these things than they had originally perceived. Further discussion of some of these issues is included in forthcoming sections as some of the respondents included comments about these topics when answering other follow-up questions.

The responses from the first 15 areas of instruction can be broken down by program – MAT and PY – and compared in that way. First, looking at MAT respondents, respondents of the follow-up survey had a lower average self-rating than the average self-rating recorded by MAT teacher candidates on the original Survey of Perceptions in all areas. There were two areas where the differences in average score were statistically significant (α = .05): spelling instruction

themselves as being less prepared now to teach these activities than they did when they were finishing their programs.

When analyzing responses of PY teacher candidates, the average self-rating that they gave themselves was higher on the original Survey than it was on the follow-up in all but four areas: phonemic awareness instruction; teaching a sequence of lessons from a basal reading program; administering formal assessments; and administering informal assessments. The differences between averages in all areas except phonemic awareness instruction were significant.

Turning to look at differences between MAT and PY respondents on the entire follow-up survey, it can be noted that, like on the original Survey, MAT respondents on average gave themselves a higher self-rating than the PY respondents in a majority of the areas of instruction. Respondents from the MAT program gave themselves a higher average score in ten of the areas; the areas in which PY respondents scored themselves higher include:

• instruction in phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary and writing • teaching a sequence of lessons from a basal reading program

• discussions about a story from a basal reader • administering formal assessments

• differentiating instruction based on assessment data • managing the classroom during reading instruction • teaching reading in the content areas

• adapting instruction to meet the needs of students that are English Language Learners

sequence of lessons from a basal reading program, teacher candidates in the MAT program had an average score of 2.25, while teacher candidates in the PY program had an average score of 2.71. This means PY teacher candidates perceived themselves to be better prepared to participate in this activity than did MAT teacher candidates.

It is important to look at the scores on the six items that were added to the follow-up survey, especially the final three. Looking at the overall average scores, respondents felt somewhat unprepared to manage their classroom during reading instruction, awarding themselves an average score of 1.85, just shy of a score of 2 which on the survey is defined as “My reading coursework somewhat prepared me”. These respondents would benefit from more exposure to classroom management techniques. In general, respondents perceived themselves as being at least moderately prepared to teach reading in the content areas (2.26) and engage students in activities related to the reading of expository text (2.00), though their scores indicate that they may need more support in these areas.

The final three areas of instruction, which all deal with working with diverse learners, indicate that these teacher candidates have some concerns about their level of preparedness for working with these students. Respondents perceived themselves as being the least prepared in these areas, which indicates that these are areas in which teacher candidates enrolled in both programs would benefit from further instruction. The average self-rating for being able to adapt instruction to meet the needs of struggling readers (non-Special Needs students) was 1.74; adapting instruction for students with Special Needs was slightly higher, with an average rating of 1.79. Respondents perceived themselves as being the least prepared to adapt instruction to meet the needs of English Language Learners, giving themselves an average score of 1.16.

work you did in your reading courses?

Responses to the above question vary widely and include the following: MAT respondents:

The idea of Guided Reading was not really introduced at all throughout the program. My district’s reading program is centered around guided reading and novels. I do not feel that I was prepared to jump into the guided reading model because I had more experience with basals. My placement was in Pittsburgh Public and the instruction was based on a basal. I feel that I took much more away from my placement with my mentor teacher about teaching with a basal. [One of my professors] was one of the best professors I had throughout the entire program and I took a lot of my knowledge that I have today as a teacher away from her explicit instruction.

Much of the coursework was based on activities or learning what the terms [meant]. There was not adequate discussion or ideas in terms of application in a real classroom. Differentiation and ways to meet all students' needs, both struggling and excelling [readers], were not addressed. Additionally, management of the classroom during differentiation would be helpful. We were given some methods to assess students but more guidance about what to do with the data when collected would benefit. Specifically, what to do in small and whole groups to help differentiate a class of students with diverse needs. We were told to not follow the basal but were not given guidance of what to use as material. There is so much to cover in reading and language arts that it is difficult to learn it all in mainly two courses. The first course was mainly spent learning the terms and concepts related to reading instruction. I feel our experiences with reading instruction were based more in the student teaching setting that we were assigned so we all had a different learning experience.

to fully practice the knowledge learned in my Primary Reading course. I did have to do mini-assessments using students in lower grades for this course, but since they were not my own students and I did not have the opportunity to fully delve into planning and teaching K-2 reading lessons on a continual basis, I feel that I am lacking in the Primary reading area.

PY respondents:

Ideas for literacy centers, word wall work, and classroom management (keeping students engaged and on task) during literacy rotations.

I know that there is always room for improvement; however, I feel [one of my professors] presented great lessons on teaching us how to teach vocabulary and work with the basal. As for chapter books, I feel that I am lacking in knowing how to incorporate them into the curriculum.

Good questioning strategies for use during stories. I did get help from my adviser on this, but it was not something we discussed in my classes.

I do not know if the program could have better prepared me. I was exposed to everything I am facing in the classroom and know where to look for resources. I think the only way to really learn is the hands on experience.

I am having difficultly teaching language arts to ELL students.  

Several of the same areas of instruction are found as lacking in their open response as in their self-score regarding perceived readiness to teach. The respondents clearly state that, given the experiences they are now having in their own classrooms, they would have liked to have more instruction in teaching reading using novels or chapter books, differentiating instruction to

management. In addition, teaching primary reading skills is also mentioned. This is an area of instruction that several teacher candidates included in their original Survey of Perceptions as something they wish they had had more experience with during their field placement.