Vaughn, M., & Parsons, S. A. (2013). Adaptive teachers as innovators: Instructional adaptations opening spaces for enhanced literacy learning. Language Arts, 91, 81-93.

page

81

Language Arts, Volume 91 Number 2, November 2013

Margaret Vaughn and Seth A. Parsons

Adaptive Teachers as Innovators: Instructional Adaptations Opening

Spaces for Enhanced Literacy Learning

teaching (Duffy et al., 2008; Parsons, 2012). For the purpose of our research, we defined an adaptation as a teacher action that was a response to an unan-ticipated student contribution, a diversion from the lesson plan, or a public statement of change.

Many researchers describe effective literacy teachers as adaptive (e.g., Duffy, 2005; Gambrell, Malloy, & Mazzoni, 2011; Snow, Griffin, & Burns, 2005; Taylor, Raphael, & Au, 2011). We use our ongoing study of adaptive teaching (Duffy et al., 2008; Parsons, 2012; Parsons, Davis, Scales, Wil-liams, & Kear, 2010; Parsons, Williams, Burrow-bridge, & Mauk, 2011) to explore the innovative nature of literacy instruction. In this article, we specifically focus on adaptive teaching as innova-tion, where teachers “mix and match from the avail-able approaches, selecting the best one of each and combining them in creative and stimulating ways in their classrooms” (Patterson, 2000, p. 267).

Much like collage artists, adaptive teachers “[assemble] . . . through blending with existing practices . . . to produce meaningful changes to their classroom practices” (Honan, 2004, p. 101). Adap-tive teachers, then, are innovative in their approach, crafting instruction in the moment to meet the spe-cific needs of their students. Innovation requires teachers to use their knowledge of students, context, pedagogy, and self to cultivate student understand-ing and to adapt their instruction to fit the unique needs of the situation. Sawyer (2004) suggested that teachers must be adaptive because the course of a lesson cannot be wholly preplanned. That is, because students’ reactions, questions, understand-ings, and misunderstandings cannot be entirely pre-dicted, learning experiences should be co-created by teachers and students.

During an integrated literacy and science unit, Ms. Jaye’s third- grade class, com-posed mainly of rural students, worked

in small groups dissecting steelhead trout and then recorded their findings in their science journals. Although the original objective of the lesson was to create a diagram of the trout, an impromptu dis-cussion developed as the students talked in their groups about the trout and their habitat. Ms. Jaye listened to the students’ talk and asked reflec-tive questions about their recent visit to a local dam. She deviated from her preplanned lesson by asking her students to come up with an informed opinion about the impact of the dam on the trout population. She invited students to take a stand on whether the dam aids or harms the trout. In doing so, a physical space was opened as students busily moved around, standing on either side of the class-room to demonstrate their position. Students then defended their positions based upon their learning throughout the unit. Interestingly, this instructional move opened another space: a collaborative space in which Ms. Jaye and her students co- constructed learning outcomes.

In this example, Ms. Jaye (all names are pseud-onyms) made an in- the- moment adaptation to meet the individual needs and interests of her students. Adaptations like this one are distinct moments in classroom instruction that require innovation as teachers respond to and build upon students’ inqui-ries, ideas, and interests. Other researchers have theorized about these instructional moves, referring to them as teachable moments (Glasswell & Parr, 2009), responsive teaching (Boyd, 2012), improvi-sation (Sawyer, 2004), and bricolage (Reilly, 2009). Our research team terms these moves as adaptive

Adaptive Teachers as InnovatorsNov_2013_LA.indd 81 10/7/13 12:02 PM

page

84

Margaret Vaughn and Seth A. Parsons | Adaptive Teachers as Innovators


ence content and structured her instruction around the Writing Workshop framework (modified from Calkins, 1994) where students researched relevant information and wrote research pieces based on their interests, understandings, and knowledge of the content.

The researchers, one in each setting, used the same data collection and analysis procedures to document how and why these teachers adapted their instruction. Seth conducted 26 observations in Ms. Stein’s classroom, and Margaret conducted 20 observations in Ms. Jaye’s classroom. Observa-tions occurred during 1–2 hour integrated language arts times during the 2010–2011 (Ms. Stein) and 2011–2012 (Ms. Jaye) academic school years. Prior to the observations, researchers obtained the teach-ers’ lesson plans in order to understand the planned objectives, activities, and student outcomes for each lesson.

