The belief that secondary content teachers should have content reading as a course in their pre-service education is an idea that is gaining increasing acceptance. Surveys examining certification requirements show that an increasing number of states mandate a course in reading for secondary certification (Bader, 1975; Lamberg, 1978). This trend is also reflected in increased numbers of teacher training institutions that are now offering a content area reading course for their undergraduate secondary education majors, as compared to ten years ago

Bader, Lois A

Pearce, Daniel L

English

ScholarWorks at WMU

Reading Horizons: A Journal of Literacy andLanguage ArtsVolume 23Issue 2 January 1983 Article 71-1-1983Content Area Reading Preparation: Effectiveness ofFour Methods of InstructionLois A. BaderMichigan State UniversityDaniel L. PearceEastern Montana CollegeFollow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/reading_horizonsPart of the Education CommonsThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by the SpecialEducation and Literacy Studies at ScholarWorks at WMU. It has beenaccepted for inclusion in Reading Horizons: A Journal of Literacy andLanguage Arts by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks at WMU. For moreinformation, please contact maira.bundza@wmich.edu.Recommended CitationBader, L. A., & Pearce, D. L. (1983). Content Area Reading Preparation: Effectiveness of Four Methods of Instruction. ReadingHorizons: A Journal of Literacy and Language Arts, 23 (2). Retrieved from https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/reading_horizons/vol23/iss2/7CONTENT AREA READING PREPARATION: EFFECTIVENESS OF FOUR METHODS OF INSTRUCTION Lois A. Bader MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Daniel L. Pearce EASTERN MONTANA COLLEGE, BILLINGS, MONTANA The belief that secondary content teachers should have content reading as a course in their pre-service education is an idea that is gaining increasing acceptance. Surveys examining certifica-tion requirements show that an increasing number of states mandate a course in reading for secondary certification (Bader, 1975; Lamberg, 1978). This trend is also reflected in increased numbers of teacher training institutions that are now offering a content area reading course for their undergraduate secondary education majors, as compared to ten years ago. This increased emphasis on content area reading as a course for undergraduate secondary education majors has occurred during a period of time that has also witnessed increased criticism of traditional teacher education programs (Goodlad and Klein, 1970; Silberman, 1970). Various alternatives have been put forward as ways to improve the quality of teacher education programs generally and of education courses in particular. One of the options put forward has been the recorrmendation to increase the field experiences of prospective teachers through increased teaching contact in conjunction with courses in method (Joyce, Yarger, and Howey, 1977; Ross, Raines, Cervetti, and Dellow 1980). The integration of teaching contract with reading methods courses has also been recorrmended for pre-service teachers (Manning and Moe, 1974; Morrison and Austin, 1977; Wylie, 1971). Another alternative that has been put forward as a viable way to improve the quality of teacher training has been Competency Based Teacher Education (CBI'E) (Houston and Howsarn, 1972). CBI'E has been discussed, and in some instances recorrmended, as a means of offering realistic alternatives to traditional reading methods courses (Blair, 1979; Burnett and Schnell, 1975; James, 1975). Content area reading courses for undergraduate secondary education majors can be designed in different ways, but various programmatic questions exist concerning the design of these courses. Should content reading be offered as a traditional methods course? Should a field based course be offered instead of the traditional course? Would a CBI'E modular based course be better? Who should teach the course? When should the course be offered to secondary 114-rh majors? Should a common pool of materials be used or should pro-fessors be free to develop their own materials? These are but a few of the considerations that exist when one faces designing thp program of a content reading course for pre-service teachers. Quest ions such rlS LflP 8bove have led to tnis study. whi r.h examined the effectiveness of four different methods of content area reading preparation for undergraduate secondary education majors. Conflicting viewpoints regarding factors such as mode of instruction, location, and time prompted this study at a large midwestern university. The effectiveness of the four methods was determined through an evaluation of appropriate and correct use of content area reading strategies made during participants' term of student teaching. The first method of preparing pre-service secondary teachers in content area reading was designated as the On-Campus Method (I). Instruction in this method was given to a group of secondary teacher candidates before their student teaching assignments. Instruction in this method was given by a faculty member whose specialization included both secondary and content area reading. This method of instruction most closely approximated the tradi-tional methods course. The second method was designated as Field Method A ( II) . Here, instruction was given to a group of secondary ed majors during their term of student teaching. Instruction was given by student teaching professors, who were given instruction in content area reading and furnished with materials for use in instruction by the professor who instructed the Method I group. The third method of instruction was designated Field Method B (III). This method was similar to Field Method A, but attempted to control for instructor expertise. The instruction in this method was given by a field