Can preservice teacher education really help me grow as a literacy teacher?: examining preservice teachers' perceptions of multimedia case-based instuction.

Since the 1980s, when studies indicated that inservice teachers perceived that their preservice preparation was inadequate (Feiman-Nemser & Buchmann, 1985; Lyon, Vaasen, & Toomey, 1989), teacher education programs have made significant efforts to provide meaningful preparation (Imig & Switzer, 1996). One such effort includes the use of multimedia case-based instruction (M-CBI). The purpose of this article is three-fold: (a) to describe findings from studies that examine various issues related to using M-CBI to improve teacher education for literacy teachers, (b) describe Children as Literacy Kases (ChALK), which is an example of M-CBI being used in teacher education for literacy teachers, and (c) describe a study which examined preservice teachers' perceptions of their growth as literacy teachers after participating in a M-CBI/ChALK course. Findings indicate that preservice literacy teachers can perceive that teacher education helps them grow professionally, that M-CBI may be a useful tool in providing meaningful experiences to preservice teachers, and that M-CBI may enhance the meaningfulness of field experiences.

**********

In the 1980s, studies indicated that teachers overwhelmingly perceived that their preservice education did not adequately prepare them to be teachers. Since that time, teacher education programs have made purposeful strides toward improving preservice teacher education. For example, there are improved admissions standards, cohort groupings, refashioned foundations courses, and greater attention to pedagogy (Imig & Switzer, 1996).

With regard to pedagogy, some are attempting to improve teacher education by using case-based instruction (CBI) (Lundeberg, Levin, & Harrington, 1999; Merseth, 1997; Shulman, 1992; Silverman & Welty, 1992). Baker and Wedman (2000) referred to CBI as a pedagogy in which students examine ...

   ... data and a story from a professional situation. For example,
   business cases may be stories which include data about how GE or IBM
   were created and how they have developed. Medical cases may be about
   patients and the results of various tests and interviews. Students in
   professional schools then analyze and discuss these cases to
   determine what content they need to learn and what decisions they
   would make if they were involved in the case. (p. 122)

Baker and Wedman described three types of CBI being used in teacher education: anecdotal, text-based, and multimedia. Each type is used for a variety of reasons and offer users access to different types of data.

The purpose of this article is three-fold: (a) to describe findings from studies that examine various issues related to using M-CBI to improve teacher education for literacy teachers, (b) describe Children as Literacy Kases (ChALK), which is an example of M-CBI being used in teacher education for literacy teachers, and (c) describe a study which examined preservice teachers' perceptions of their growth as literacy teachers after participating in a M-CBI/ChALK course. Findings contribute to the growing bodies of research that investigate teacher education reform, CBI, and uses of multimedia to improve teacher education.

USING M-CBI TO IMPROVE TEACHER EDUCATION FOR LITERACY TEACHERS

Several studies have evaluated various effects of M-CBI on preservice and inservice literacy teachers. Risko, Yount, and McAllister (1992) found that literacy teachers who examined multimedia cases during class asked more questions and more higher level questions than students in similar courses that did not use cases. They also found that the students enrolled in M-CBI courses developed the ability to take multiple perspectives on various teaching issues and problems much earlier than their peers enrolled in similar non-CBI courses. In another study, Risko, Peter, & McAllister (1996) found that M-CBI had an impact on the preservice teachers' abilities to think flexibly in related field experiences and discussions in other courses.

Hughes, Packard, and Pearson (2000a) found that the more time literacy teachers spent examining video cases, the better they were able to support their claims about teaching reading. In another study, Hughes, Packard, and Pearson (2000b) examined preservice teachers' perceptions of using M-CBI. They found that preservice teachers reported many favorable uses of M-CBI such as the ability to revisit case materials, compare cases, randomly access and see video (not just read text), and share a common anchor/case which enhanced class discussions.

Baker and Wedman (2000) found positive evidence (with cautionary insights and pedagogical tips) that M-CBI could help preservice teachers understand one another's' field experiences and thereby enrich connections between course readings and field experiences. They also found that M-CBI could provide opportunities for instructors to model reflective practice, situate learning in the context of teaching children to read and write, and facilitate generative discussions by preservice teachers. In another study, Baker and Wedman (2002) found that preservice teachers involved in M-CBI made statistically significant improvement in more areas related to identifying salient information about children's literacy abilities than peers enrolled in similar non-CBI courses.

