<%BANNER%>

Analysis of preservice teachers' beliefs and professional knowledge about teaching struggling readers

University of Florida Institutional Repository
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20110320_AAAADA INGEST_TIME 2011-03-20T18:30:41Z PACKAGE UFE0009344_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 16653 DFID F20110320_AABUNK ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH scharlach_t_Page_075.QC.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
db46487a4f961aa4b91bc6e46e77e25a
SHA-1
0ede8bf86936086e14dff2998deba92a78c31b71
6563 F20110320_AABUMW scharlach_t_Page_115thm.jpg
0b61b95763f043b0e867b327ef53e12b
c8c1c5885814978e8efd27885681bc22319b77ec
58217 F20110320_AABTKI scharlach_t_Page_121.pro
b601d0c126b1eda01f055c54c5e85e8e
3579bcdd4d095f4dcab6326b0394085331aeb0ca
1053954 F20110320_AABTJU scharlach_t_Page_168.tif
5c17f5908b9660336aa854bf80634437
098aed3f30731fb58104d6f4ba18ebbfb4392433
19212 F20110320_AABUOA scharlach_t_Page_137.QC.jpg
af6f8b9ef9932b2bc233addaa1fb346a
89f61bd6470fcd98110753e6add8c581f3801553
5785 F20110320_AABUNL scharlach_t_Page_067thm.jpg
9bb08650319c5a10b6a24664b7505c50
d1c0f381fd54e6d9d9683af3ba65aa3e98207cf2
19855 F20110320_AABUMX scharlach_t_Page_093.QC.jpg
8f293b70b7f67fb6a99a09733100fd83
de9e841f600ea70e97b58e891dc7bd5c640c1d53
5300 F20110320_AABTKJ scharlach_t_Page_062thm.jpg
4ebbf7eb440090b74718683edb40fa32
6a9e6ea964b59ff2fd9e92e44bda8f7c1d4a39b1
17611 F20110320_AABTJV scharlach_t_Page_192.jpg
f5ef5f4eb22764f02aa255bdaf3ddf1d
19398465385b40626a166922730e4df8372af352
6674 F20110320_AABUNM scharlach_t_Page_166thm.jpg
f7ab6ab50c69b45bb212844e6cf50365
cca121581096c9cb1ce9aa58da248bcbbdf865ef
23307 F20110320_AABUMY scharlach_t_Page_058.QC.jpg
2ce663cbca0119e49f4b4a4c57197da8
0b4e3800442c0d0cee86a4d7ce190b59b04cf95e
5581 F20110320_AABTKK scharlach_t_Page_044thm.jpg
77e7fb7e6108ac0779d81c50ac471264
f1660f5904b0e9257e12730a45f2f3b7050c879b
37750 F20110320_AABTJW scharlach_t_Page_075.pro
af241801c52a5ba94bcc4324f11d0bcd
dd8bb9001d0cb1483863f6f354414c12336dae63
23804 F20110320_AABUOB scharlach_t_Page_064.QC.jpg
9c8c67601c3dbb14cf222bf9cd3de56d
14f39c34ace36808aa4735a20b638f3a9bc055af
6596 F20110320_AABUNN scharlach_t_Page_030thm.jpg
957da1346d2b4058e7cb1d5cf1ae1b76
cf962f42ce1ddb618bcdec84c9ff64c981ac1776
20490 F20110320_AABUMZ scharlach_t_Page_153.QC.jpg
75e90e43be32b5a7c9b3394c01657cad
41e86d4d3f703d5d57c2193fb60ae97800a7815a
58129 F20110320_AABTKL scharlach_t_Page_010.jpg
7b1f159849a12e388b390a71aadeca6e
7a32a4d1de4c69accda6216c4e284942113438f2
104461 F20110320_AABTJX scharlach_t_Page_156.jp2
248d8a9898d7e527a17c13b428891883
726c7628e49316d1a595b426fdfd100729628703
22508 F20110320_AABUOC scharlach_t_Page_090.QC.jpg
ae198ffb13065e0bd9437d4aab590a33
698d7a7c85b264338424ad34194c1fa937bb2224
22193 F20110320_AABUNO scharlach_t_Page_154.QC.jpg
ef8bbc8136a7f2fdcd67031abb53a406
ca68e770926e6e193750240bb29d338b92cb15ca
693 F20110320_AABTKM scharlach_t_Page_179.txt
098e9a66494f7fde21a6cf66cd3d8548
c31d25fc59e502cf2cd6a468e8c37dc59dfe7981
43056 F20110320_AABTJY scharlach_t_Page_100.pro
3305d8e2101be444404749d09e7a2e0d
0f1adf490d083385ed830eecbbdf76f455534ac9
11269 F20110320_AABTLA scharlach_t_Page_193.pro
845e4d42ad76ed406794540e6ded5289
c34736c72a28dc61b7d593668a29ba5e13b67f15
21854 F20110320_AABUOD scharlach_t_Page_066.QC.jpg
47043e18936ef04d6ecf87cdacdf582c
07f52a6d0a1e7b69a45c735613d7366d548bd057
6336 F20110320_AABUNP scharlach_t_Page_122thm.jpg
b148965ee653f263bf4a068ca5232bf6
a037f2fca0cdddd157a0f5cb6215dc9a6657ddfb
42456 F20110320_AABTKN scharlach_t_Page_112.pro
b3c20134c6e562d8a28b51e20b9aad63
c3d0882a389bf4aecb32698ef7859f6830e7cb34
F20110320_AABTJZ scharlach_t_Page_170.tif
d1162c754b325d63e5c1efef37388b30
6067fce69e149a70ca87811f9a7b92a261304164
621 F20110320_AABTLB scharlach_t_Page_159.txt
6e2f6685f43cab7f97f1123df4f1fff8
3ef72260d5a37ab72add2653873978d4a365c857
23052 F20110320_AABUOE scharlach_t_Page_114.QC.jpg
5c627336ba681bd7fb1ee58141cd3329
874195ff2e354aa88eacf24914258e1bbfda14b0
22280 F20110320_AABUNQ scharlach_t_Page_022.QC.jpg
