Content uploaded by Erin Washburn
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Erin Washburn on Nov 28, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
This article was downloaded by: [Syracuse University Library]
On: 19 July 2013, At: 08:30
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,
UK
Scientific Studies of Reading
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hssr20
Peter Effect in the Preparation
of Reading Teachers
Emily Binks-Cantrell a , Erin K. Washburn b , R.
Malatesha Joshi a & Martha Hougen c
a Texas A&M University
b State University of New York at Binghamton
c University of Texas at Austin
Published online: 19 Jan 2012.
To cite this article: Emily Binks-Cantrell , Erin K. Washburn , R. Malatesha Joshi &
Martha Hougen (2012) Peter Effect in the Preparation of Reading Teachers, Scientific
Studies of Reading, 16:6, 526-536, DOI: 10.1080/10888438.2011.601434
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2011.601434
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the
information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.
However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,
or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views
expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the
Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with
primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any
losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,
and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the
Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,
sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is
expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Downloaded by [Syracuse University Library] at 08:30 19 July 2013
SCIENTIFIC STUDIES OF READING, 16(6), 526–536
Copyright © 2012 Society for the Scientific Study of Reading
ISSN: 1088-8438 print / 1532-799X online
DOI: 10.1080/10888438.2011.601434
Peter Effect in the Preparation of
Reading Teachers
Emily Binks-Cantrell
Texas A&M University
Erin K. Washburn
State University of New York at Binghamton
R. Malatesha Joshi
Texas A&M University
Martha Hougen
University of Texas at Austin
The Peter Effect (Applegate & Applegate, 2004) claimed that one cannot be expected
to give what one does not possess. We applied this notion to reading teacher prepa-
ration and hypothesized that teacher educators who do not possess an understanding
of basic language constructs would not prepare teacher candidates with an under-
standing of these constructs considered essential for early reading success. Results
from a survey of basic language constructs revealed similar patterns in performance
between teacher educators and their respective teacher candidates, which served as
initial validation of the Peter Effect in reading teacher preparation.
The Peter Effect is based on the biblical story of the Apostle Peter, who when
asked for money by a beggar replied that he could not give what he himself did
not have (Acts 3:5). Applegate and Applegate (2004) applied the principle of the
Peter Effect as an explanation to their findings from an investigation of teacher
candidates’ attitudes toward enjoyment of reading. Findings revealed that 54.3%
of 195 teacher candidates were classified as unenthusiastic about reading and only
Correspondence should be sent to R. Malatesha Joshi, Department of Teaching, Learning, and
Culture, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843. E-mail: mjoshi@tamu.edu
Downloaded by [Syracuse University Library] at 08:30 19 July 2013
PETER EFFECT 527
25.2% of teacher candidates reported unqualified enjoyment of reading. In the
present study, we hypothesized not only that can teachers not pass on an enthu-
siasm for reading when they do not possess it but also that teachers cannot pass
on understanding of the basic language constructs considered essential for early
reading success when they do not possess that understanding.
Although research has outlined essential components of early reading instruc-
tion (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000), teachers
have demonstrated limited knowledge of such concepts. Poor classroom instruc-
tion has been attributed to a lack of basic understanding of the concepts related
to the English language needed to teach reading skills (Bos, Mather, Dickson,
Podhajski, & Chard, 2001; Moats, 1994; Spear-Swerling & Brucker, 2003). Poor
instruction due to poor teacher knowledge due to poor teacher preparation has
been suggested as one of the major causes of reading failure (Brady & Moats,
1997). However, little research has analyzed the current level of understanding of
those preparing teachers to teach early reading and how this might carry over to
the teacher candidates they teach. The main purpose of this study was to determine
whether teacher educators who have a higher understanding of basic language
constructs have teacher candidates with a higher understanding of basic language
constructs as well.