While these and other studies examine various effects of using M-CBI in literacy education, they do not explore preservice teachers perceptions of their own growth as literacy teachers and/or the factors to which they attribute their growth. The purpose of this study was to evaluate M-CBI from the perspective of preservice literacy teachers.

EXPLORING TYPES OF CASES USED IN LITERACY EDUCATION

As stated, Baker and Wedman (2000) described three types of CBI being used in literacy teacher education: anecdotal, text-based, and multimedia. In order to situate ChALK, the M-CBI materials used in this study, it is useful to describe each of these types. Anecdotal cases refer to short stories that commonly end with a dilemma (e.g., Silverman & Welty, 1992). Teacher educators can attend workshops to learn how to write their own anecdotal cases. Herein, a teacher educator can contextualize course content by telling a story that requires students to use information from the course to discuss the dilemma. Such cases are relatively easy to create, readily fit with the course, and engage students by allowing them to debate divergent ways to resolve the stated problem.

Text-based cases refer to full-length books written by teachers who are simply telling their story (e.g., Avery, 1993; Atwell, 1987; Harp, 1993, Routman, 1994). Unlike anecdotal cases, that are commonly 2-5 pages in length, text-based cases are more likely to be 100-300 pages long. Another contrast to anecdotal cases is that text-based cases do not typically end in a dilemma. Rather, the author may describe dilemmas she has faced--but they are not written to pose a dilemma for the reader. Text-based cases can be similar to reading a teacher's diary. Readers are exposed to what the author has gone through while being a teacher. This can include, but certainly is not limited to, such topics as philosophical transitions, struggles with assessment, ways the authors have collaborated with parents, and much more. Text-based cases allow users to gain indepth exposure to a teacher's experiences from a teacher's perspective. Such cases often provide intimate accounts of the struggles and successes teachers experience, and can thereby be very engaging for preservice teachers who aspire to understand the realities of teaching as well as for inservice teachers who find solace and insights by reading about what other teachers experience.

Multimedia cases, like anecdotal and text-based cases, come in many shapes and sizes. In literacy education, Multimedia Cases in Teacher Education (MCTE) (Kinzer & Risko, 1998) allows users to watch a 10-15 minute video of six different literacy classrooms. Users have access to such artifacts as the teacher's lesson plans, some of the children's writings, and some of the children's test scores. Herein, users can compare and contrast different literacy programs and discuss how and why these programs are similar or different. Similar to MCTE, the Reading Classroom Explorer (RCE) (Hughes, et al., 2000a, 2000b) allows users to view 15-20 minute videos of five different literacy classrooms that represent "students from diverse cultural, linguistic, and intellectual backgrounds" (Hughes, Packard, and Pearson, 1999, p. 1). Unlike MCTE, users do not have access to related artifacts (e.g., lesson plans, student work, student test scores). Rather, RCE provides a searchable database in which users can sort clips from these videos by school, broad theme, and/or keyword.

This study involves multimedia cases from a set of materials named Children As Literacy Kases (ChALK) (Baker & Wedman, 2000, 2002). ChALK consists of 27 multimedia CD-ROMs that contain literacy portfolios of five elementary children. These portfolios were developed in each child's actual classroom and represent each child's reading and writing development throughout a school year (September-May). Specifically, ChALK strives to contain one or more reading samples, plus one or more writing samples each month, for each child, from Literature, Math, Science, and Social Studies. In other words, the user has access to over eight literacy samples per child, per month, for the duration of a school year. ChALK contains approximately 22 hours of video, 135 samples of children's writings, and 115 samples of children's readings. ChALK is designed to allow preservice teachers to observe children's literacy growth over an 8+ month period, discuss what they considered to be salient information about each child's literacy development, evaluate methods for keeping track of children's literacy development, and discuss developmentally appropriate teaching methods for the children they observe (Baker & Wedman, 2002).