332906d21dc009f6ac75f29ffd1cba0f
363179376cde741ff98a920ef33511f50a6931c1
1912 F20110320_AABTKO scharlach_t_Page_162.txt
697500930f1aef013db63841db6450ad
85ac8813306b92da174b978babf9704e038fa7fa
100607 F20110320_AABTLC scharlach_t_Page_172.jp2
1fb6377595ed0f10eb27bc62d62e1558
78301dd3ae7b4d89552435b59156b6c78f5ff195
23698 F20110320_AABUOF scharlach_t_Page_133.QC.jpg
59af648947f35a8d56b14c35f9a2a584
9f9d4b465780ecbd97bf11f6b884a2f7dc5e802e
20901 F20110320_AABUNR scharlach_t_Page_098.QC.jpg
02fab4e7ace6ccfbbeafb4e8062ad3e3
22375276fdb8699ed30350ee73afb5fa6eccd7f8
50714 F20110320_AABTKP scharlach_t_Page_034.pro
845bf30b25583744b5f65ccd0f4528aa
b2dbaafae3018f6f4c34e55aaa1b85f18d986234
44356 F20110320_AABTLD scharlach_t_Page_044.pro
708873c8252ac80200c03087e6249c06
3e3231c666e80d44de84ccefd1d6d19f19dc888c
22505 F20110320_AABUOG scharlach_t_Page_095.QC.jpg
caa93e14ad9382c561aac85f206e216f
8988afaa50457173c4eda9f15d6279ddabea41c6
19826 F20110320_AABUNS scharlach_t_Page_100.QC.jpg
3b54f14174f81584c21095d549db8f8c
1187006f0b5aa14e9f152646f9961b3ce32c86f5
17266 F20110320_AABTKQ scharlach_t_Page_003.QC.jpg
68cf578d966fba9407d7571d183c3574
6775b7e22e5d80ddab78428e5143c2ee6dab83f6
68495 F20110320_AABTLE scharlach_t_Page_022.jpg
28d5516318afddd85f3789802497cdeb
076e7245699d2f790ccd09382cccd1ad3e23a7ef
23363 F20110320_AABUOH scharlach_t_Page_076.QC.jpg
b3f23f7d83438f49bb33c7efe17fffed
64577d0bdc77da61efaa760ae2007a259689aa66
6719 F20110320_AABUNT scharlach_t_Page_191thm.jpg
9dc3c2514632d55931566b4fae929439
799dc3db16d05277d9e127ae683781685113c301
45791 F20110320_AABTKR scharlach_t_Page_169.pro
5216b3ae60daf4f620b46b4ab9dc1438
d0124353ac0e1feebb895a36c0e878011a007fb3
108555 F20110320_AABTLF scharlach_t_Page_012.jp2
dc286ffab9c41d531832b9c35547ecc0
9bc1f1502008ad8f2ae88c49ca4410bf4f22ad8b
22049 F20110320_AABUOI scharlach_t_Page_161.QC.jpg
5025a7f6aabdaac366576c9bd5939f6b
2fba5f4e5b9a4cb83f1cb9cd64b3724bcc45a34d
23038 F20110320_AABUNU scharlach_t_Page_073.QC.jpg
41356c0958739b50255db6c5a3d971ad
556743b4270a7f65e3116d31d863d8807ff21ce2
57105 F20110320_AABTKS scharlach_t_Page_007.pro
691e6c4dfbf02de481f2eb7346767ef2
3adf6505c011ccd0bceb02ad9ba508d1efbfdee2
2222 F20110320_AABTLG scharlach_t_Page_097.txt
b78d349a5e58af6aa53083a9ca867f19
ba19faf4babb068f18dd98e90e11b4979d522f97
20164 F20110320_AABUOJ scharlach_t_Page_016.QC.jpg
bd448394721508398257022365f1bbd9
b9beb8186fd2bc099a648070bc84f96a54f7ea54
1987 F20110320_AABUNV scharlach_t_Page_190thm.jpg
223c5dd375712345c520b980a784657d
3e215147292307dee5d601df1e09867567f9db6e
93605 F20110320_AABTKT scharlach_t_Page_063.jp2
d2fd5775aa3579c1e8d10cbcf6608862
f3906a7596e3376f9597e85cc1c0960893c712fd
F20110320_AABTLH scharlach_t_Page_079.tif
76fcc5878813a633b03f3923339121b5
5cd793884b4cc26f2a9d91c9bd6de8fc5c57914f
2199 F20110320_AABUOK scharlach_t_Page_177thm.jpg
bcf972f13e3c3a0494af0e8549225a1d
4b1a6e3aa7f1b89605cfffbd668d55d7f21641e8
7134 F20110320_AABUNW scharlach_t_Page_195thm.jpg
162724fd7dbec22ec78e268a5c54a188
be95b11681fcba28a94dfe17060bc750f64b9abc
F20110320_AABTKU scharlach_t_Page_164.tif
7c497702b8d1fe3c7248d479f1b1314a
de4b546e9eb9ab63b3418a6567bc26a199900997
2726 F20110320_AABTLI scharlach_t_Page_131.txt
bac56231492a7949025959cb4a83f50f
bcd4fc5405e8adac620685037ed3f5261d1f368c
5749 F20110320_AABUPA scharlach_t_Page_194thm.jpg
441db76203ece50a137d4b1d51b9b84c
4874499e253b404c66070cdbc40e5c6aeee93851
25682 F20110320_AABUOL scharlach_t_Page_199.QC.jpg
646282be5add93dfee8fe1ddb5dd62d0
1fc00e3bcbfcfdb768484be7e3f3d9f1e481d633
6553 F20110320_AABUNX scharlach_t_Page_068thm.jpg
8d726a0224359427e3f929addf44f4e8
47cb6c365a1ff6341a4019cfa619119e8905244c
25271604 F20110320_AABTKV scharlach_t_Page_198.tif
6f2b5bfbdd8aa241376f3c1bd397c951
d6be75b8bee3e53765d62b03af23e5dcf5df1632
1546 F20110320_AABTLJ scharlach_t_Page_006thm.jpg
5f958cf418faf2cadc2bd01594482bd2
77990af77bda30c9c8e9cc15921fdcf7d828e0cb
4721 F20110320_AABUPB scharlach_t_Page_106thm.jpg
7ad9665164725ab2b7d3e7aee58c7d4a
ded2524631d1c13dd0a9d221c2dddabb11f53b87
1537 F20110320_AABUOM scharlach_t_Page_059thm.jpg
50cbe265000d1a0c898efcc2371f33e4