consultant with a secondary reading background. This consultant had also previously been given extensive pre-paration in content area reading by the Method I instructor. Materials for use in content area instruction in this third method of instruction were the same materials used in the other methods. The fourth method of instruction was part of a Competency Based Teacher Education program (CBTE) (IV). Instruction in content area reading was provided in CBTE materials prepared by the On-Campus Method instructor, with the aid of two graduate students. Support for these materials was gi ven by CBTE teacher education faculty and field associates. This program extended over two terms with instruction occurring before and during student teaching. Method. The population included secondary education majors who were to be engaged in spring term student teaching, except those assigned to physical education, music, and art. Students were placed when possible in one of eight geographic areas of their choice, thus determining the method of instruction in which they participated. An examination of student grade-point averages showed the groups to be equal. Table 1 surnnarizes the number of students assigned to the various centers (methods) of instruction. rh-1l5 Table 1 Number of Student Teachers Assigned to Centers Stu. Instruc- Areas Number Number Propor-Tchg tional Exclud. Eligible in tion Ctr Method fr Study Students Study A I 1,2 9 5 .56 B II 1,2,3 14 7 .50 C I 2 16 14 .88 D II 1,2,3 13 12 .92 E II 1,2,3 14 6 .43 F II 1,2,3 5 4 .80 G III 1,2,3 11 10 .91 H IV 1,2,3 21 15 .71 Total 103 73 .71 Areas Exclud. = 1 Phys Educ, 2 Music, and 3 Art Objectives were selected prior to the experiment for evalua-tion during the students I term of student teaching. These included the following categories: (1) estimation of readability level, (2) construction and interpretation of an open book reading test, (3) construction and use of a multi-structure reading guide, (4) construction and use of a rrargin guide, ( 5) demonstration of guided reading and vocabulary instruction, and (6) providing instruction for non-readers (those below the fourth-grade reading level). Instructors in all four methods of instruction approved the evalua-tion instrument and were provided with copies of it prior to their instruction of the students. During the seventh through ninth weeks of the term of student teaching, two advanced graduate students in reading, who had served intensive supervised internships in evaluating the teaching of content area reading, visited the eight student teaching centers which participated in the study. They met with each student teacher to determine which of the six major competency areas had been mastered. Mastery was determined through classroom observation of guided reading lessons and instruction of non-readers and examination, as appropriate, of the plans and products developed by the student teachers. Each meeting took about fifteen to thirty minutes. More than one visit was made, as necessary. For the purpose of this study, 80% or more of the specific objectives listed under each of the six categories needed to be mastered for a student to receive credit for the ability. The dependent measure used to evaluate the comparative merits of the four methods of instruction was the percent of the six competencies mastered by each student. Findings. An independent evaluator used an ANOVA to compare 116-rh the percent of skills rrastered for each method of instruction. The mean square error terms was 512.52 with 69j.F. The estimate of variance was 13, 367.07, J.F. = 3. The ratio of these variance estimatps yiplrlPd em F-value of 26.08 which was found to be sig-ni fi r-;:mt At, p .001. It was concluded that the various methods of instruction were not equally eiTecti ve in producing competence in teaching content area reading on the secondary level, when such abilities are assessed in the student teaching environment. The Post-Hoc Schiffe procedure at the .01 level indicated that Method I was significantly superior to the rerraining methods, that Methods II and III were significantly superior to Method IV, and that Methods II and III did not differ in results. Table 2 summarizes the findings of the study. Table 2 Means and S.D. of Percent of Mastered Teaching Abilities for Each Method Method I. On Campus Method II. Field Method A III. Field Method B IV. C B T E Method Discussion N Mean 26 64.77 22 10 15 28.23 31.60 2.27 S. D. 32.34 18.75 12.14 5.98 The results of this study indicate that content area reading was most effectively presented to undergraduate secondary education rrajors by the On-Campus Method. The quantitative superiority for the On-Campus Method was also supported by an examination of the demonstrated levels of rrastery exhibited by the student teachers in each of the four methods of instruction. Six categories of content area reading had been evaluated for this study. More of the student teachers in the On-Campus Method exhibited rrastery of at least five of the six categories evaluated than in any of the other methods. Of the twenty-six teachers who participated in the On-Campus Method, ten were credited with rrastery of five of the six content reading categories. None of the student teachers in any of the other three methods exhibited rrastery in five of the six categories in their student teaching. Table 3 presents the number of student teachers in each method of instruction and their records of rrastery in each category. Table 3 Students Showing 80% Mastery in Each Category Method Number Obj. Obj. Obj. Obj. Obj. Obj. Used Students (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 26 18 20 17 16 18 12 II 22 18 3 4 4 4 3 III 10 10 1 0 0 6 2 IV 14 0 0 0 2 0 0 rh-1l7 While for the purposes of this study, demonstrated ma.stery for the categories assessed was defined as successful completion of 80% of the objecti ves listed under each category, the