ChALK is similar to the aforementioned anecdotal, text-based, and multimedia cases by allowing teacher educators to utilize case-based instruction (Baker, 2000; Barnes, Christensen, & Hansen, 1994; Lundeberg, et al., 1999). Unlike anecdotal cases, ChALK does not pose any dilemmas. Unlike the aforementioned anecdotal, text-based, and multimedia cases ChALK focuses on children--not teachers. However, because the video of each child is extensive and occurs in his or her classroom, users commonly discuss the teacher's instructional methods. Due to the focus on a child, another unique feature of ChALK is that the users can explore the role of peer interactions. Finally, ChALK is unique in its representation of a child over an extensive amount of time. Herein, users can track a child's literacy growth during a school year. (This is something not available to preservice teachers--even during a semester-long student teaching experience.) In the next section, ChALK is described in more detail by examining the interface.

CHALK: EXPLORING THE INTERFACE

The ChALK interface has the following features: (a) list of the child's work (September-May), (b) video window, (c) scanned artifact window, (d) scenario that explains the context of the video, (e) the ability to sort by date and content area, (f) the ability to create random access to portions of video clips called "Bookmarks," and (g) icons that indicate whether the portfolio item features reading or writing (see Figure 1). Specifically, the list of the child's work features titles of what the child read or wrote, the date the child did the reading or writing, and the duration of video that shows the child reading or writing. Clicking on a title allows users to access video, scanned images, and scenarios which pertain to that title. Each title includes an icon that designates whether the portfolio item is a reading sample (icon of a book) or writing sample (icon of a pencil). The video window allows users to see the edited digital video clips of the child reading or writing. The scanned artifact window allows users to see what the child was reading or writing. The scenario includes a description of the video setting and text from books the child is reading in the video. In addition, users can print out written artifacts and scenarios. The sorting feature allows users to access the child's work by date and content area. In other words, users may want to review a child's reading and writing in December. This feature allows users to pull up just the December work samples. Because reading and writing occur throughout the elementary curriculum (i.e., Literature, Math, Science, and Social Studies), users may want to review the child's work in a particular content area. The sort feature allows users to see a list of just Math or just Science (etc.) items. Users can also combine the sort features. For example, users could sort for December Social Studies and see only those items. The Bookmark feature allows users to create a list of video segments they want to return to without having to sort through all of the video again. For example, a preservice teacher can create her own list of Bookmarks to randomly access video segments she wants to reconsider during whole class discussions.

METHOD

Participants and Setting

This study occurred in a Midwestern state university in a section of a course entitled, "Emergent Literacy for Elementary Teachers." The students were first semester juniors who had taken eight semester hours of introductory education courses during their freshman and sophomore years. They had also done over 20 hours of classroom observations during their freshman and sophomore years. This was however, their first semester of taking methods courses. There were 26 students in the class, 24 females and two males. All the students were elementary education majors.

The course was part of a block of literacy courses that included two semester hours of Children's Literature, two semester hours of Emergent Language, and three semester hours of Emergent Literacy for Elementary Teachers. These preservice teachers also participated in two semester hours of field experience in which they worked with a partner to teach 8-10 literacy lessons to a small group of elementary children. They collaborated with the elementary children's teacher to design, implement, and reflect on their lessons and the progress of the children's literacy abilities. The participants took this block of literacy courses as a cohort. In other words, the same group of preservice teachers attended Children's Literature, Emergent Language, Emergent Literacy, and Literacy Field Experience (9 hours per week) together.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

The instructor is a professor of literacy education. At the time of this study, she had taught literacy courses to preservice elementary teachers for nine years. She had used Multimedia Cases in Teacher Education (Kinzer & Risko, 1998) as well as text-based cases (i.e., Avery, 1993; Harp, 1993; Routman, 1994) for five years. This was the second semester she used ChALK.

The course met once a week, for three hours, during a 15-week semester. The course was divided into three modules: children's literacy processes, teacher decision-making, and professional development. Case-based instruction was used during 11 of the 15 classes (four other classes were used to complete pre and post tests and provide a general introduction to the course). Specifically, six classes were dedicated to analyzing Zane's digital portfolio, four to Helen, and one to Kenneth. These three portfolios were collected in the same first-grade classroom. At the beginning of the school year, Zane was considered an emergent reader, Helen was a developing reader, and Kenneth was a proficient decoder (with little comprehension).