During observations, the researchers recorded field notes of the teachers’ instruction, document-ing adaptations—when the teacher deviated from the lesson plan, responded to what appeared to be an unanticipated student response, or made a pub-lic statement of change (e.g., “OK, class, we’re going to switch things up”). Using the lesson plan and this definition, researchers identified adapta-tions through observation. After each observation, researchers interviewed the teachers to a) confirm that adaptations were, indeed, spontaneous changes to instruction, and b) document teachers’ reflec-tions on their adaptation (i.e., with regard to each verified adaptation, we asked, “Why did you make that change?”). Interviews were audiorecorded and transcribed for analysis.

Initially, researchers separately analyzed the data they collected. They displayed adaptations and their corresponding reflections on a T- chart: one column included adaptations and the other column displayed the teacher’s reflection on the adapta-tion. Each researcher repeatedly read through their reduced data set, recording notes and memos on the chart to document how and why the teacher adapted instruction (Miles & Huberman, 1994). The researchers then switched reduced data sets (i.e., the charts), without the notes and memos, and

school, 83% of the student body qualified for free or reduced lunch prices, and 74% were learning Eng-lish as an additional language. Her class included 22 students, and the student demographics are similar to that of the school: one European Ameri-can student, two African American students, three Asian American students, and 16 Hispanic Ameri-can students. Nineteen students in the class (86%) were eligible for free or reduced lunch prices.

Ms. Jaye, a European American female in her mid- 30s, taught third grade in a public charter school in the Pacific Northwest. Her elementary

school hosted 126 stu-dents; 36% received free or reduced lunch prices. At the time of the study, Ms. Jaye was a third- year teacher who had taught first grade during her first year and third grade in her second and third years. Her class of 18 included

one African American student, two Asian Ameri-can students, and 15 European American students. Of the students in her class, 12% were eligible for reduced- priced lunch.

These teachers developed units of study reflec-tive of their states’ standards, their districts’ scope and sequence recommendations, topics of inter-est to students (e.g., school bullying and personal conflict), and local issues pertinent to the region in which the school is located (e.g., government and steelhead trout). Within these guidelines, these teachers had autonomy in designing their instruc-tion. Ms. Stein integrated literacy and social stud-ies. Her school district provided PowerPoint pre-sentations that covered the essential information from the district’s scope and sequence guidelines (i.e., the content that is purportedly tested on the state’s standardized assessment of social studies material). Ms. Stein frequently used these Power-Point presentations to introduce content. In addition to covering this “essential” content, she designed projects that allowed students to collaborate with peers, make choices, and engage in authentic aca-demic work. Ms. Jaye integrated literacy and sci-

Each researcher repeatedly read

through their reduced data set,

recording notes and memos

on the chart to document how

and why the teacher adapted

instruction.

Nov_2013_LA.indd 84 10/7/13 12:02 PM

page

85



people?” The students discussed how governments protect, and fail to protect, individuals in different neighborhoods, cities, and countries. For exam-ple, a student explained that, in his home country, people entered his home to rob his family. Other students expressed that, in their home countries, there were no police around (and if there were, they accepted bribes or looked the other way), so people felt the need to protect themselves, which created chaos. Innovating her instruction based upon students’ struggles and using her knowledge of effective pedagogy, Ms. Stein adapted her instruction by asking her students to think about their personal experiences and to examine critically the way governments function.

In this adaptation, Ms. Stein opened a space where students thought beyond the primary source and viewed the topic of government from a personal perspective. She reflected on her decision- making:

[I was] thinking about what are some ways that you teach children to comprehend more complicated stuff? So the whole time I was thinking, “Life experiences. What does it look like now?” . . . I mean, no amount of planning had me figuring out how to authentically get them to understand John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government. I just didn’t know how we were going to get there.

Ms. Stein’s reflection demonstrates the adaptive thinking that teachers embrace in the midst of teaching. Furthermore, she relied on her pedagogi-cal content knowledge as she strove to support her students: “The whole time I was thinking, ‘Life experiences. . . .’” Using a strong understanding of effective instruction and extensive knowledge of her students and their backgrounds, she helped them approach complex and important ideas from difficult text.

This example raises the issue of adaptive teach-ing with students whose life experiences differ from those of their teachers. Ms. Stein adapted by asking

repeated the process. Researchers then compared the separate analyses, discussing and reconciling differences.