e7bb2a9f2dbb8d8804986ff62ad26471e8991aab
6126 F20110320_AABUNY scharlach_t_Page_098thm.jpg
243be9815873b5f4664c7b20ec08e20b
87149eaf2fefa44cb26138115c0558c8357fa283
F20110320_AABTKW scharlach_t_Page_166.tif
54a5e4a3dc72d48cf0c94c801ca91dc8
7212fe73aebdf88eb13f7237f67568ae30177334
28279 F20110320_AABTLK scharlach_t_Page_180.jpg
481886c000533cc0b81de46b4edc1a9f
0a95298aea89221d87dfaf5eba9b1917c60898c2
15914 F20110320_AABUON scharlach_t_Page_119.QC.jpg
4d2f7ef70b05172e9dff95bdfec58e02
dc3ee31182ad45c19f3457506b78228131e10ee9
20718 F20110320_AABUNZ scharlach_t_Page_082.QC.jpg
4fbc507a4ba80da4330c312645d7a214
47a97b7c3b9dfc5d50d8d7550fff3f7f26345e25
38146 F20110320_AABTLL scharlach_t_Page_155.pro
071a31bf4b736257b99bc92e51ddc3fc
25d3d3732700cfbcdb286e05bfbc0e9eb3954cf3
21540 F20110320_AABTKX scharlach_t_Page_107.QC.jpg
05ddbc2b00a14885355a135cbd221555
9685ab3a916130723a345620baa350d66cd7a26c
10957 F20110320_AABUPC scharlach_t_Page_183.QC.jpg
672b60230d95b09aeea83367b51f0d82
275da29a07e24c21989a9d23a486dd43f242e71d
23838 F20110320_AABUOO scharlach_t_Page_138.QC.jpg
88a40160efc887cdcc665ae7854b156c
10e67a75294aa9993a12d0c2148e4c40664b47c2
102564 F20110320_AABTMA scharlach_t_Page_101.jp2
0d333d79dad30dcb77224f32e22ef4c4
8d6ec0006eefb26eae96f5d4b2a6b7e3621033e1
48615 F20110320_AABTLM scharlach_t_Page_174.pro
d132a36a58380e47e63e36405c4ea96c
b9fcb1e30d89e35ed2dbbc51be7467c27504131f
114183 F20110320_AABTKY scharlach_t_Page_021.jp2
04c87e3eb14c56479cd0fd51a14cc43b
6d69b72b30f52fd50e385ac1a6402e1c051ba1f9
5433 F20110320_AABUPD scharlach_t_Page_149thm.jpg
d210e4f41a2f45c5b49b6bb7d5fc8e85
4291603bbe61c17430f46590c06e12b899d35e89
17935 F20110320_AABUOP scharlach_t_Page_062.QC.jpg
d14e94f412731317db751129f0a51931
3578c49fbf6137ead757513d29dc30219b683152
5892 F20110320_AABTMB scharlach_t_Page_016thm.jpg
5d40c9e4ab89b3c1a39076be88627899
b39277a786b9320b56452a58385c952d425cac0f
111974 F20110320_AABTLN scharlach_t_Page_054.jp2
f57ef793590c9693915fe912711f0cb5
c83f19abc3a636d15f6cb2c579233c0cc83e1124
88192 F20110320_AABTKZ scharlach_t_Page_010.jp2
f34eff1fdc53a3ed7d3905174df0481b
b1d454bbd6340e709e05dd217ba59d5c4c69047b
23485 F20110320_AABUPE scharlach_t_Page_166.QC.jpg
08070a9b7dbcad511fd0e1aec362b4eb
2fb5f6f86e57ffc58c221336fd11ee3feb5e8d77
23098 F20110320_AABUOQ scharlach_t_Page_171.QC.jpg
853045da4573a96cd32c47760f58eb7a
07347a7508e6a165a7a50c3e9b4b5febef430618
F20110320_AABTMC scharlach_t_Page_007.tif
a05c1c26659559b307b99a889c12b17c
01a3299b9b76b491c71acabb0d2a15a30a9fc07b
2069 F20110320_AABTLO scharlach_t_Page_040.txt
98520251bade404aa8a5c5500e36cce1
794aee67dd370cf37ab26932d465dc08907beeab
20100 F20110320_AABUPF scharlach_t_Page_067.QC.jpg
ffbd0db633b848e51916b64669dd77bc
58ace0da05c6a77b46f3f17603c082d253cd20ff
6391 F20110320_AABUOR scharlach_t_Page_065thm.jpg
be1b831e65b42ae98fd532405bc43bb8
1e7e2816942b62d73b45733cf113b26b63d07588
69625 F20110320_AABTMD scharlach_t_Page_096.jpg
528995c879eec1c5f1d583ca2c931b19
501b77a7c1d79fd97f7a5fa9a7e6ed05013c64e6
1989 F20110320_AABTLP scharlach_t_Page_026.txt
9d620d71715cc19d86a6133493b94ccc
eb032efe1f985110db05f3d99bbc59927cec7a79
6407 F20110320_AABUPG scharlach_t_Page_049thm.jpg
69e9f258e66075d749a2f43105423137
ef855eebdcea325ee0c8bf19acff2cf834b74bc9
5445 F20110320_AABUOS scharlach_t_Page_160thm.jpg
00d48608c9ba5952bcc823b9de2a05e8
71fac9669877cdb0c885577717373d4fb9333942
1952 F20110320_AABTME scharlach_t_Page_055.txt
bcb6d08321cde5fb16ae43ffd2d767b8
1d545617fbc34019d6bf6479e41a23821cf317d3
108149 F20110320_AABTLQ scharlach_t_Page_087.jp2
60ff8d39c99df8ddbfb25f482ad40b67
a604dff58c58777280965c9901ff3c05e4a22ec1
2008 F20110320_AABUPH scharlach_t_Page_188thm.jpg
51d131f22f53afc7a2e8a544f5c4139e
a28b0e36650542d3bf4d0212811b13fcb43d5fed
5121 F20110320_AABUOT scharlach_t_Page_185.QC.jpg
48078d62b14a1ed464329d3db9ad1cf4
bfb5fe34a37977a86209a585af1014b09b53431d
105066 F20110320_AABTMF scharlach_t_Page_053.jp2
55b21d2c1523d9f2619b836d38fc5bb0
4043820dda6de8b71c5fa45ba45397048f3d0a8a
5418 F20110320_AABTLR scharlach_t_Page_146thm.jpg
897808c7a5e7ba9f54187da417c6b1c2
a290c52b44b3a1db5cc133ec82342d3541cede3d