reports of the two on-sight evaluators concurred with the quantitative findings of this study. Based on their on-sight evaluations and on their discussions with the student teachers, both evaluators reported that the ma.jority of those student teachers prepared by the On-Campus Method exhibited an understanding of content reading. Even where the undergraduates had failed to receive credit for demonstrating ma.stery of a category, these student teachers, for the most part, seemed receptive toward content reading strat-egies and felt that the instruction they received was valuable. The evaluators' reports on those student teachers that par-ticipated in Field Method A and Field Method B, while generally positive, also relayed some concerns. Many of the student teachers appeared to understand the worth of content reading strategies, however, they were uncertain in how to implement the strategies. An opinion frequently expressed by the student teachers in the two field methods was that they were too pressed with the demands of classroom management and the assorted problems associated with student teaching to acquire a full understanding of the strategies and implement those strategies in their instruction. Many of these student teachers expressed the thought that their content reading instruction would have been more valuable if it had not been con-current with student teaching. The student teachers in the CBTE program had the least favor-able attitude toward content area reading, the evaluators reported. Not only had the CBTE student teachers failed to demonstrate ma.stery in implementing the six categories of content reading into their instruction, the conceptual understanding of content reading that they exhibited was less than that of the other student teachers. The CBTE teachers showed more confusion over implementing the strategies than the other teachers. Perhaps most importantly, the CBTE student teachers' showed a less favorable attitude than the others. One ma.y hypothesize that these student teachers, while exposed to the specifics of content reading strategies, had not been adequately exposed to the rationale and philosophy of content area reading. Consequently, the importance they placed on integrat-ing content reading strategies into their instruction was minima.l. The results, limited to the conditions of the study, indicate that content area reading needs to be taught by faculty who are specialists in the field, that instruction should not be initiated at a time when students are pressed with the dema.nds of classroom management, ma.stery of highly specific subject ma.tter, and other elements present in the student teaching experience. Faculty teaching content reading courses need to have preparation in both academic and classroom teaching experience in which they have been employed-content area reading as part of instruction. In other words, this is an academic specialization that should not be "trivialized" into isolated skills or competencies that "anyone can teach." Students of education need to understand the theoret-ical base of the procedures they are using; they need to understand how the language processes apply to the subject area of their 118-rh specializations, and they need to create their own applications for the students they teach. On the affective level, faculty who are experienced and confident project an aura of the importance, desirability, usefulness, and practicability of content area reading. The four methods of instruction examined in this study do not exhaust the possible variation for content reading instruction. Another variation is sug,gested on the basis of the authors' experience. The authors have provided content area reading instruction before, during, and after student teaching. Student enthusiasm for the course was highest after student teaching. Although this time placement was not included in this study for obvious reasons, it is sug,gested as another option. Possibly, increased field experiences prior to content area reading instruc-tion would help to sensitize undergraduates to the importance of content reading. Another variation of this option is that stu-dent teaching need not be considered as the final experience in the preparation of a teacher. Faculty in other institutions may wish to conduct further action research to determine which method of instruction appears to be the most desirable in their particular setting. This study helped to resolve some important questions for those holding various viewpoints. REFERENCES fuder, L. A. Certification requirements in reading: A trend. Journal of Reading, Oct. 1975, 17, 20-24. Blair, C. W. Establishing a competency field-based program of reading education: Essential elements of administrative plan-ning. Reading World, May 1979, 18, 354-361. Burnett, R., & Schnell, T. CBI'E and secondary reading: A phil-osophy and rationale. Journal of Reading, Apr 1975, 18, 544. Goodlad,J.1. ,& Klein,M.F. Behind the Classroom Door. Worthington, OH: Charles A. Jones, 1970. Houston,W.R., & Howsam,R.B. (Eds.), Competency-Based Teacher Educa-tion: Progress, Problems, and Prospects. Chicago: SRA, 1972. James, S. CBI'E and trends and practices in the reading program. The Reading Teacher, Dec 1975, 29, 267-27l. Joyce ,B. , Yarger,S., & Howey,K. Preservice Teacher Education. Palo Alto: Center for Educ Research, Stanford Dniv., 1977. Lamberg, W.J. Required preparation in reading for secondary teachers. Reading Horizons, Surrrner 1978, 18, 305-307. Manning,J .C. & Moe,A. Recent innovations in educating teachers of reading. Modular Preparation for Teaching Reading, IRA,l974 Morrison,C. & Austin,M.C. The Torch Lighters Revisited, IRA, 1977. Wylie, R. E. Implementation of two experience approaches as college methods courses in teaching reading. In N. B. Smith (Ed.) Reading Methods and Teacher Improvement, Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association, 1971. 