Throughout the semester, the instructor gave the preservice teachers Study Guides (Barnes, Christensen, & Hansen, 1994), which specified what parts of a portfolio they should examine and on what they should focus. For example, the first Study Guide asked: While watching Kenneth read and write in November, how would you analyze his abilities to use the four cueing systems? Another Study Guide asked: It is January and you are Kenneth's teacher. What would you plan for him tomorrow? Explain. Later in the semester, the Study Guide asked: Based on your observations of Kenneth throughout the school year, how has Kenneth grown in his literacy abilities? Come to class ready to have an end-of-year conference with Kenneth's parents. During class, the preservice teachers shared their answers and cited data from the portfolios that led them to their conclusions.

Data Sources and Analysis

At the end of the semester each preservice teacher voluntarily participated in an individual interview. A trained research assistant conducted and audio taped the interviews which lasted approximately 30 minutes. The preservice teachers were given a folder that contained their case analyses and field reflections throughout the semester. They were asked to examine their own work and answer among other questions: (a) have you grown as a literacy teacher this semester, (b) if so, list experiences that contributed to your growth, and (c) rank order the experiences you listed.

The interview data were transcribed and independently scored by two researchers. Specifically, with regard to question (a) (have you grown as a literacy teacher this semester?) the researchers independently reviewed each transcript and identified whether the participants indicated that yes, they had grown, or no, they had not grown as literacy teachers. This independent scoring resulted in 100% interrator reliability in which both researchers scored the transcripts identically.

With regard to questions (b) (if so, list experiences that contributed to your growth) and (c) (rank order the experiences you listed) the researchers independently reviewed each transcript to identify what the preservice teachers listed as factors that contributed to their growth and the ranking they assigned each factor. Next, the researchers met several times to compare their independent scoring. When differences occurred the researchers returned to the transcripts, discussed the rationale they used during independent scoring, and determined appropriate coding. In other words, any disagreements were revisited to assure accuracy with scoring. During these discussions, categories of responses became evident (i.e., field experiences, M-CBI, other course assignments, class discussions, etc.) and as the analysis discussions progressed these categories became refined to represent each comment made by the participants. With regard to questions (b) and (c), there was 92.5% blind interrator reliability. The discrepancies were discussed and resolved with 100% interrator agreement.

Of the 26 participants, one was unable to attend the interview session due to a schedule conflict and five other participants listed factors that contributed to their growth but could not rank order these factors making such statements as, "I feel like it is not just one thing" and "It is hard to say what ranks above the others because they kind of go hand in hand." We were, therefore, unable to include this data in our analyses. Herein, a total of 77 factors were listed by 20 participants. In order to more fully understand how important preservice teachers perceived each factor to be to their growth as literacy teachers, points were assigned to the preservice teachers' rankings (5 points for first ranking, 4 for second ranking, and so on). Finally, the researchers sorted the 77 factors into common categories (i.e., field experiences, case assignments, class readings, etc.).

FINDINGS

Did you grow as a literacy teacher this semester? Analysis of the preservice teachers' answers revealed that 100% of the preservice teachers perceived that they had grown as literacy teachers during the semester. Several students made comments such as, "I'm much more aware and comfortable," "I think I learned a lot this semester, more than any other semester," and "I totally changed, I never thought of it [teaching literacy] in so much depth." Other students elaborated further. The following is a sample of an elaboration:

    I think I have grown a lot. I look at some of the work I did earlier
    and I can look back and just see [that now I can see] more
    accurately [while kidwatching by citing] specific examples.... I see
    that [a student] is starting to do this and he's starting to do
    that. I think that I'm able to create lesson plans now to focus on a
    certain literacy ability that my children, my students need to know
    or to learn about.... Without this class I would be nowhere! So I
    really think it has helped a lot.

The preservice teachers overwhelmingly (100%) perceived that they had grown as literacy teachers. This growth included their knowledge about literacy (students often cited knowledge of cueing systems and teaching methods), their increased confidence in their ability to observe and assess children's literacy needs, and their acknowledgement of a need to continue to learn about how to be effective literacy teachers.

What contributed to your growth? Data analysis revealed six categories of responses to the question, "What contributed to your growth as a literacy teacher?": (a) field experiences (teaching, reflecting about teaching, discussions of field with instructors and supervisor, substitute teaching), (b) M-CBI (comparing the cases to one another, homework with ChALK, examining ChALK), (c) other course assignments (readings, activity demonstrations, analyzing basals), (d) class discussions, (e) the block of literacy courses and experiences, and (f) miscellaneous.