Basic language constructs considered essential for early reading success
include phonological and phonemic awareness, the alphabetic principle/phonics,
and morphology (Adams, 1990; Moats, 1999). The National Reading Panel
(National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000) recom-
mended that teachers have an explicit knowledge of such concepts for the effective
teaching of decoding skills in a direct, systematic manner to enable the successful
acquisition of early reading skills for all beginning readers. Ironically, colleges of
education may not provide teacher candidates with this information (Joshi, Binks,
Hougen, Dahlgren, et al., 2009) leaving future teachers unprepared to effectively
teach reading to their future students, as one cannot teach what one does not
know.
In one of the first studies of teacher knowledge, experienced reading, language
arts, and special education teachers were assessed in their awareness of language
elements (e.g., phonemes and morphemes) and how these elements were rep-
resented in writing (e.g., knowledge of sound–symbol correspondences; Moats,
1994). The results indicated that even highly motivated and experienced teachers
generally had a poor understanding about spoken and written language structure.
A second study found that teachers had “insufficiently developed concepts about
language and pervasive conceptual weaknesses in the very skills that are needed
for direct, systematic, language-focused reading instruction, such as the ability
to count phonemes and to identify phonic relationships” (Moats & Lyon, 1996,
p. 79). More recently, Moats and Foorman (2003) reported that teachers continued
to struggle particularly with (a) manipulating speech sounds; (b) knowledge of
Downloaded by [Syracuse University Library] at 08:30 19 July 2013
528 BINKS-CANTRELL ET AL.
differing letter-sound combinations; (c) conceptualization of functional spelling
units such as digraphs, blends, and silent-letter spellings; (d) common syllable
types and division patterns; and (e) recognition of children’s difficulties with
phonological, orthographic, and syntactic learning. Similarly, Spear-Swerling and
Brucker (2003) found that none of the elementary and special education teacher
participants scored at a high level on all of the tasks assessing knowledge of read-
ing constructs and very few scored a high level on any task. Further, none had
received intensive preparation in structured and systematic phonics instruction.
Cunningham, Perry, Stanovich, and Stanovich (2004) in turn found that not only
did K–3 teachers know very little about phonemic awareness and phonics, but
also teachers were often unable to calibrate their knowledge of reading.
These findings are also not specific to inservice teachers or to the United
States. Bos et al. (2001) reported that 53% of teacher candidates and 60% of
inservice educators were unable to correctly answer nearly half of the items
assessing their knowledge of language structure. Although teachers indicated that
they believe such reading instructional practices were important, their knowl-
edge in such “important” practices was lacking (Bos et al., 2001). Similarly,
teachers in Australia demonstrated a poor knowledge of the role of metalin-
guistics in the process of learning to read (Fielding-Barnsley & Purdie, 2005).
Further, even though there were some differences in the patterns of understand-
ing between the two populations, teacher candidates from both the United States
and England demonstrated an insufficient understanding of English phonology,
phonics, and morphology needed to effectively teach early reading skills (Binks,
Joshi, & Washburn, 2009). Furthermore, Washburn, Joshi, and Binks-Cantrell
(2011a, 2011b) found that a majority of teacher candidates and inservice teach-
ers reported misconceptions about dyslexia in conjunction with weak explicit
knowledge about phonology, phonetics, and morphology.
On the other hand, explicit teacher preparation in basic language constructs
and the teachers’ use of systematic instruction seems to improve students’ per-
formance in reading-related skills. K–5 teachers with intensive professional
development in basic language constructs produced students with significantly
higher scores on reading tasks compared to students who were taught by teach-
ers without this knowledge (McCutchen, Abbott, et al., 2002; McCutchen &
Berninger, 1999; McCutchen, Harry, et al., 2002; McCutchen, Green, Abbott,
& Sanders, 2009). In large, urban, high-poverty schools, professional develop-
ment teachers not only scored higher on the teachers’ knowledge survey but
also improved students’ overall reading achievement significantly more than their
counterparts (Moats & Foorman, 2003). However, it is important to note that
knowledge alone does not seem to improve students’ reading achievement—
teachers must also apply it in their instruction. In a recent study by Piasta, Connor
McDonald, Fishman, and Morrison (2009), a significant interaction effect for
teacher knowledge and number of observations of explicit decoding instruction
Downloaded by [Syracuse University Library] at 08:30 19 July 2013
PETER EFFECT 529
was reported. Thus, students whose teachers were both knowledgeable and
devoted more time to explicit decoding instruction made significantly higher gains
in word reading.
