Reading with Others in Mind: What Are the Content Knowledge Demands for Teaching the Reading of Literature?

Abstract

Is there a way of reading literature that is specialized for teaching? Research into the teaching of mathematics has identified a specialized form of content knowledge (SCK, Ball, Thames, & Phelps, 2008) that is significantly linked to student learning (Hill, Ball, & Rowan, 2005). Despite the centrality of literature to the teaching of secondary English Language Arts (ELA), study of specialized knowledge for the teaching of literature remains an understudied area. If it does exist, it is likely also important for student learning. This study investigates the literary reading practices of pre-service secondary ELA teachers during a period when the demands upon their reading change: they must read with other people in mind and learn to respond. What kinds of reading practices can be observed when they are developing from English majors into English teachers? In this study, seven secondary ELA teacher candidates read a short, unfamiliar text before, during, and after student teaching. Anticipating student engagement with that text, they are asked, “What in this text seems worth teaching?” Participants narrated their thinking while reading and were interviewed afterwards. During the student teaching semester, participants’ performances of reading literature become increasingly complex. This study documents an increase in consideration of students and text that differs from disciplinary ways of reading literature (Rainey, 2016; Goldman et al., 2016) and draws upon increasingly complex linguistic resources (Halliday & Hassan, 1985). I term this emergent complexity the practices of “reading with others in mind” (ROM). The practices of ROM can be observed in three categories: (1) working to anticipate student engagement with text, (2) offering meta-commentary on reading, and (3) asking questions/talking about the text as if speaking with, to, or as students. Three participants with more experience teaching demonstrated ROM practices in Task 1; all seven did so by the end of the semester. The practices of ROM increase over time for all participants, and recede when participants perceive the literary text to be more difficult. Because ROM emerges during the student teaching period and has particular linguistic features, it presents an important opportunity for teacher educators. They can note the presence or absence of ROM to (1) identify and remedy gaps in content knowledge, (2) challenge potential deficit conceptions of student literacies, and (3) cultivate reading practices that may be important for teaching literature. This study reinforces prior findings of a more other-oriented way of reading literature that can develop during ELA teacher education programs (Grossman, 1990). Observation of ROM during this period raises questions about how teachers’ content knowledge may develop during this period, and how language might function as a tool to help develop teaching practices. This study contributes a preliminary step towards identifying aspects of knowledge for teaching literature that may matter for student learning. Further research of ROM in practice is needed, to explore whether ROM and “reading for teaching” (Alston & Barker, 2014) may be components of the “more” and “different” specialized content knowledge for teaching literature (Ball, Thames, & Phelps, 2008).