Content Area Reading Preparation: Effectiveness of Four Methods of Instruction

Reading Horizons: A Journal of Literacy and 
Language Arts 
Volume 23 
Issue 2 January 1983 Article 7 
1-1-1983 
Content Area Reading Preparation: Effectiveness of Four Methods 
of Instruction 
Lois A. Bader 
Michigan State University 
Daniel L. Pearce 
Eastern Montana College 
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/reading_horizons 
 Part of the Education Commons 
Recommended Citation 
Bader, L. A., & Pearce, D. L. (1983). Content Area Reading Preparation: Effectiveness of Four Methods of 
Instruction. Reading Horizons: A Journal of Literacy and Language Arts, 23 (2). Retrieved from 
https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/reading_horizons/vol23/iss2/7 
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by 
the Special Education and Literacy Studies at 
ScholarWorks at WMU. It has been accepted for inclusion 
in Reading Horizons: A Journal of Literacy and Language 
Arts by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks at WMU. 
For more information, please contact wmu-
scholarworks@wmich.edu. 
CONTENT AREA READING 
PREPARATION: EFFECTIVENESS OF 
FOUR METHODS OF INSTRUCTION 
Lois A. Bader 
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY 
Daniel L. Pearce 
EASTERN MONTANA COLLEGE, BILLINGS, MONTANA 
The belief that secondary content teachers should have content 
reading as a course in their pre-service education is an idea 
that is gaining increasing acceptance. Surveys examining certifica-
tion requirements show that an increasing number of states mandate 
a course in reading for secondary certification (Bader, 1975; 
Lamberg, 1978). This trend is also reflected in increased numbers 
of teacher training institutions that are now offering a content 
area reading course for their undergraduate secondary education 
majors, as compared to ten years ago. 
This increased emphasis on content area reading as a course 
for undergraduate secondary education majors has occurred during 
a period of time that has also witnessed increased criticism of 
traditional teacher education programs (Goodlad and Klein, 1970; 
Silberman, 1970). Various alternatives have been put forward as 
ways to improve the quality of teacher education programs generally 
and of education courses in particular. 
One of the options put forward has been the recorrmendation 
to increase the field experiences of prospective teachers through 
increased teaching contact in conjunction with courses in method 
(Joyce, Yarger, and Howey, 1977; Ross, Raines, Cervetti, and Dellow 
1980). The integration of teaching contract with reading methods 
courses has also been recorrmended for pre-service teachers (Manning 
and Moe, 1974; Morrison and Austin, 1977; Wylie, 1971). 
Another alternative that has been put forward as a viable 
way to improve the quality of teacher training has been Competency 
Based Teacher Education (CBI'E) (Houston and Howsarn, 1972). CBI'E 
has been discussed, and in some instances recorrmended, as a means 
of offering realistic alternatives to traditional reading methods 
courses (Blair, 1979; Burnett and Schnell, 1975; James, 1975). 
Content area reading courses for undergraduate secondary 
education majors can be designed in different ways, but various 
programmatic questions exist concerning the design of these courses. 
Should content reading be offered as a traditional methods course? 
Should a field based course be offered instead of the traditional 
course? Would a CBI'E modular based course be better? Who should 
teach the course? When should the course be offered to secondary 
114-rh 
majors? Should a common pool of materials be used or should pro-
fessors be free to develop their own materials? These are but 
a few of the considerations that exist when one faces designing 
thp program of a content reading course for pre-service teachers. 
Quest ions such rlS LflP 8bove have led to tnis study. whi r.h 
examined the effectiveness of four different methods of content 
area reading preparation for undergraduate secondary education 
majors. Conflicting viewpoints regarding factors such as mode 
of instruction, location, and time prompted this study at a large 
midwestern university. The effectiveness of the four methods was 
determined through an evaluation of appropriate and correct use 
of content area reading strategies made during participants' term 
of student teaching. 