Table 1 presents the percentage of statements made for each category of responses. Field experiences (24.68%), M-CBI (24.03%), and class activities (23.38%) closely resembled one another in raw percentages. This interview question was open-ended. The preservice teachers could list anything. Yet, M-CBI emerged as one of the six factors that preservice teachers perceived as influential to their growth. M-CBI also emerged as one of the three most frequently cited factors along with field experiences and other class activities.

Rank Order the Factors

To more fully understand how important each factor was to the preservice teachers, we assigned points to the preservice teachers' rankings (5 points for first ranking, 4 for second ranking, and so on). Table 1 shows that M-CBI was, by a slight margin, ranked highest (25.73%) among the six categories that emerged with field experiences (25.54%) and other course assignments (22.24%) ranked similarly.

The fourth highest factor listed by these preservice teachers was "class discussions" (17.53% of total statements, 18.07% of weighted statements). Because discussions could involve any of the other factors (i.e., discussion of the cases, field experience, assignments, etc.), the interviewer asked the participants to explain what they meant when they listed "discussions." Analysis of this data revealed that 13 of the 20 participants (65%) listed "discussions" as a factor that contributed to their growth. Of these 13 participants, seven (35% of total participants, 54% of those who listed "discussions") did not provide clarification while six (30% of total participants, 46% of those who listed "discussions") did provide clarification (Table 2). Data analysis revealed that one of the six participants referred only to discussion of the cases, two others specified discussions of both the cases and field experiences, the remaining three highlighted discussions of the cases, field experiences, and the course readings.

Because seven participants did not provide clarification we are unable to claim that discussions did not refer to other factors; nonetheless, we are able to document that of the participants who clarified what they meant by discussions, 100% specified ChALK, 83% listed field experiences, and 50% designated discussion of course readings.

While the first data analysis indicated similar results with regard to the importance attributed to field experiences (24.68% of statements and 25.54% of weighted statements), M-CBI (24.03% of statements and 25.73% of weighted statements), and other course assignments (23.38% of statements and 22.24% of weighted statements), the second data analysis indicates that field experiences (combined with discussions of field experiences) and M-CBI (combined with discussions of ChALK) were considered more important than other course assignments (combined with discussions of course assignments). Herein, the two most important factors that participants appear to attribute their growth to are: field experiences (combined with discussions of field experiences) and M-CBI (combined with discussions of ChALK). Furthermore, participants appear to rank these two factors similarly--neither factor emerged as significantly more important than the other.

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION

This study was based on the assumptions of a postpositivistic research paradigm (Hatch, 2002). Hence, the findings reflect a particular group of participants, who worked together in a specific setting and at a particular time. Readers should take into account the descriptions of the participants, setting, and instructional materials (M-CBI, ChALK) in order to consider the implications of this study. The following summary and discussion attempt to assist the reader accordingly.

A Response to the 1980s Reports

Since the 1980s, when studies indicated that inservice teachers perceived that their preservice preparation was inadequate (Feiman-Nemser & Buchmann, 1985; Lyon, et al., 1989), teacher education programs have made significant efforts to provide meaningful preparation (Imig & Switzer, 1996). One such effort includes the use of case-based instruction. This study indicates that preservice teachers involved with multimedia case-based instruction (M-CBI) overwhelmingly (100%) perceived that they had grown as literacy teachers during their preservice experiences. While this study does not focus on inservice teachers' perceptions of the adequacy of their preparation, it does suggest that the preservice teachers in this study perceive that they grew in their ability to teach children to read and write. Interviews with these preservice teachers after they become teachers may provide further insights into whether they perceive that M-CBI helped to adequately prepare them to teach.

When asked to attribute their growth to particular experiences, the preservice teachers could have listed anything (i.e., volunteering in schools, summer work with children, reflecting on their own elementary experiences, etc.). These preservice teachers consistently listed those experiences that were provided through their preservice program. While this result could be due to Response Effect (Borg & Gall, 1989) because the interviews occurred on the campus of their preservice program and therefore the participants may have felt their answers should include their teacher education experiences, it appears likely that the teacher education program experienced by the participants was perceived as the most significant component of their professional growth.