Instructional Adaptations across Two Cases The teachers in this study adapted their instruction, on average, one to three times per observation. In this section, we take a close look at the adaptations these teachers made to contextualize the innovative nature of adaptive teaching.

Ms. Stein

Ms. Stein’s sixth- grade class is in an elementary school outside a major urban city in the Mid- Atlantic region. During this school year, she explic-itly integrated literacy instruction into her social studies block. State standards for sixth- grade social studies focus on United States history from the early colonies to the Civil War. Ms. Stein organized social studies instruction around projects. Class typically began with 15–20 minutes of direct instruction of social studies content, often using the district’s PowerPoint presentations. Then, for the remain-ing 30–60 minutes, students worked on a project or activity that was designed by the teacher. During this time, Ms. Stein would conference with students about their work or pull individuals or small groups for instruction (often guided reading groups engag-ing in books about social studies content).

As the class studied the American Revolution, a lesson began with the students watching a video about the Declaration of Independence. Follow-ing the video, students wrote down the three most important words from the video. Then students dis-cussed the words they had selected. Next, students worked in groups to read a passage from the pri-mary source, Two Treatises of Government by John Locke. Their task was to figure out the meaning of the archaically worded phrases.

Ms. Stein worked with a group that was strug-gling to grasp the concepts presented in the docu-ment. She adapted her instruction by asking, “Can you think of an example when governments don’t protect people? It could be from today. . . . What do we have in our government that helps protect

Innovating her instruction based

upon students’ struggles and

using her knowledge of effective

pedagogy, Ms. Stein adapted

her instruction by asking her

students to think about their

personal experiences and to

examine critically the way

governments function.

Nov_2013_LA.indd 85 10/7/13 12:02 PM

page

88



the trout’s reproductive system and see if they could find answers to these important questions about the trout and sterilization. She suggested that students work in small groups to research if they had female trout for their dissection and, if so, to think critically about whether the females were sterile. Next, Ms. Jaye asked students to discuss across small groups any differences and similarities they noted between male and female trout. Consequently, the read- aloud was put aside, and students eagerly read their notes to determine whether the trout in the hatchery were sterile. In this way, she reminded her students that they were becoming “experts,” using their own findings and research to support their claims. Ms. Jaye’s innovative response to students’ questions demonstrated the co- construction of classroom learning as the class studied the impact of the steel-head trout on local rivers and their relationship to the local hatchery. Additionally, she asked targeted questions in order to elaborate on students’ initial understandings and questions:

Can the female [trout] lay eggs once they are in the hatchery, or are they sterile? At the hatchery, what hap-pens to the female if they do harvest eggs? What do they do with the 4,000 to 6,000 eggs that they harvest? Now, let’s also look at this and its impact on the overall popula-tion at the hatchery. Talk with your partners and discuss.

After the lesson, Ms. Jaye provided the following reflection on this adaptation:

Some people think that when you let students partici-pate in what you are doing or you say, “Hey, I don’t know” that it is a weakness when teaching. But I don’t. I think that doing that opens [the learning] up. . . . These steelhead are local and the dams and hatchery are so controversial—they need to build on their knowledge and base it in facts [and] back it up with their own facts.

Consider another example during this inte-grated unit. In this lesson, students made models of trout with clay. As they worked, Ms. Jaye inter-rupted the lesson, responding to one group’s discus-sion about breaching the dam. She asked students to take a position on whether or not the local dam should be breached. She restated one student’s comment, “If we breached, it would change the water and it could be ‘worse off for nature.’ What kind of impact would that have on people and the reservoirs, the farming, if we breached the dams?”

year, Ms. Jaye’s class focused on steelhead trout. This particular science topic was selected given local controversies regarding the trout. Locally, there was debate over whether or not to restore the trout’s natural habitat to sustainable population lev-els (i.e., harvesting and breeding the trout; or leav-ing the trout alone to breed on their own, naturally growing the population). Students often traveled to the nearby river to fish trout, and many students had personal experiences with trout or had family who worked in the hatchery or at the local dam where the trout were harvested and bred.