The first method of preparing pre-service secondary teachers 
in content area reading was designated as the On-Campus Method 
(I). Instruction in this method was given to a group of secondary 
teacher candidates before their student teaching assignments. 
Instruction in this method was given by a faculty member whose 
specialization included both secondary and content area reading. 
This method of instruction most closely approximated the tradi-
tional methods course. 
The second method was designated as Field Method A ( II) . 
Here, instruction was given to a group of secondary ed majors 
during their term of student teaching. Instruction was given by 
student teaching professors, who were given instruction in content 
area reading and furnished with materials for use in instruction 
by the professor who instructed the Method I group. 
The third method of instruction was designated Field Method 
B (III). This method was similar to Field Method A, but attempted 
to control for instructor expertise. The instruction in this method 
was given by a field consultant with a secondary reading background. 
This consultant had also previously been given extensive pre-
paration in content area reading by the Method I instructor. 
Materials for use in content area instruction in this third method 
of instruction were the same materials used in the other methods. 
The fourth method of instruction was part of a Competency 
Based Teacher Education program (CBTE) (IV). Instruction in content 
area reading was provided in CBTE materials prepared by the On-
Campus Method instructor, with the aid of two graduate students. 
Support for these materials was gi ven by CBTE teacher education 
faculty and field associates. This program extended over two terms 
with instruction occurring before and during student teaching. 
Method. The population included secondary education majors 
who were to be engaged in spring term student teaching, except 
those assigned to physical education, music, and art. Students 
were placed when possible in one of eight geographic areas of 
their choice, thus determining the method of instruction in which 
they participated. An examination of student grade-point averages 
showed the groups to be equal. Table 1 surnnarizes the number of 
students assigned to the various centers (methods) of instruction. 
rh-1l5 
Table 1 
Number of Student Teachers Assigned to Centers 
Stu. Instruc- Areas Number Number Propor-
Tchg tional Exclud. Eligible in tion 
Ctr Method fr Study Students Study 
A I 1,2 9 5 .56 
B II 1,2,3 14 7 .50 
C I 2 16 14 .88 
D II 1,2,3 13 12 .92 
E II 1,2,3 14 6 .43 
F II 1,2,3 5 4 .80 
G III 1,2,3 11 10 .91 
H IV 1,2,3 21 15 .71 
Total 103 73 .71 
Areas Exclud. = 1 Phys Educ, 2 Music, and 3 Art 
Objectives were selected prior to the experiment for evalua-
tion during the students I term of student teaching. These included 
the following categories: (1) estimation of readability level, 
(2) construction and interpretation of an open book reading test, 
(3) construction and use of a multi-structure reading guide, (4) 
construction and use of a rrargin guide, ( 5) demonstration of guided 
reading and vocabulary instruction, and (6) providing instruction 
for non-readers (those below the fourth-grade reading level). 
Instructors in all four methods of instruction approved the evalua-
tion instrument and were provided with copies of it prior to their 
instruction of the students. 
During the seventh through ninth weeks of the term of student 
teaching, two advanced graduate students in reading, who had served 
intensive supervised internships in evaluating the teaching of 
content area reading, visited the eight student teaching centers 
which participated in the study. They met with each student teacher 
to determine which of the six major competency areas had been 
mastered. Mastery was determined through classroom observation 
of guided reading lessons and instruction of non-readers and 
examination, as appropriate, of the plans and products developed 
by the student teachers. Each meeting took about fifteen to thirty 
minutes. More than one visit was made, as necessary. 
For the purpose of this study, 80% or more of the specific 
objectives listed under each of the six categories needed to be 
mastered for a student to receive credit for the ability. The 
dependent measure used to evaluate the comparative merits of the 
four methods of instruction was the percent of the six competencies 
mastered by each student. 