Field Experiences

Studies indicate that meaningful field experiences are commonly valued by preservice teachers (McIntyre, Byrd, & Foxx, 1996). This study concurs with this body of research. However, one might expect the preservice teachers to consistently identify field experiences as most significant to their growth as literacy teachers. After all, during field experiences they discuss topics, model strategies, ask questions, and conduct observations with real children. During the interviews, some students explained that they ranked M-CBI higher than field experiences because analyses, reflections, and discussions of M-CBI made their field experiences richer. In other words, M-CBI was what helped make their field experiences one of the factors that contributed to their growth as literacy teachers. In their syntheses of research investigating the effectiveness of field experiences, McIntyre et al. reported that field experiences for the sake of having field experiences were not as effective as fewer, more focused and purposeful field experiences. Our findings appear to fit with these studies because our participants indicated that M-CBI helped to make their field experiences more meaningful. Our findings also fit with arguments that CBI can facilitate anchored instruction (Baker & Wedman, 2000; Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt, 1990) in the sense that participants indicated that the cases provided a common experience that they, as a class, could discuss and make their divergent field experiences more meaningful.

Cases and Technology in Teacher Education

The findings from this study may also have implications for an initiative created by the United States Congress in the late 1990s entitled Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers to Use Technology (P[T.sup.3]) (United States Department of Education, 2003). This initiate sought to help teacher educators incorporate technology into their teaching with hopes that preservice teachers would become comfortable with technology and even see how to use technology in their own K-12 classrooms. Some P[T.sup.3] programs actively incorporated course-based listservs, others required preservice teachers to do Power Point presentations, others used the internet to develop lesson plans and web-quests for children (http://www.pt3.org/technology/bibliography_preserveint.html). This study contributes to the growing body of research that investigates various issues related to using technology to facilitate meaningful preservice teaching experiences. Specifically, M-CBI may be perceived by preservice teachers as a useful tool to advance their pedagogical development.

This study contributes to the growing body of research that investigates various issues related to integrating M-CBI and preservice literacy education. While a variety of studies have examined the effectiveness of using M-CBI with preservice and inservice teachers (e.g., Baker & Wedman, 2000; Hughes, et al., 2000a & 2000b; Risko, et al., 1996; Risko, et al., 1992), this study examines the M-CBI users' perceptions of their growth as literacy teachers. The positive results of this study indicate that further investigations into M-CBI's usefulness and expanded adoption may be worthwhile endeavors.

Additional studies that examine preservice perceptions of ChALK in other instructor's courses and on other teacher education campuses would provide additional insights into the role of the instructor in making the use of ChALK perceptively worthwhile. Similar studies using other M-CBI software would also add to an understanding to whether preservice teachers simply perceived the value of ChALK or of M-CBI.

Table 1 What Contributed to Growth? Categories that Emerged

                        % Listed         % Weighted
                   (N=77 Statements)  (N=77 Statements)

Field Experiences        24.68             25.54
ChALK                    24.03             25.73
Other course             23.38             22.24
assignments
Discussions              17.53             18.07
Block of Courses          5.2               4.01
Miscellaneous             5.2               4.30
TOTAL                   100.02*            99.96*

*Due to rounding, totals do not add up to 100%

Table 2 What Do you Mean When you List Discussions as a Factor that
Contributed to Your Growth? Participants' Clarifications

                                                        %Participants
                                                        Who Identified
                                                        "Discussion"
                                                        subfactors
                                                        %Total
                                                        Participants
                                                        (N=20)/
                               %Participants Who        %Participants
                               Identified "Discussion"  who listed
                               as a factor (N=20        Discussions
                               Participants)            (N=13)

Discussions                    65%
No clarifications provided                              35%/54%
Clarifications provided                                 30%/46%
  Field Experiences                                     25%/83%
  ChALK                                                 30%/100%
  Other course assignments                              15%/50%
                                                        (all specified
                                                        assignment:
                                                        readings)
  Block of courses                                       0%
  Miscellaneous                                          0%

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank the teachers and students who graciously participated in the creation of ChALK and the preservice teachers who gave of their time to discuss their growth as literacy teachers. We also thank the following colleagues who contributed to the development of ChALK and/or this study: Dr. Judy Wedman and Nathan Wiles.