A possible explanation for the persistently poor performance of teachers and
teacher candidates on basic language knowledge assessments may reside with the
finding that many teacher educators themselves lack an understanding of the lin-
guistic constructs (Joshi, Binks, Hougen, Graham, et al., 2009). We hypothesized
that the teacher educators’ lack of understanding of language constructs results in
the poor performance of teacher candidates and inservice teachers on these con-
structs, suggestive of a Peter Effect in preparing reading teachers. In this study,
we examined (a) whether teacher educators who have participated in a profes-
sional development have a better understanding of basic language constructs than
teacher educators who did not participate, and (b) if they did have a better under-
standing, did their teacher candidates also possess a better understanding of basic
language constructs than their teacher candidate counterparts? The second ques-
tion in particular addresses an issue that would offer some evidence to validate
the proposed Peter Effect.
METHOD
Participants
Teacher educators included persons who had instructed early childhood to fourth-
grade (EC-4) teacher candidates in reading education within the past academic
year of survey participation. Two types of teacher educators were assessed: those
who had voluntarily participated in a teacher education professional development
program geared toward the promotion of research-based reading instruction for a
minimum of 3 years (PD-TE; n=48) and those who had volunteered to partici-
pate in the same professional development program but had not yet begun their
participation (NPD-TE; n=66). The professional development consisted of mul-
tiple 2-day seminars, workshops, and conferences, as well as reading and teaching
materials, online collaboration, observational feedback, and syllabus evaluation.
Participation in the survey of basic language constructs was voluntary. Eighty-
nine percent of NPD teacher educators and 84% of PD teacher educators had a
doctorate (with the others working on their doctoral degree), and all had previ-
ously taught in elementary schools. All teacher educators were currently teaching
two to four courses in reading education at the university level to EC-4 teacher
candidates and were from approximately 30 different public and private universi-
ties and colleges, community colleges, and/or alternative certification programs in
southwestern part of the United States. The number of years involved with teacher
education ranged from 1 to 20 years, with a mean of 9.0 (SD =4.5) years for the
Downloaded by [Syracuse University Library] at 08:30 19 July 2013
530 BINKS-CANTRELL ET AL.
TABLE 1
Demographic Comparison Between NPD and PD Teacher
Educator Participants
Category NPD PD
Total 66 48
Ethnic distribution
White 0.91 0.88
Hispanic 0.06 0.08
Black 0.03 0.04
Other 0.00 0.00
Gender
Male 0.12 0.13
Female 0.88 0.87
Location
West region 0.05 0.04
North region 0.36 0.38
East region 0.15 0.15
South region 0.30 0.33
Central region 0.14 0.10
Note. All the values represent proportions with the exception of the total,
which represents the actual number of teacher educators. Regions refer to regions
within the U.S. Southwest. NPD =no professional development; PD =professional
development.
NPD-TE group, and 8.3 (SD =3.8) years for the PD-TE group. Demographic
information is presented in Table 1. Among the teacher educators, no significant
differences were found between PD-TE and NPD-TE groups in ethnicity, gen-
der, location, number of years in teacher education, level of education, number of
courses currently being taught, and department. Further, overall teacher educator
demographic information (including the nonrespondents) was obtained from the
professional development organization, which collected demographic informa-
tion for all of its enrollees (Higher Education Collaborative, 2006). No significant
differences were found between the teacher educator survey nonrespondents and
respondents, which offered some evidence that the teacher educators who did not
agree to participate were similar to those who did participate in the survey.