Findings. An independent evaluator used an ANOVA to compare 
116-rh 
the percent of skills rrastered for each method of instruction. 
The mean square error terms was 512.52 with 69j.F. The estimate 
of variance was 13, 367.07, J.F. = 3. The ratio of these variance 
estimatps yiplrlPd em F-value of 26.08 which was found to be sig-
ni fi r-;:mt At, p .001. It was concluded that the various methods 
of instruction were not equally eiTecti ve in producing competence 
in teaching content area reading on the secondary level, when 
such abilities are assessed in the student teaching environment. 
The Post-Hoc Schiffe procedure at the .01 level indicated 
that Method I was significantly superior to the rerraining methods, 
that Methods II and III were significantly superior to Method 
IV, and that Methods II and III did not differ in results. Table 
2 summarizes the findings of the study. 
Table 2 
Means and S.D. of Percent of Mastered 
Teaching Abilities for Each Method 
Method 
I. On Campus Method 
II. Field Method A 
III. Field Method B 
IV. C B T E Method 
Discussion 
N Mean 
26 64.77 
22 
10 
15 
28.23 
31.60 
2.27 
S. D. 
32.34 
18.75 
12.14 
5.98 
The results of this study indicate that content area reading 
was most effectively presented to undergraduate secondary education 
rrajors by the On-Campus Method. The quantitative superiority for 
the On-Campus Method was also supported by an examination of the 
demonstrated levels of rrastery exhibited by the student teachers 
in each of the four methods of instruction. Six categories of 
content area reading had been evaluated for this study. More of 
the student teachers in the On-Campus Method exhibited rrastery 
of at least five of the six categories evaluated than in any of 
the other methods. Of the twenty-six teachers who participated 
in the On-Campus Method, ten were credited with rrastery of five 
of the six content reading categories. None of the student teachers 
in any of the other three methods exhibited rrastery in five of 
the six categories in their student teaching. Table 3 presents 
the number of student teachers in each method of instruction and 
their records of rrastery in each category. 
Table 3 
Students Showing 80% Mastery in Each Category 
Method Number Obj. Obj. Obj. Obj. Obj. Obj. 
Used Students (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 
26 18 20 17 16 18 12 
II 22 18 3 4 4 4 3 
III 10 10 1 0 0 6 2 
IV 14 0 0 0 2 0 0 
rh-1l7 
While for the purposes of this study, demonstrated ma.stery 
for the categories assessed was defined as successful completion 
of 80% of the objecti ves listed under each category, the reports 
of the two on-sight evaluators concurred with the quantitative 
findings of this study. Based on their on-sight evaluations and 
on their discussions with the student teachers, both evaluators 
reported that the ma.jority of those student teachers prepared 
by the On-Campus Method exhibited an understanding of content 
reading. Even where the undergraduates had failed to receive credit 
for demonstrating ma.stery of a category, these student teachers, 
for the most part, seemed receptive toward content reading strat-
egies and felt that the instruction they received was valuable. 
The evaluators' reports on those student teachers that par-
ticipated in Field Method A and Field Method B, while generally 
positive, also relayed some concerns. Many of the student teachers 
appeared to understand the worth of content reading strategies, 
however, they were uncertain in how to implement the strategies. 
An opinion frequently expressed by the student teachers in the 
two field methods was that they were too pressed with the demands 
of classroom management and the assorted problems associated with 
student teaching to acquire a full understanding of the strategies 
and implement those strategies in their instruction. Many of these 
student teachers expressed the thought that their content reading 
instruction would have been more valuable if it had not been con-
current with student teaching. 
The student teachers in the CBTE program had the least favor-
able attitude toward content area reading, the evaluators reported. 
Not only had the CBTE student teachers failed to demonstrate 
ma.stery in implementing the six categories of content reading 
into their instruction, the conceptual understanding of content 
reading that they exhibited was less than that of the other student 