5500 F20110320_AABUPI scharlach_t_Page_005thm.jpg
a074550b4139349c848f9fcfa21287f4
7d66b778692ab36875e486c08b5713872b21a295
6097 F20110320_AABUOU scharlach_t_Page_165thm.jpg
ad0ed2f5b1c6362f404a5a5f33748e70
bc895d0e00ac350d5cc100a0fed960c392695b7f
6024 F20110320_AABTMG scharlach_t_Page_095thm.jpg
ac69a8cf3f2746c63297aa681ec45512
e9d8c9033577f7ed6bd097f3fe9a3de1767b3d51
2256 F20110320_AABTLS scharlach_t_Page_007.txt
d54f34d134f8009d1e246bb8e62b6dd4
b42030f904738d3c3750b33e51f0d6e4efbf106c
6829 F20110320_AABUPJ scharlach_t_Page_199thm.jpg
ed93de223aef81533efeb96203aa379a
c5de35c9e8414ce7227d8e92929a73569cf2dea5
1943 F20110320_AABUOV scharlach_t_Page_192thm.jpg
dff5f6ccae717257a9a844c8eaadf939
cf6cd8db864f9432a9f47c49c80e977d187e38de
216 F20110320_AABTMH scharlach_t_Page_186.txt
43c28937a96bb3ba277bdb91cd8841d0
a34a6937010096f57093bc933ea9dad97f2b28a1
6682 F20110320_AABTLT scharlach_t_Page_036thm.jpg
d3ced9ba65ed1d670c8b300ae9252414
f75d1d1b71b5a09278326cdea6e3f4f437d835a6
6185 F20110320_AABUPK scharlach_t_Page_057thm.jpg
c3b80b46d0c927d9a097fc191487c632
0fb27b49755b5228d8b99c3dade0e6d35e6dbc55
6220 F20110320_AABUOW scharlach_t_Page_101thm.jpg
bb79882fe1422e2ac75cebd0b82fd9d8
2c116340004aca4dbbefdb1c06b60df97d7ceecf
2087 F20110320_AABTMI scharlach_t_Page_071.txt
74e29cc04fe74d4d2800b173f727b544
cce9f0807cddb23da06ce65162ae59604fd57c2b
42233 F20110320_AABTLU scharlach_t_Page_131.pro
128edc18bbe7085749ac7a0712c1e54d
d590709bec741f27a5a38c0e9e716e7e3f5df12c
22152 F20110320_AABUQA scharlach_t_Page_053.QC.jpg
411bf973c18de094f7f78815464b1c9d
d54464e254d912281b1549470e5854572158416c
21259 F20110320_AABUPL scharlach_t_Page_061.QC.jpg
4c9fc3d8cb38c6b68c78a7119e05ae59
6bffbac43e466cce0d2056064afbcf47fcdae3c0
28193 F20110320_AABUOX scharlach_t_Page_198.QC.jpg
3d3034d7ec37a722537fefbdff740383
0c7854bbf8cae7d983837a9c2574cd306af86af3
104029 F20110320_AABTMJ scharlach_t_Page_065.jp2
4a89b7fe99baac13c384f1ee04266a01
0e0cd491bcfacf114dec8ecd3a3ed2130efb4f7b
8955 F20110320_AABTLV scharlach_t_Page_001.pro
1c06ddc304bad5d21aa1e7aaf5424be6
154bf8de4ba02084eedf9bca3cfd7dbf46227835
21325 F20110320_AABUQB scharlach_t_Page_072.QC.jpg
a006889bef0af32c0a84ebebef6285b2
090a46d5941191d96502fb89afde8f5489d94f23
17595 F20110320_AABUPM scharlach_t_Page_113.QC.jpg
d6fdc5420eb08402cb710c9ab167a5d8
15d81265d7bdaad090f64cacb75e42b34d8607d3
20288 F20110320_AABUOY scharlach_t_Page_124.QC.jpg
a98d8e43a76fe4eb79aa619c9aa7ce62
66a142d5b620b92e48109d5d5c059ff2852f4983
90664 F20110320_AABTMK scharlach_t_Page_093.jp2
3dd60e5a07a021b0dbaf125a2b770d3d
37f6a1ff0fa9188b5d85c7314c4174b5c5f9f7af
F20110320_AABTLW scharlach_t_Page_126.tif
5bfeaa5701d26cbe6647b0f0f4b93731
7cae25b895c965666f6aa93570ed0bf59d386275
22180 F20110320_AABUQC scharlach_t_Page_046.QC.jpg
114704b86d8be61e074ff8c2f8189fe8
4ae796d72a55664860b290a815ce291ef33ad07b
8767 F20110320_AABUPN scharlach_t_Page_179.QC.jpg
f7cb5016eb343609fcef6b052f6c14fb
668df3da7cf1a203eec14dd7e96e595d84ad10f6
24171 F20110320_AABUOZ scharlach_t_Page_028.QC.jpg
24bcd24608b48edf40603ce57f00fcb8
45f33927e001db2cf9299ae4a053dcd7ec8b3410
21897 F20110320_AABTML scharlach_t_Page_144.QC.jpg
847b0ae1dfb37adfb0f268004fb210f0
9221f6a68d001d73a334856dd75a9716b302eb57
F20110320_AABTLX scharlach_t_Page_066.tif
f06dbc3b1164272b34a6253378d3b68a
aecc8128003e4a4268e0391700951a5dec24ce90
F20110320_AABTNA scharlach_t_Page_184.tif
9bae94895b4b2c277d27a268492bed9e
96cb59304b1992cac8a32582ae62892c3f494808
6403 F20110320_AABUPO scharlach_t_Page_074thm.jpg
a2b7537e3aa7d47cb0a0f12371061e68
a9d773bfcdd0493789479c59edd5bdb071d6a204
7465 F20110320_AABTMM scharlach_t_Page_192.pro
8b4c4b1e86d6cda15cd56f8c232f1a46
2958d277a9364619c41b1bdff37c742225f01608
2099 F20110320_AABTLY scharlach_t_Page_181thm.jpg
8c5dcdde11132e2ccbbb6f49d77405c3
a96ed2ea8d8d03827c284e23678d47f4bc3ad649
20676 F20110320_AABUQD scharlach_t_Page_071.QC.jpg
0a1fdd607fb8235e6de1c78ef5f6b526
fff294e56edf9956a8bc2ab5751f492553d757cd
23350 F20110320_AABUPP scharlach_t_Page_068.QC.jpg
6ff96b42474c2ee63252174f4e9f3583
e823076147ba7132706ff0c9cbc6cfdfd9f0bbfb