Author's Notes

This report is sponsored in part by the Fund for the Improvement of Post-secondary Education (FIPSE), U.S. Department of Education (Project No. P116B71861), and Verizon. The opinions expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of USED/FIPSE or Verizon.

References

Avery, C. (1993). And with a light touch: Learning about reading, writing, and teaching with first graders. Portsmouth, NH: Heineman.

Baker, E. A. (2000). Case-based learning theory: Implications for software design. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 8 (2), 85-95.

Baker, E.A., & Wedman, J. (2000). Lessons learned while using case-based instruction with preservice literacy teachers. In T. Shanahan & F. Rodriguez-Brown (Eds.), Forty-ninth national reading conference yearbook (pp. 122-136). Chicago: National Reading Conference.

Baker, E.A., & Wedman, J. (2002, April). Improving elementary preservice teachers' kidwatching abilities: Evaluation of multimedia case-based instruction. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Barnes, L.B., Christensen, C.R., & Hansen, A.J. (1994). Teaching and the case method (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School.

Borg, W. R., & Gall, M. D. (1989). Educational research: An introduction (5th ed.). New York, NY: Longman.

Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1991, May). Technology and the design of generative learning environments. Educational Technology Journal, 31(5), 34-40.

Feiman-Nemser, S., & Buchmann, M. (1985). Pitfalls of experience in teacher preparation. Teachers College Record, 87(1), 53-65.

Harp, B. (1993). Bringing children to literacy: Classrooms at work. Christopher-Norwood, MA: Gordon Publishers.

Hatch, J.A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Hughes, J.E., Packard, B.W., & Pearson, P.D. (2000a). Pre-service teachers' experiences using hypermedia and video to learn about literacy instruction. Journal of Literacy Research, 32(4), 599-629.

Hughes, J.E., Packard, B.W., & Pearson, P.D. (2000b). The role of hypermedia cases on preservice teachers' views of reading instruction. Action in Teacher Education, 22(2A), 24-38

Imig, D.G., & Switzer, T. J. (1996). Changing teacher education programs: Restructuring collegiate-based teacher education. In J. Sikula, T.J. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 213-226). New York: Simon and Schuster.

Kinzer, C.K., & Risko, V.J. (1998). Multimedia and enhanced learning: Transforming preservice education. In D. Reinking, M. McKenna, L. Labbo, & R. Kieffer (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology: Transformations in a post-typographic world (pp. 185-202). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Lundeberg, M.A., Levin, B.B., & Harrington, H.L. (Eds.) (1999). Who learns what from cases and how? Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Lyon, G.R., Vaasen, M., & Toomey, F. (1989). Teachers' perceptions of their undergraduate and graduate preparation. Teacher Education and Special Education, 12(4) 164-169.

McIntyre, D.J., Byrd, D.M., & Foxx, S.M. (1996). Field and laboratory experiences. In J. Sikula, T.J. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.),_Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 171-193). New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

Merseth, K.K. (1997). Case studies in educational administration. New York: Longman.

Risko, V.J., Peter, J., & McAllister, D. (1996). Conceptual changes: Preservice teachers' pathways to providing literacy transaction. In E. Sturtevant & W. Linek (Eds.), Literacy grows (pp. 103-119). Pittsburg, KS: College Reading Association.

Risko, V.J., Yount, D., & McAllister, D. (1992). Preparing preservice teachers for remedial instruction: Teaching problem solving and use of content and pedagogical knowledge. In N. Padak, T.V. Rasinski, & J. Logan (Eds.), Inquiries in literacy learning and instruction (pp. 179-189). Pittsburg, KS: College Reading Association.

Routman, R. (1994). Invitations: Changing as teachers and learners K-12. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Shulman, L. (1992). Toward a pedagogy of cases. In J. Shulman (Ed.), Case methods in teacher education (pp. 1-30). New York: Teachers College Press.

Silverman, R., & Welty, B. (1992). Education: Case studies for teacher problem solving. New York: McGraw-Hill Primis.

United States Department of Education [web site]. Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers to Use Technology Bibliography. Retrieved March 28, 2005 from http://www.pt3.org/technology/bibliography_preserveint.html

ELIZABETH (BETSY) A. BAKER

University of Missouri--Columbia

Columbia, MO USA

[e-mail]