Throughout the unit on steelhead trout, Ms. Jaye frequently modified her instruction to meet her students’ needs and to scaffold their understanding. For example, in preparation for a visit to a local hatchery, Ms. Jaye read aloud an informational bro-chure produced by the hatchery. The primary pur-pose of this lesson, as indicated in her post- lesson interview, was for students to “just build back-ground knowledge about the hatchery in order to get ready for the trip.” However, during the read-

aloud, students asked a series of questions about the trout and provided personal accounts of their experiences with trout, the local dam, and the hatch-ery. Ms. Jaye stopped her read- aloud and asked stu-dents to share what they

were thinking. One student asked the class whether the trout in the hatchery were sterile. Another stu-dent said, “The rainbow trout used to be sterilized but now they don’t do it.” Another student shared his experience of fishing the trout with his grand-father and how they would have to put some trout back in the water. And another student said, “Why do we have hatcheries?” Ms. Jaye wrote these ques-tions on the board and said to her students, “I don’t know. Let’s find out.”

During this lesson, Ms. Jaye capitalized on her students’ interests, questions, and understandings to co- create the instructional situation. She asked her students to take out their science notebooks and review their notes about the dissection to examine

During this lesson, Ms. Jaye

capitalized on her students’

interests, questions, and

understandings to co- create the

instructional situation.

Nov_2013_LA.indd 88 10/7/13 12:02 PM

page

89



knowledge of content to take a personal stance on important local environmental issues.

Adaptive teachers like Ms. Stein and Ms. Jaye are able to orchestrate integrated literacy opportuni-ties that honor students’ interests, voices, and ques-tions, thereby opening spaces within the curriculum where students are able to easily enter and be heard. For example, during class-room instruction, Ms. Jaye said to her students, “You are a welcoming part-ner—welcoming ideas and offering ideas. Think about your actions and responsibilities—experts don’t just give opinions; they research and give facts—they inform oth-ers.” Such statements underscore how this teacher focused on providing space within the curriculum where her students were active co- constructors of the curriculum.

Similarly, in Ms. Stein’s classroom, students completed an activity about waterways and travel in the “New World.” She planned a whole- class activ-ity where, together, the class defined different types of waterways. However, Ms. Stein adapted her instruction on the fly to have students complete the activity in groups. When asked why she made this adaptation, she explained:

I didn’t want the whole lesson to be with me talking and them listening; I wanted them to interact, so I changed it for that reason. . . . I like it better when they create definitions from their own language because I think that they remember it better, and then if they like ideas from other students, they can pick them up, but it’s kind of their own choice to pick them up. . . . I thought that they would be more engaged. They looked a little bit disengaged, and I also know that when there are good opportunities for them to discuss, I should use them, and I thought that it was a good opportunity for them to have a discussion.

In this example, Ms. Stein used her observations of students’ engagement and her knowledge of effec-tive pedagogy to open up a space where students could discuss the content they were studying.

Moreover, these teachers often responded to their students’ needs and inquiries by building upon

Through this instructional move, Ms. Jaye high-lighted the group’s topic during their discussion and used their thinking and questions to initiate an in- depth class discussion about the impact of breach-ing the dams on trout and the local community. Students co- constructed knowledge as she invited students to share their thinking and to support their position with research facts and data from their col-lective studies on the steelhead trout.

When asked after the lesson why she adapted her lesson, Ms. Jaye said,

I heard students talking about breaching and thought this was a good way for everyone to take a piece of what we are learning and apply it. I thought, “They have enough information now they are starting to see the pieces.”

Ms. Jaye invited students to think critically—to take a position based on their knowledge of breaching and of trout. For instance, in the lesson she stated, “If we breached the dams we wouldn’t be able to ship things—it would be gone. What do you think?”

In these examples, Ms. Jaye was innovative, adapting her instruction to build on students’ que-ries and discussions. She encouraged her students to take on the role of experts by asking them to make an informed opinion based on their understandings and research learned throughout the unit. In doing so, she adapted her instruction to build upon stu-dents’ questions, understandings, and opinions.

discussionWhen teachers adapt their instruction, they share the curriculum with their students and, in doing so, “open up” spaces for learning. Ms. Stein and Ms. Jaye responded to curricula in ways that built upon their students’ interests and empowered them to become “experts” about the subject matter and to take on identities as scientists, historians, etc., thereby influencing the course of the lesson. For example, in Ms. Stein’s classroom, students’ inter-ests and personal histories were brought into the cur-riculum, allowing students to relate to content and to take on the role of critical thinkers. She adapted her instruction by inviting her students to take a personal stance on history. Similarly, when Ms. Jaye adapted her instruction, she invited her students to use their

When teachers adapt their

instruction, they share the

curriculum with their students

and, in doing so, “open up”

spaces for learning.