Teacher candidate participants were undergraduates in EC-4 teacher certi-
fication programs and surveyed at the conclusion of their reading education
coursework. Both teacher candidates taught by PD teacher educators (PD-TC;
n=55) and teacher candidates taught by NPD teacher educators (NPD-TC;
n=118) were surveyed for their understanding of basic language constructs. The
PD-TC group had taken an average of 3.6 (SD =1.4) courses in reading education,
and the NPD-TC group had taken an average of 3.4 (SD =1.5) courses in reading
education. The teacher candidates taught by PD teacher educators had taken an
Downloaded by [Syracuse University Library] at 08:30 19 July 2013
PETER EFFECT 531
TABLE 2
Demographic Comparison Between PD and NPD Teacher
Candidate Participants
PD NPD
Total 55 118
Ethnic distribution
White 0.82 0.81
Hispanic 0.09 0.11
Black 0.04 0.03
Other 0.05 0.04
Gender
Male 0.05 0.04
Female 0.95 0.96
Location
West region 0.05 0.04
North region 0.38 0.36
East region 0.16 0.15
South region 0.31 0.33
Central region 0.10 0.12
Note. All the values represent proportions with the exception of the
total, which represents the actual number of teacher educators. Regions
refer to regions within the U.S. Southwest. PD =professional development;
NPD =no professional development.
elementary-level reading education course from that PD teacher educator within
the past academic year. Participation in the survey of basic language constructs
was voluntary. Demographic information for the PD-TC and NPD-TC groups is
displayed in Table 2. Among the teacher candidate survey respondents, no signifi-
cant differences in terms of ethnicity, gender, and number of reading courses taken
were found between the groups. In addition, no statistically significant differences
were found between the location distributions of the teacher educator participants
and the teacher candidate participants. Further, no statistically significant differ-
ences were found between the overall population of new EC-4 teachers (Fuller &
Berry, 2006) and the teacher candidate survey respondents, which offered some
evidence that the teacher candidates who did not agree to participate are similar
to those who did participate in the survey.
Measure
To measure the participants’ understanding of language constructs, a survey was
developed that consists of 46 items refined from a former 52-item survey used
in earlier studies (Joshi, Binks, Dean, & Graham, 2006; Joshi, Binks, Hougen,
Dahlgren, et al., 2009). The survey was based on surveys and questionnaires
Downloaded by [Syracuse University Library] at 08:30 19 July 2013
532 BINKS-CANTRELL ET AL.
used by other researchers in the field (Bos et al., 2001; McCutchen, Harry, et al.,
2002; Moats, 1994) and designed to assess understanding of the basic language
constructs related to research-based reading instruction: phonology, phonics, and
morphology (38 items). The phonology items were specified as either measuring
phonemic awareness (the ability to hear and manipulate the individual sounds of
spoken language, or phonemes) or other phonological awareness skills (such as
rhyming, sentence segmentation, syllabication, and onset/rime). The items were
also categorized as to whether they assessed explicit knowledge (e.g., items that
asked participants to define terms and rules, such as of a phonics generalization)
or implicit ability (e.g., items that asked participants to complete a task, such as
to read a pseudoword based upon a phonics generalization). Figure 1 outlines the
item breakdown of the survey. Copies of the survey, answer key, and validation
information can be obtained from the first author.
Item responses were scored as either right or wrong for the analysis. Overall
survey scores as well as individual item scores were used for analysis within
and between groups. The survey design allowed to determine patterns in under-
standing among the different constructs (phonological, phonemic, phonics, and
morphological) and between-group analysis was used to look for similarities and
differences between the groups. Understanding items were also categorized by
level of understanding (knowledge and ability) for further analysis within and
between groups (see Figure 1). This survey was standardized for reliability, item
difficulty, item discrimination, and model fit using exploratory factor analyses.