teachers. The CBTE teachers showed more confusion over implementing 
the strategies than the other teachers. Perhaps most importantly, 
the CBTE student teachers' showed a less favorable attitude than 
the others. One ma.y hypothesize that these student teachers, while 
exposed to the specifics of content reading strategies, had not 
been adequately exposed to the rationale and philosophy of content 
area reading. Consequently, the importance they placed on integrat-
ing content reading strategies into their instruction was minima.l. 
The results, limited to the conditions of the study, indicate 
that content area reading needs to be taught by faculty who are 
specialists in the field, that instruction should not be initiated 
at a time when students are pressed with the dema.nds of classroom 
management, ma.stery of highly specific subject ma.tter, and other 
elements present in the student teaching experience. Faculty 
teaching content reading courses need to have preparation in both 
academic and classroom teaching experience in which they have 
been employed-content area reading as part of instruction. In 
other words, this is an academic specialization that should not 
be "trivialized" into isolated skills or competencies that "anyone 
can teach." Students of education need to understand the theoret-
ical base of the procedures they are using; they need to understand 
how the language processes apply to the subject area of their 
118-rh 
specializations, and they need to create their own applications 
for the students they teach. On the affective level, faculty who 
are experienced and confident project an aura of the importance, 
desirability, usefulness, and practicability of content area 
reading. 
The four methods of instruction examined in this 
study do not exhaust the possible variation for content reading 
instruction. Another variation is sug,gested on the basis of the 
authors' experience. The authors have provided content area reading 
instruction before, during, and after student teaching. Student 
enthusiasm for the course was highest after student teaching. 
Although this time placement was not included in this study for 
obvious reasons, it is sug,gested as another option. Possibly, 
increased field experiences prior to content area reading instruc-
tion would help to sensitize undergraduates to the importance 
of content reading. Another variation of this option is that stu-
dent teaching need not be considered as the final experience in 
the preparation of a teacher. Faculty in other institutions may 
wish to conduct further action research to determine which method 
of instruction appears to be the most desirable in their particular 
setting. This study helped to resolve some important questions 
for those holding various viewpoints. 
REFERENCES 
fuder, L. A. Certification requirements in reading: A trend. 
Journal of Reading, Oct. 1975, 17, 20-24. 
Blair, C. W. Establishing a competency field-based program of 
reading education: Essential elements of administrative plan-
ning. Reading World, May 1979, 18, 354-361. 
Burnett, R., & Schnell, T. CBI'E and secondary reading: A phil-
osophy and rationale. Journal of Reading, Apr 1975, 18, 544. 
Goodlad,J.1. ,& Klein,M.F. Behind the Classroom Door. Worthington, 
OH: Charles A. Jones, 1970. 
Houston,W.R., & Howsam,R.B. (Eds.), Competency-Based Teacher Educa-
tion: Progress, Problems, and Prospects. Chicago: SRA, 1972. 
James, S. CBI'E and trends and practices in the reading program. 
The Reading Teacher, Dec 1975, 29, 267-27l. 
Joyce ,B. , Yarger,S., & Howey,K. Preservice Teacher Education. 
Palo Alto: Center for Educ Research, Stanford Dniv., 1977. 
Lamberg, W.J. Required preparation in reading for secondary 
teachers. Reading Horizons, Surrrner 1978, 18, 305-307. 
Manning,J .C. & Moe,A. Recent innovations in educating teachers 
of reading. Modular Preparation for Teaching Reading, IRA,l974 
Morrison,C. & Austin,M.C. The Torch Lighters Revisited, IRA, 1977. 
Wylie, R. E. Implementation of two experience approaches as college 
methods courses in teaching reading. In N. B. Smith (Ed.) 
Reading Methods and Teacher Improvement, Newark, Delaware: 
International Reading Association, 1971. 


https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1976&amp;context=reading_horizons

Content Area Reading Preparation: Effectiveness of Four Methods of Instruction

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

ScholarWorks at WMU

ScholarWorks at WMU

ScholarWorks at WMU