2061 F20110320_AABTMN scharlach_t_Page_128.txt
1cad8d0df48121b3ebe6ebdb766143fb
722f37c86b8060a5f7e331f0b390bbf1d95a6861
73369 F20110320_AABTLZ scharlach_t_Page_035.jpg
52ac42989d489b1cee9ff680da82682b
e530e74989f46b8311086ef8b440e34c1b03fe06
23837 F20110320_AABTNB scharlach_t_Page_038.QC.jpg
219f8c7da7fd53c81c80cdfa166b3747
0a912a0c0029a12e85e9b33d094f4c0e6d6ccff9
6469 F20110320_AABUQE scharlach_t_Page_027thm.jpg
72fee3c2b71a6e185fcbdebcb97a46e2
09b9088d7e08141a356c59de1298d5807865ff88
6529 F20110320_AABUPQ scharlach_t_Page_032thm.jpg
b41deec32b369057ad681145fb8b0700
e2321ff3b57c4cf637a44639e7d83f13edc9a7a5
F20110320_AABTMO scharlach_t_Page_152.txt
6c079f1e5fd9de6ab0052b3a398fe52c
a7e9dcef1af683800dd02acb532698fa1754e68f
F20110320_AABTNC scharlach_t_Page_078.tif
0dea5eaabd5cdfd6a4d59b3ba3f69a57
8a758c3e375652232f1e9ed74fc252aef8d0fb2c
5522 F20110320_AABUQF scharlach_t_Page_017thm.jpg
c269c1c85f0d925010db26c26059aa50
4ea9f32e06f124240a2171743ecb5b7720816364
23247 F20110320_AABUPR scharlach_t_Page_070.QC.jpg
d71604c55f09db99bb7defe6f33c927b
28f4f4b3e15e777256782c518ab1d801e650374c
2193 F20110320_AABTMP scharlach_t_Page_136.txt
fbf4bb691276e16634142e2641a1bf30
05161d26ed2e1e1afc07a12c2f39fda49ee02b60
F20110320_AABTND scharlach_t_Page_147.tif
da9b1d95aec0fe2acf8f1013bf988512
b1926d383915a3b1f3978d853786caa81ff63cfc
6257 F20110320_AABUQG scharlach_t_Page_013thm.jpg
868fd0886eb83753beb19825c805e402
e0bce1869b161acd5673795312a1eab5ffa36f26
6337 F20110320_AABUPS scharlach_t_Page_053thm.jpg
1827502cf9e2fd3d719bdb5c1d75e47b
609ce5046828f463fe4eb88b6bdbd3093488745b
F20110320_AABTMQ scharlach_t_Page_028.tif
998c5b4adda8c65580ead3b9cc59b837
e2c2ecb5b9bfb99d7959265a113a1af8b593ccba
67432 F20110320_AABTNE scharlach_t_Page_007.jpg
d26933f708ca978f23cbdf3beb216866
8f3d1b0314646ac8de28a8e8088e66b3fe53716c
20555 F20110320_AABUQH scharlach_t_Page_091.QC.jpg
dc621089f923629da23efec7946ac61f
dc0d1350bfcad9e1958419ad7ff5447ece9a2068
4830 F20110320_AABUPT scharlach_t_Page_078thm.jpg
680ea94c478ebbe71cd208cb5f770eb5
e8c6bbcabbe5f6c8ec7d259641d1a4eff9c07d87
78020 F20110320_AABTMR scharlach_t_Page_075.jp2
e7dfb45e73e203df8f556c08a82e3398
ec2a8f4f0323dd1dc53ddf5e46d62d8f0238eee2
5728 F20110320_AABTNF scharlach_t_Page_181.QC.jpg
3bd5ff52aac48bc75037c5a74d9c9336
cf25f326106966c39487aabafd33578213b2e606
23614 F20110320_AABUQI scharlach_t_Page_054.QC.jpg
d5d4ec2c80123d67cfba1507d4077ac3
d9cbe0d1988490f1487b430dd3262f7018e8aa52
22474 F20110320_AABUPU scharlach_t_Page_173.QC.jpg
1613d28af8205673729496e411a28db0
88821331ec8c224cd662b80f14ac5c3778042f45
55484 F20110320_AABTMS scharlach_t_Page_106.jpg
f9fa20e06f03f876199c23f73f40de8d
75ef21f2920979b23ecb3995dbaeb408c48fdd4c
1999 F20110320_AABTNG scharlach_t_Page_041.txt
038b806108c5dd808a588e8f03932bde
2bedee37e601e7800b0f3f2fcdf42a9f80a1e01f
23336 F20110320_AABUQJ scharlach_t_Page_102.QC.jpg
197c93b55740aa79089688d9422c5bd1
4acf33d2520ac2446b85c66ca31c8907d598ca11
5397 F20110320_AABUPV scharlach_t_Page_043thm.jpg
94aa5af4b56497976bda71708edeb994
7681fb0f2abfffd9a1317dca8800e2bef5e0828a
15509 F20110320_AABTMT scharlach_t_Page_123.QC.jpg
c6d137fdc87f1707e1bb542c59fa585f
7e3aeab44a9a5840fe2d36086ee4ff852445f223
41686 F20110320_AABTNH scharlach_t_Page_113.pro
e953bfdf1c4c37e71ddd3e06b014f3c2
31e677af4bc39b00b029ed96a446a8f535b0cb68
6558 F20110320_AABUQK scharlach_t_Page_025thm.jpg
4fd9f039d0f09c819e8c6152c74b097d
1c639e83775fd0a1e0ba319b82de495f8243d615
9223 F20110320_AABUPW scharlach_t_Page_180.QC.jpg
b4528a189e0ff8acc2b2c6387a0c4ff1
7c317966831a24f72f47b8eaa061d18293722e74
15281 F20110320_AABTMU scharlach_t_Page_185.jpg
68bee29c2c36e3f1193a8f47de98ad9d
76b8e1f07489fe62b4c9d1f5dc1aa4bfa4ac4879
17399 F20110320_AABTNI scharlach_t_Page_002.QC.jpg
c6fa169b7af5b43b2ea5e4d00e625603
233af324bd9c4031f503df27cef32a052dc8b38f
23493 F20110320_AABURA scharlach_t_Page_034.QC.jpg
ae9d20d1747febafce0de0d01ea38e87
801124cf9435f8425274411b40f23d1c72e9b7b0
6298 F20110320_AABUQL scharlach_t_Page_055thm.jpg
8d2dafac3a12af638e5de531c8630199
67143d3dc206909df7c5331521a4e234888b1540
19812 F20110320_AABUPX scharlach_t_Page_060.QC.jpg