Basic Language
Constructs
Survey
8 Self-
Perception
Items
11 Background
Items
Knowledge
(12 items)
Ability
(26 items)
Phonemic
Knowledge
(3 items)
Phonemic
Ability
(10 items)
Other
Phonological
Knowledge
(1 item)
Skill
38 Knowledge/
Ability Items
Phonological
(21 items)
Type
Decoding
(17 items)
Phonics
(9 items)
Morphological
(8 items)
Other
Phonological
(8 items)
Phonic Ability
(2 items)
Morphological
Knowledge
(1 item)
Morphological
Ability
(7 items)
Phonemic
(13 items)
Phonic
Knowledge
(7 items)
Other
Phonological
Ability
(7 items)
FIGURE 1 Although there are 27 different numbered items on the survey, the actual number of
answers that were scored and evaluated for analysis per survey totaled 46 when considering each
separate answer into the total number. Eight items assess perception, and 19 [38] items assess
knowledge.
Downloaded by [Syracuse University Library] at 08:30 19 July 2013
PETER EFFECT 533
The reliability for the scores on the basic language constructs survey was found
to be .90 (Cronbach’s alpha). The reliability coefficients for the subscales were
.75 for knowledge, .85 for ability, .78 for phonological, .76 for phonemic, .71 for
phonics, and .88 for morphological.
Procedure
The survey was conducted via the Internet and was not part of the professional
development. Teacher educators were encouraged but not required to participate
in the survey at conferences and through e-mail correspondence. Both groups of
teacher educators facilitated access to teacher candidates from their programs for
the authors to invite to complete the survey. All survey participants were strongly
discouraged from using outside resources to complete the survey through a pref-
aced statement as well as limited time to complete the survey (45 min, with the
average time to complete the survey during pilot testing being 20 min) and the
ability to only access the survey once. The participants were informed that the
responses would remain anonymous and no form of individual evaluation would
be conducted. However, gender, ethnicity, and university information for each
participant was obtained for further analysis.
RESULTS
Table 3 displays the mean proportions and standard deviations of items answered
correctly for each group of participants within each category of items. Table 3
indicates that PD participants (including both teacher educators and teacher
candidates) outscored their NPD counterparts (teacher educators and teacher can-
didates) on most understanding (knowledge and ability) items of the survey. The
PD-TE group performed consistently better than the NPD-TE group, and the
PD-TC group performed consistently better than the NPD-TC group with the
exception of the phonological ability items (which favored the NPD-TC group
by less than .02).
To explore the possible effects of rank and PD status on the total score, a one-
way analysis of variance was performed with group (PD-TE, NPD-TE, PD-TC,
and NPD-TC) as the fixed factor and the total score as the dependent variable. The
effect of group was significant, F(3, 283) =39.419, p<.001, η2=.259. Post hoc
comparisons using Tukey’s Honestly Significant Difference test indicated that the
PD-TE group scored significantly higher on the total survey than NPD-TE and
the both teacher candidate groups. In addition, the PD-TC group scored signifi-
cantly higher than the NPD-TC group. The same was true for all of the different
categories except for phonological ability. Most of the phonological ability items