Nov_2013_LA.indd 89 10/7/13 12:02 PM

page

91



applied by effective educators and supported teach-ers in using their professional expertise to thought-fully design and adapt their instruction.

referencesAllington, R. L. (2002). What I’ve learned about effective

reading instruction from a decade of studying exemplary elementary classroom teachers. Phi Delta Kappan, 83, 740–747.

Allington, R. L., & Johnston, P. (2002). Reading to learn: Lessons from exemplary fourth- grade classrooms. New York, NY: Guilford.

Boyd, M. P. (2012). Planning and realigning a lesson in response to student contributions: Intentions and decision making. Elementary School Journal, 113, 25–51. doi:10.1086/665817

Calkins, L. M. (1994). The art of teaching writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Campano, G. (2007). Immigrant students and literacy: Reading, writing, and remembering. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Chase, M. (2012). Revision process and practice: A kindergarten experience. Language Arts, 89, 166–178.

Coburn, C. E., Pearson, P. D., & Woulfin, S. (2011). Reading policy in the era of accountability. In M. L. Kamil, P. D. Pearson, E. B. Moje, & P. P. Afflerbach (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. IV, pp. 561–593). New York, NY: Routledge.

Corno, L. (2008). On teaching adaptively. Educational Psychologist, 43(3), 161–173. doi:10.1080/ 00461520802178466

Crawford, V. M., Schlager, M., Penuel, W. R., & Toyama, Y. (2008). Supporting the art of teaching in a data- rich, high- performance learning environment. In E. B. Mandinach & M. Honey (Eds.), Linking data and learning (pp. 109–129). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Darling- Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (Eds.). (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass.

Department of Education. (2009). Race to the top program executive summary. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Touchstone.

Dooley, C. M., & Assaf, L. C. (2009). Contexts matter: Two teachers’ language arts instruction in this high- stakes era. Journal of Literacy Research, 41, 354–391. doi:10.1080/10862960903133743

and assessments, risks oversimplifying that intri-cate and dynamic responsive instruction required in today’s classrooms. Indeed, effective teachers, across contexts, innovate in their daily instruction, allowing students to co- create learning experiences in ways that support them in learning and thinking critically about content.

The classroom examples in this article illus-trate how Ms. Stein and Ms. Jaye adapted their literacy instruction to create empowering learning experiences. Ms. Stein often adapted her instruc-tion to encourage her students, who were primar-ily immigrants and English language learners, to be critical thinkers. Ms. Jaye positioned her students as co- creators of the curriculum, often capitalizing on students’ inquiries. In both examples, the teachers provided students with relational and collaborative learning opportunities, highlighting the responsive nature of teaching at its core.

Nonetheless, these examples cause us to reflect on national reform efforts that continue to restrict teachers’ autonomy over their instructional deci-sions and on renewed measures to reward teachers for improved scores on standardized assessments (e.g., Race to the Top, Department of Education, 2009). While the teachers featured in this article were not working in overly restrictive environ-ments, such autonomy is not universal. Indeed, many studies point to the movement toward more restrictive teaching environments (Dooley & Assaf, 2009; Pearson, 2007; Valencia, Place, Martin, & Grossman, 2006).

In today’s post- NCLB era, adaptive teachers continue to explore responsive spaces for learn-ing despite continued efforts to restrict teacher autonomy (Pearson, 2007). As we demonstrate in this article, we see the everyday instructional adaptations enacted by effective teachers as inno-vative—the sort of thoughtful reflection and action where teachers apply knowledge flexibly and skill-fully in order to make immediate decisions to scaf-fold student learning and understanding. Current educational reform efforts would be enhanced, we believe, if policymakers and administrators recog-nized the potential of in- the- moment innovations

Nov_2013_LA.indd 91 10/7/13 12:02 PM

page

92



Early Childhood Education Journal, 37, 303–309. doi:10.1007/s10643- 009- 0354- 8

Lobron, A., & Selman, R. (2007). The interdependence of social awareness and literacy instruction. The Reading Teacher, 60, 528–537.