42428dc861a2e1903be3d7f30695cc2b
d113c070280795d2b4d25fc6691fc7a74d640169
F20110320_AABTMV scharlach_t_Page_135.tif
29e1e523cb6f957bbd0c2c4811961238
2d8ae942f3a92814d98576cb8848c7e1baa6a1cb
5808 F20110320_AABTNJ scharlach_t_Page_118thm.jpg
81c8837d16e135d78fa94f3d41a465cf
af7551449378abe3a28deeb9cc8e842d5f9c34c6
15759 F20110320_AABURB scharlach_t_Page_069.QC.jpg
90ae5b15365ad1d93f7f690490597353
5d5f6e39c2df653ae9225be58640f5da2f2ced96
19775 F20110320_AABUQM scharlach_t_Page_045.QC.jpg
6169b673540d729d6e49646577173e55
a31de43b81c233461194ee435bbee41ca739ec7a
6448 F20110320_AABUPY scharlach_t_Page_031thm.jpg
0e836014cbbb08ba01dfb44f5b2d4f7a
c52a442036807edb165ea3985d16a519d967a26c
70086 F20110320_AABTMW scharlach_t_Page_154.jpg
6cb68bad38943f86421115fc5a1c4666
f4408fcd63adf1c05f2a27c588d92c9403a017de
F20110320_AABTNK scharlach_t_Page_114.tif
76ea152fa124503f4c62e24d2143a2c3
3436bc8bbae8a5cfd3637ec392be2785ecbd1fd5
15372 F20110320_AABURC scharlach_t_Page_083.QC.jpg
ee6d8e0f9b4194f66e97fdf035ece4df
bd94734f2720f9d11fc1dcb744e2a06810cde3e0
5388 F20110320_AABUQN scharlach_t_Page_128thm.jpg
c8bf9a89d5a86095b0a41a67efbb5fb9
c491c088a81f1bda8952e7e1538158c276b86850
6688 F20110320_AABUPZ scharlach_t_Page_020thm.jpg
3dca4f5ef37f3d7382550c8e5507ee17
6bc640c70c7ea7fccacebe10a0e3c7c4201b4af0
5345 F20110320_AABTMX scharlach_t_Page_060thm.jpg
3dde1e76ce47abfcd1faaf922fc72087
8b45fbff91a6cd0a32a1cd3b4a55844c560c475b
59933 F20110320_AABTOA scharlach_t_Page_093.jpg
e3babac87fa6690831bde250b284cb8b
6dd9b3be7cc6df83698226c5f374534d84399515
23349 F20110320_AABTNL scharlach_t_Page_158.QC.jpg
2a4686c5a785239ed0406d4d9dacced1
0c6cd98fd8ae9eef2511fed8e2e2a1ab5aa6ea68
20998 F20110320_AABURD scharlach_t_Page_084.QC.jpg
343e43ec5306de8779913bea7eed614a
4b1e53698e45740645af8345acd027e979041cc6
6527 F20110320_AABUQO scharlach_t_Page_121thm.jpg
3e1d5cb7e766df48f3285a8058b393eb
c6fd8a03f68aebcba14634481c0088dc3d66c7d0
F20110320_AABTMY scharlach_t_Page_031.tif
e69bbc6ed4c0fcb7d7504b3fd135c5ed
69cfed61de2a27ac2da0a860334cbd81f7ac9187
2032 F20110320_AABTOB scharlach_t_Page_068.txt
dd781954d56d25f01ab13cfc4fb5b8a8
a0be45d597fe556550fbff598347532e7077e649
8289 F20110320_AABTNM scharlach_t_Page_187.jp2
7fafcc032939d3e14202ee04e779248d
055588efc5cacec33b35e47a96f002d52e68ba87
23623 F20110320_AABUQP scharlach_t_Page_163.QC.jpg
64008329f51ccfa9d1b2a3e37b930ca8
ba612e6b2c81f05a38f17d44037d750e2fa1c5ea
2360 F20110320_AABTMZ scharlach_t_Page_156.txt
f3f9f0685fea193b6adc44d25415d758
53119a3f65c5727ade026941110fef925de6a648
22464 F20110320_AABTNN scharlach_t_Page_156.QC.jpg
9fe9a7ad361d6f8097129a2887557124
4de59c155533011d87a501f34213c9678b3d98f3
17765 F20110320_AABURE scharlach_t_Page_089.QC.jpg
4412f7cc677f3070fb0dd8a6254b1324
f20e8fa970d288bd02c54f13dddd5e9856cce315
5723 F20110320_AABUQQ scharlach_t_Page_045thm.jpg
0e15466ab76a0bf51c0f52c0b69c28cc
bb2149ab3cc1c1f4b0fb0aaf074a29f08c1a74f3
96001 F20110320_AABTOC scharlach_t_Page_071.jp2
bbaa1750408ee7cd5b81c2f0c98eee1a
51b9bd914239d3cbcb3c415605dfffa302f2d716
8890 F20110320_AABTNO scharlach_t_Page_159.QC.jpg
3307b74706a242d7c7aa911fc33997fd
92cea07a0b81acf55b62dd63fbfc78fe63013b03
3518 F20110320_AABURF scharlach_t_Page_187.QC.jpg
7109075ed7be007a4fe18fd863a82e81
633530b18a6f7134e081d5501fd40ce15981e87b
19111 F20110320_AABUQR scharlach_t_Page_135.QC.jpg
1e5471604ff93049f55277eb3e466a1c
ce932264bbc9358fbf597fcde093e2c1e8886988
6214 F20110320_AABTOD scharlach_t_Page_173thm.jpg
86c846655dc331905b59e49b4d625563
a6303e7f7dbc59745a1c9279c1eb3ed9d31d9458
114964 F20110320_AABTNP scharlach_t_Page_030.jp2
2c1d2d954fe86b84832863aea27261c8
fa3dfc3fa6f548cdaafb42acd2533b089dbd695d
5790 F20110320_AABURG scharlach_t_Page_015thm.jpg
85ab1514b05e54b63c52b7b1cb5cae09
f32001ed624b8bdbb4ecdb46c5a330468c1c0d11
4634 F20110320_AABUQS scharlach_t_Page_003thm.jpg
8f450e2570185f169027349ac497d34a
224463c88a455adcaf9d24453749da86718c9738
106593 F20110320_AABTOE scharlach_t_Page_049.jp2
c1885bbbe2eec8984c139c2e85bc93ae
91a9dfff56aea1f2837158c6f11810f1a955180b
F20110320_AABTNQ scharlach_t_Page_037.tif
18eb20d3e4cd9a4beb150d5cd4279d78