Downloaded by [Syracuse University Library] at 08:30 19 July 2013
534 BINKS-CANTRELL ET AL.
TABLE 3
Mean Proportions of Items Answered Correctly and Standard Deviations for Sample
Subsets by Item Category
Item Category Overall
NPD Teacher
Educatorsa
PD Teacher
Educatorsb
NPD Teacher
Candidatesc
PD Teacher
Candidatesd
Knowledge 0.526 (0.499) 0.562 (0.497) 0.754 (0.431) 0.373 (0.484) 0.614 (0.487)
Ability 0.622 (0.485) 0.595 (0.491) 0.782 (0.413) 0.551 (0.498) 0.679 (0.467)
Phonological 0.874 (0.332) 0.873 (0.333) 0.938 (0.242) 0.862 (0.345) 0.846 (0.362)
Phonemic 0.641 (0.480) 0.624 (0.485) 0.790 (0.408) 0.531 (0.499) 0.766 (0.423)
Phonics 0.503 (0.500) 0.556 (0.497) 0.722 (0.448) 0.348 (0.477) 0.580 (0.494)
Morphological 0.330 (0.470) 0.265 (0.442) 0.638 (0.481) 0.215 (0.411) 0.384 (0.487)
Total for
understanding
0.595 (0.155) 0.615 (0.198) 0.773 (0.161) 0.491 (0.120) 0.658 (0.181)
Note. NPD =no professional development; PD =professional development.
an=66. bn=48. cn=118. dn=55.
involved implicit awareness (syllable counting) on which most participants did
very well (and hence, these items had a low discrimination index).
DISCUSSION
Coinciding with our hypothesis that teacher educators with a higher/lower under-
standing of basic language constructs will also have teacher candidates with a
higher/lower understanding, both the PD teacher educators and their teacher can-
didates had higher mean scores than their NPD counterparts on each category
of the survey, with the exception of phonological ability. Teacher educators who
lack a thorough understanding of basic language constructs were unable to give
this knowledge to their teacher candidates, and teacher educators with a higher
understanding were more likely to pass on this understanding to their teacher
candidates; this validates the Peter Effect in reading teacher education. The effect
sizes associated with the impact of professional development on understanding
scores, though small, still seem to have practical significance.
Although a lack of teacher expertise in basic language constructs has been
demonstrated in previous studies, little research has focused on the knowledge and
abilities of the teachers of teachers. This study addressed an area of research that
could be vital to improving the high incidence of reading difficulties and low read-
ing achievement seen in U.S. schools today—the level of understanding of those
teaching our teachers. The results of this study showed that teacher educators do
not possess a good understanding of basic language constructs (also see Joshi,
Binks, Hougen, Dahlgren, et al., 2009). This may be at least one reason for poor
teacher understanding—as teacher educators cannot give what they themselves
Downloaded by [Syracuse University Library] at 08:30 19 July 2013
PETER EFFECT 535
do not possess. Effective teaching is the best weapon against reading failure, and,
in order for preservice teacher preparation to be improved, an increase in teacher
educators’ understanding of the critical basic language constructs of reading is
needed.
Further research is needed to expand upon how to improve teacher educa-
tors’ knowledge and ability in basic language constructs. Limitations of this study
included somewhat small sample sizes; small effect sizes for the impact of pro-
fessional development; unsupervised survey completion; and the ability to draw
only correlational, not causal, relationships from the data and analyses at hand.
Future studies need to address these limitations by, for example, employing larger
sample sizes, in-person survey completion, and an experimental design.
REFERENCES
Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Applegate, A. J., & Applegate, M. D. (2004). The Peter Effect: Reading habits and attitudes of teacher
candidates. The Reading Teacher,57, 554–563.
Binks, E., Joshi, R. M., & Washburn, E. K. (2009, July). Teacher knowledge and preparation in
scientifically-based reading research in the United Kingdom. Poster presented at the annual meeting
of the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading, Boston, MA.
Bos, C., Mather, N., Dickson, S., Podhajski, B., & Chard, D. (2001). Perceptions and knowledge of
teacher candidates and inservice educators about early reading instruction. Annals of Dyslexia,51,
97–120.
Brady, S., & Moats, L. C. (1997). Informed instruction for reading success—Foundations for teacher
preparation (Position paper). Baltimore, MD: International Dyslexia Association.
Cunningham, A. E., Perry, K. E., Stanovich, K. E., & Stanovich, P. J. (2004). Disciplinary knowledge
of K–3 teachers and their knowledge calibration in the domain of early literacy. Annals of Dyslexia,
54, 139–167.