Maloch, B. (2002). Scaffolding student talk: One teacher’s role in literature discussion groups. Reading Research Quarterly, 37, 94–112. doi:10.1598/RRQ.37.1.4

Mascarenhas, A., Parsons, S. A., & Burrowbridge, S. C. (2010). Preparing teachers for high- needs schools: A focus on thoughtfully adaptive teaching. Bank Street Occasional Papers, 25, 28–43.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Parsons, S. A. (2010). Adaptive teaching: A case study of one third- grade teacher’s literacy instruction. In S. Szabo, T. Morrison, L. Martin, M. Boggs, & L. Raine (Eds.), Building literacy communities: Association of Literacy Educators and Researchers yearbook (Vol. 32, pp. 135–147). Commerce, TX: ALER.

Parsons, S. A. (2012). Adaptive teaching in literacy instruction: Case studies of two teachers. Journal of Literacy Research, 44, 149–170. doi:10.1177/1086296X12440261

Parsons, S. A., Davis, S. G., Scales, R. Q., Williams, J. B., & Kear, K. (2010). How and why teachers adapt their literacy instruction. In S. Szabo, M. B. Sampson, M. Foote, & F. Falk- Ross (Eds.), Mentoring literacy professionals: Continuing the spirit of CRA/ALER after 50 years (Vol. 31, pp. 221–236). Commerce, TX: Association of Literacy Educators and Researchers.

Parsons, S. A., Dodman, S. L., & Burrowbridge, S. C. (2013). Broadening the view of differentiated instruction. Phi Delta Kappan, 95(1), 38–42.

Parsons, S. A., & Ward, A. E. (2011). The case for authentic tasks in content literacy. The Reading Teacher, 64, 462–465. doi:10.1598/RT.64.6.12

Parsons, S. A., Williams, J. B., Burrowbridge, S. C., & Mauk, G. (2011). The case for adaptability as an aspect of reading teacher effectiveness. Voices from the Middle, 19, 19–23.

Patterson, A. (2000). Beliefs about English in Australia. In R. Peel, A. Patterson, & J. Gerlach (Eds.), Questions of English: Ethics, aesthetics, rhetoric, and the formation of the subject in England, Australia, and the United States (pp. 254–282). London, UK: Routledge.

Pearson, P. D. (2007). An endangered species act for literacy education. Journal of Literacy Research, 39, 145–162. doi: 10.1080/10862960701331878

Duffy, G. G. (2005). Developing metacognitive teachers: Visioning and the expert’s changing role in teacher education and professional development. In S. Israel, C. Block, K. Bauserman, & K. Kinnucan- Welsch (Eds.), Metacognition in literacy learning: Theory, assessment, instruction, and professional development (pp. 299–314). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Duffy, G. G., Miller, S. D., Kear, K., Parsons, S. A., Davis, S., & Williams, B. (2008). Teachers’ instructional adaptations during literacy instruction. In Y. Kim, V. Risko, D. L. Compton, D. K. Dickinson, M. K., Hundley, R. T. Jimenez, K. M. Leander, & D. W. Rowe (Eds.), 57th Yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 160–171). Oak Creek, WI: NRC.

Enciso, P., & Ryan, C. (2011). Sociocultural theory: Expanding the aims and practices of language arts education. In D. Lapp & D. Fisher (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (4th ed., pp. 132–137). New York, NY: Routledge.

Fairbanks, C., Duffy, G., Faircloth, B., Ye, H., Levin, B., Rohr, J., & Stein, C. (2010). Beyond knowledge: Exploring why some teachers are more thoughtfully adaptive than others. Journal of Teacher Education, 61, 161–171.

Frey, N., & Fisher, D. (2010). Identifying instructional moves during guided instruction. The Reading Teacher, 64, 84–95. doi:10.1598/RT.64.2.1

Gambrell, L. B., Malloy, J. A., & Mazzoni, S. A. (2011). Evidence- based best practices for comprehensive literacy instruction. In L. M. Morrow & L. B. Gambrell (Eds.), Best practices in literacy instruction (4th ed., pp. 11–36). New York, NY: Guilford.

Gatto, L. (2013). Lunch is gross: Gaining access to powerful literacies. Language Arts, 90, 241–251.

Ghiso, M. P. (2011). “Writing that matters”: Collaborative inquiry and authoring practices in a first- grade class. Language Arts, 88, 346–355.