9505d8c9697b172025bfe1211193124fa8165e68
6464 F20110320_AABURH scharlach_t_Page_058thm.jpg
a74bbc379433351a0977374f0cc53205
286d2c6567f7bf80a64a022f831041dc4cd9a729
3811 F20110320_AABUQT scharlach_t_Page_006.QC.jpg
37418b694f27033b7491cf928405fd80
f8dd4b5a60fdb3edeeb740e10cb2f70c92f9d664
42281 F20110320_AABTOF scharlach_t_Page_060.pro
f18fff943c5479527ee8113fcabecd27
dde972a8b2e2d35d6b75807766d955b17fdf7fdb
71680 F20110320_AABTNR scharlach_t_Page_012.jpg
728c483977f0be4ac22a710ac62f29dc
b658f3bbe52487d1f45d242824e5ffe7551e9a6e
5933 F20110320_AABURI scharlach_t_Page_100thm.jpg
fa31546ae6b2f7a798d20db775440ac2
2b5ba77fdf7c2d1bf10cfacde3c24c59034e93ef
19711 F20110320_AABUQU scharlach_t_Page_007.QC.jpg
d3ccdbe1043833ca116d400bd98e2b74
1d68bb2de7c04f5a5133eaea3f4e3f0451752ebd
22337 F20110320_AABTOG scharlach_t_Page_134.QC.jpg
3f8ce55a5a43a1dacf7c0b69045463b7
0564104947dae89ee0462e0ba0eea821fb9653e7
102960 F20110320_AABTNS scharlach_t_Page_090.jp2
f1e78b928f3d1210d96c76c105285b27
5e7b4134091a4d448de12d37565f56937b2f2791
F20110320_AABURJ scharlach_t_Page_132thm.jpg
21356c5a943fcf2e0f0e51c41bf48b3c
0eb26c1b52c7f8e478d855496dd0eb302b44a1cd
6465 F20110320_AABUQV scharlach_t_Page_148thm.jpg
4a7087cfb4b9c824a81eb01ca9a640fa
03c00d9328d64f497e28bab3439fb2952a6cfd56
47441 F20110320_AABTOH scharlach_t_Page_162.pro
a892941e702e814ceb2a6aa7608a0063
09a92f81caf16f0bd26d3155e06dc88d02bde774
18480 F20110320_AABTNT scharlach_t_Page_177.jpg
d1f9472e0989180a24a5a31a1f28c81c
3c77dfc3ce2bd9a19c7e64311e1a431800d6f2f1
5476 F20110320_AABURK scharlach_t_Page_137thm.jpg
a612dc4964cf7f2c465d9f18f121393c
57d363fa2d63256b2b5e3e8de2486d928f8787ec
325967 F20110320_AABUQW UFE0009344_00001.xml FULL
ff485c50da1e3e56dd13385088d047db
a9a829735a3b5c7c944a10920be36c9eb97a4c14
48323 F20110320_AABTOI scharlach_t_Page_168.pro
41a65bef25425bbb8d0d087df5fd7d1e
f1c3872279fd7c0ba15a7199a945416b04af5238
1927 F20110320_AABTNU scharlach_t_Page_100.txt
519107c966578f45b43f85ee8af4fe09
577b14b6b5d773b230a41287d39cb787b9cacf4f
6633 F20110320_AABURL scharlach_t_Page_138thm.jpg
66b1171cfe3339c9f1651a068d01d6db
7b9a5da4b28652d72e94ffe45f10d0da956c8cc1
18967 F20110320_AABUQX scharlach_t_Page_009.QC.jpg
4b0b91a6d49a7a2cc1e072d776116c29
72aa2cc6648807086cfed60c4febc37042573502
73051 F20110320_AABTOJ scharlach_t_Page_147.jpg
48f853d88127d76e0d89737cd7e1a2ae
c84ace246acaefced3405ad5d9e89a735e93e1c1
83129 F20110320_AABTNV scharlach_t_Page_191.pro
d964838a229f10f7da0834f882188edf
47e487d22a8a972aaec00256d9691d8f9e65d55f
6250 F20110320_AABURM scharlach_t_Page_168thm.jpg
5e0fb11df0ec4250945207484e9ac99d
8b7414a2c0a6d80fce304e4563233fa91483967f
22395 F20110320_AABUQY scharlach_t_Page_029.QC.jpg
e8303622d9a7b1174b0252b39328d6dd
f89d96d64a14ad10bed32a6e19cada72cf5bc497
F20110320_AABTOK scharlach_t_Page_072.tif
f835654f5b076feab4c1d57833a2ed75
752c93adffb2dfec1884f176bf077b7c54f592a8
107936 F20110320_AABTNW scharlach_t_Page_096.jp2
782b5713868a846ac10dd3d5e8393365
d6f7a11d7df2c54f35d1cf90826e7751b1612250
1703 F20110320_AABURN scharlach_t_Page_186thm.jpg
219767772b6e7345692bad00a58e1049
0d0f4794315a20ffa8110d1f13f39f02314362f8
23809 F20110320_AABUQZ scharlach_t_Page_031.QC.jpg
7bdb87251ae9486cafcee15cc1e6b17e
9d46ed6d8bb4277885586cafd6132bf95d5d73b9
F20110320_AABTPA scharlach_t_Page_181.tif
b2243053516f79672f2ca63e3cc29d7d
03ab96923cbbbe5b318a828384956ffd0a802667
F20110320_AABTOL scharlach_t_Page_157.tif
d0b6c3bd2188bff14941432fc6d06c2e
250adf93ea791bb8f4df11c08500e626e8fdb17e
6004 F20110320_AABTNX scharlach_t_Page_134thm.jpg
4c5fc3407109ec849f113c5f5318b124
28f2c567f66edbf1573b47ee6125b04468a60cb2
22559 F20110320_AABTPB scharlach_t_Page_174.QC.jpg
f788a86a4cc44ebeac48f6206a78cb85
5979b8e15bdddbcc020f178a63f941010d699787
48164 F20110320_AABTOM scharlach_t_Page_029.pro
e60d0707d4d67706af739306eed41564
b2ce72fb847709f6152b3a018523223afc36f0bb
58433 F20110320_AABTNY scharlach_t_Page_160.jpg
05f0064cda7ee11e26797bfddc7233ca
b73ba5f92fdbce012442d7bbb85aa8a17ff9ff0b
1556 F20110320_AABTPC scharlach_t_Page_018.txt
af3b7e3625546d8249523b0b4b718585
d00c68bb38aaf24465772549a1fb0247ba4699f4