Fielding-Barnsley, R., & Purdie, N. (2005). Teachers’ attitude to and knowledge of metalinguistics in
the process of learning to read. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education,33, 65–75.
Fuller, E., & Berry, B. (2006). Texas teacher quality data: Prospects and problems. Hillsborough, NC:
Center for Teaching Quality.
Higher Education Collaborative. (2006). Texas Reading First Higher Education Collaborative:
2005–2006 annual report. Austin, TX: Vaughn Gross Center for Reading and Language Arts.
Joshi, R. M., Binks, E., Dean, E. O., & Graham, L. (2006, November). Roadblocks to reading acquisi-
tion: Is teacher knowledge one of them? Paper presented at the annual Meeting of the International
Dyslexia Association, Indianapolis, IN.
Joshi, R. M., Binks, E., Hougen, M., Dahlgren, M., Dean, E., & Smith, D. (2009). Why elementary
teachers might be inadequately prepared to teach reading. Journal of Learning Disabilities,42,
392–402.
Joshi, R. M., Binks, E., Hougen, M., Graham, L., Zhao, J., Padakannaya, P., ...Washburn, E. (2009,
July). Peter Effect in preparing reading teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
Society for the Scientific Study of Reading, Boston, MA.
McCutchen, D., Abbott, R. D., Green, L. B., Beretvas, S. N., Cox, S., Potter, N. S., ...Gray.A.L.
(2002). Beginning literacy: Links among teacher knowledge, teacher practice, and student learning.
Journal of Learning Disabilities,35, 69–86.
Downloaded by [Syracuse University Library] at 08:30 19 July 2013
536 BINKS-CANTRELL ET AL.
McCutchen, D., & Berninger, V. (1999). Those who know, teach well: Helping teachers master
literacy-related subject-matter knowledge. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice,14, 215–226.
McCutchen, D., Green, L., Abbott, R. D., & Sanders, E. A. (2009). Further evidence for teacher
knowledge: Supporting struggling readers in grades three through five. Reading and Writing: An
Interdisciplinary Journal,22, 401–423.
McCutchen, D., Harry, D. R., Cunningham, A. E., Cox, S., Sidman, S., & Covill, A. E. (2002).
Reading teachers’ knowledge of children’s literature and English phonology. Annals of Dyslexia,
52, 207–225.
Moats, L. C. (1994). The missing foundation in teacher education: Knowledge of the structure of
spoken and written language. Annals of Dyslexia,44, 81–102.
Moats, L. C. (1999). Teaching reading is rocket science. Washington, DC: American Federation of
Teachers.
Moats, L. C., & Foorman, B. R. (2003). Measuring teachers’ content knowledge of language and
reading. Annals of Dyslexia,53, 23–45.
Moats, L. C., & Lyon, G. R. (1996). Wanted: Teachers with knowledge of language. Topics in
Language Disorders,16, 73–86.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading
Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature
on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups (NIH Publication
No. 00–4754). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Piasta, S. B., Connor McDonald, C., Fishman, B. J., & Morrison, F. J. (2009). Teachers’ knowledge
of literacy concepts, classroom practices, and student reading growth. Scientific Studies of Reading,
13, 224–248.
Spear-Swerling, L., & Brucker, P. O. (2003). Teachers’ acquisition of knowledge about English word
structure. Annals of Dyslexia,53, 72–103.
Washburn, E. K., Joshi, R. M., & Binks-Cantrell, E. S. (2011a). Are preservice teachers prepared to
teach struggling readers? Annals of Dyslexia,61, 21–43.
Washburn, E. K., Joshi, R. M., & Binks-Cantrell, E. S. (2011b). Teacher knowledge of basic language
concepts and dyslexia. Dyslexia,17, 165–183.
Downloaded by [Syracuse University Library] at 08:30 19 July 2013