Glasswell, K., & Parr, J. M. (2009). Teachable moments: Linking assessment and teaching in talk around writing. Language Arts, 86, 352–361.

Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and motivation in reading. In M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. III, pp. 403–422). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Honan, E. (2004). Teachers as bricoleurs: Producing plausible readings of curriculum documents. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 3(2), 99–112.

Kramer, T. J., Caldarella, P., Christensen, L., & Shatzer, R. H. (2010). Social and emotional learning in the kindergarten classroom: Evaluation of the curriculum.

Nov_2013_LA.indd 92 10/7/13 12:02 PM

page

93



Turner, J. (2006). “I want to meet my students where they are!”: Preservice teachers’ visions of culturally responsive literacy instruction. In J. V. Hoffman, D. L. Shallert, C. M. Fairbanks, J. Worthy, & B. Maloch (Eds.), 55th yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 309–323). Oak Creek, WI: NRC.

Valencia, S. W., Place, N. A., Martin, S. D., & Grossman, P. L. (2006). Curriculum materials for elementary reading: Shackles and scaffolds for four beginning teachers. Elementary School Journal, 97, 93–120.

Vaughn, M., & Faircloth, B. (2011). Understanding teacher visioning and agency during literacy instruction. In P. Dunston, L. Gambrell, K. Headley, S. Fullerton, P. Stecker, V. Gillis, & C. C. Bates (Eds.), 60th yearbook of the Literacy Research Association (pp. 156–164). Oak Creek, WI: LRA.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John- Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Watts- Taffe, S., Laster, B. P., Broach, L., Marinak, B., Connor, C. M. D., & Walker- Dalhouse, D. (2012). Differentiated instruction: Making informed teacher decisions. The Reading Teacher, 66, 303–314. doi:10.1002/TRTR.01125

Williams, T. L., & Baumann, J. F. (2008). Contemporary research on effective elementary literacy teachers. In Y. Kim, V. Risko, D. Compton, D. Dickinson, M. Hundley, R. Jimenez, K. Leander, & D. Rowe (Eds.), 57th Yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 357–372). Oak Creek, WI: National Reading Conference.

Zumwalt, K., & Craig, E. (2008). Who is teaching? Does it matter? In M. Cochran- Smith, S. Feiman- Nemser, D. J. McIntyre, & K. E. Demers (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring questions in changing contexts (3rd ed., pp. 404–423). New York, NY: Routledge.

Peterson, D. S. (2013). Balanced, differentiated teaching: Explicit instruction, scaffolded support, and active student responding. In B. M. Taylor & N. K. Duke (Eds.), Handbook of effective literacy instruction (pp. 88–105). New York, NY: Guilford.

Pressley, M., Allington, R., Wharton- McDonald, R., Block, C., & Morrow, L. (2001). Learning to read: Lessons from exemplary first- grade classrooms. New York, NY: Guilford.

Reilly, M. A. (2009). Opening spaces of possibility: The teacher as bricoleur. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 52, 376–384.

Rojas- Drummond, S., Mazón, N., Littleton, K., & Vélez, M. (2012). Developing reading comprehension through collaborative learning. Journal of Research in Reading,(12), 1–21.

Santori, D. (2011). “Search for the answers” or “Talk about the story”?: School- based literacy participation structures. Language Arts, 88, 198–207.

Sawyer, R. (2004). Creative teaching: Collaborative improvisation. Educational Researcher, 33(2), 12–20. doi:10.3102/0013189X033002012

Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass.

Shulman, L. S., & Shulman, J. (2004). How and what teachers learn: A shifting perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36, 257–271. doi:10.1080/0022027032000148298

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

Taylor, B. M., Raphael, T. E., & Au, K. H. (2011). Reading and school reform. In M. L. Kamil, P. D. Pearson, E. B. Moje, & P. P. Afflerbach (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. IV, pp. 594–628). New York, NY: Routledge.

Margaret Vaughn is an assistant professor at University of Idaho. She can be reached at [email protected]. Seth A. Parsons is an assistant professor at George Mason University.

He can be reached at [email protected].

Like “Language Arts Journal” on Facebook

Nov_2013_LA.indd 93 10/7/13 12:02 PM

Vaughn, M., & Parsons, S. A. (2013). Adaptive teachers as innovators: Instructional adaptations opening spaces for enhanced literacy learning. Language Arts, 91, 81-93.

Documents