69546 F20110320_AABTON scharlach_t_Page_033.jpg
3e3b2cb4ff49e986034007e2b731f4d4
f3619bee520b4edb4754ee171088b198248a91e1
39816 F20110320_AABTNZ scharlach_t_Page_017.pro
41d8fec623c1a5d34e8f8857306f5bfb
d818e4bfdad262182293fcf7f92a5af13e22d297
4847 F20110320_AABTOO scharlach_t_Page_131thm.jpg
d024605214884ddccab152f6cd1a444d
7f01213064d769c1958b11b3d5322c92e6bffd82
5942 F20110320_AABTPD scharlach_t_Page_177.QC.jpg
dc4ba03c7ef3099ef834a3e29ff9c6bf
bc8c1df52c9953a8203b1e8400470023b08f8818
21685 F20110320_AABTOP scharlach_t_Page_172.QC.jpg
528fa2c1372d0745932a2ea152b97c13
fc01e69a5bb4be3443ec41e16481ec13dfa8009d
24459 F20110320_AABTPE scharlach_t_Page_025.QC.jpg
f55a2ae8d938be09b12e02a644179a81
0564a1da734549212e8d3c815a9b416073d01c36
2269 F20110320_AABTOQ scharlach_t_Page_141.txt
534113830f01b85d1d33dc1fcd06b630
d22c3a5f9f788b797622669ded5f47c8be697deb
49061 F20110320_AABTPF scharlach_t_Page_154.pro
7f21ecc299f75dbc9f6f64c5ed0bcedc
7f2ccccd472e59fa7e6c4c57517e4beab48802dd
20399 F20110320_AABTOR scharlach_t_Page_014.QC.jpg
d1cd5f4cc3197dfe8506a28a05a2a395
249bc0609696caef66ff63ecbc41a22b13ec6a9a
F20110320_AABTPG scharlach_t_Page_059.tif
e3d3e22d012d61d27db93a9bf48f9e3a
5d38e05de5433fbbeba45ddec15836100615fe20
F20110320_AABTOS scharlach_t_Page_024.tif
ea66e107d8d52440c9ad6e48da0410c2
681e9c473af31ae924ef0546d83afceb3f7ab388
51552 F20110320_AABTPH scharlach_t_Page_138.pro
ad40634d2c02c6a7ba5d68dc9860982d
ce636c820a66092dea056a7e6175fb51c5f753c6
113123 F20110320_AABTOT scharlach_t_Page_150.jp2
c0bac5f22825de54553efc7869fe85b2
17074f1ba33cd65aac5a7e0360e3e040cfaa2364
2044 F20110320_AABTPI scharlach_t_Page_075.txt
71a47234d276b6393d6264c1ebe88a8d
3691d7486c34391157ff45c1cb45e432478ff84c
F20110320_AABTOU scharlach_t_Page_191.tif
6e76f5e4ab79a2716da06e1bf5b4dbc9
6bcef5b6ba40d66ac96a2b9eefda65c2ea00de15
102755 F20110320_AABTPJ scharlach_t_Page_110.jp2
0b3f4ab83e4303d8b512882efdf24d6c
cf7ca1b400d9b159ca4a75abbdd33840dfb0d27e
2801 F20110320_AABTOV scharlach_t_Page_042thm.jpg
e5a74d6590125fe4d4136742f77b7cf8
a5cd1e8c7ba655c32651df67e4bc739238695009
2111 F20110320_AABTPK scharlach_t_Page_094.txt
c6152e117638016d71a7f1a2ac3879e2
14522b8271b2bef2fe06fceda189df0976527dde
5512 F20110320_AABTOW scharlach_t_Page_192.QC.jpg
5395aee18281a301ee7b853e99b08e59
f75d56fa590961d8845be07ecd36bbcd25501dc3
23250 F20110320_AABTPL scharlach_t_Page_052.QC.jpg
c8eacc43895103fc5aaead3510e825dd
31599d9017e766e9d4f39c258241044704a64736
19697 F20110320_AABTOX scharlach_t_Page_151.QC.jpg
9874e3c75add896391212e7eb44fe762
52347312bf4c8fe3731a50c2a68e793b2297f191
17478 F20110320_AABTQA scharlach_t_Page_141.QC.jpg
8377f42a9360b7cff63f90b86ae4509d
5c0554aec6d9a424e9d8ac395634e964f9a4cc6b
61968 F20110320_AABTPM scharlach_t_Page_063.jpg
c30962d9002fe820309955f45b08aaa5
1001da2fb9394f304527bc4ae390e9252f22c733
84360 F20110320_AABTOY scharlach_t_Page_141.jp2
6b966282a6d3ec427b64aa427280a347
16de9bd812a915c7a494c883f955341d5aa4c278
105078 F20110320_AABTQB scharlach_t_Page_047.jp2
9d381dad0fc499837089aaacd1e7b4be
686b0546817d6e0e027eca6de051cf9f785a52ca
1889 F20110320_AABTPN scharlach_t_Page_061.txt
d96d6986ec718a56145da1a775b234ef
627f5dbbdb1ffbff5a787d05a2f2ce0cd07fd86c
133 F20110320_AABTOZ scharlach_t_Page_187.txt
f6c6cee4428b2d25eda51eb35199c901
e75d9474e975b3de44a9521a3bd8a64fac3a734b
2552 F20110320_AABTQC scharlach_t_Page_001thm.jpg
9438b0771525cb1bcbb9ee30bad91bfe
f4beeccce02a8cf1fc1e56bb7b9674ad6f1ddc93
6084 F20110320_AABTPO scharlach_t_Page_046thm.jpg
0fc8ba29d53cbf7af4959debe3610245
574f5013451bf87f305daad0d8482e3b7007dc3d
42840 F20110320_AABTQD scharlach_t_Page_014.pro
ad6acefda17f0d4c9d854ae67dcfcde7
151e88e15b81b491f235b7552551ae1f27580f81
11718 F20110320_AABTPP scharlach_t_Page_059.jpg
55860fe11d87b09da284421c1c9ab88b
0151596b55870beeb64a26a75f397baa333790c4
45471 F20110320_AABTPQ scharlach_t_Page_105.pro
0a67c521d0b4e4a38576cbdb933c9416
2cbde9c691c8efbd3295c4fb9f5a4f6337cbb0ac
6957 F20110320_AABSQA scharlach_t_Page_193.QC.jpg
449eed185fa44fdc340bb0717be5d8cb
46f6a490e1b59d3a42587643bf1c64814609964a
63448 F20110320_AABTQE scharlach_t_Page_016.jpg
cd8a1bab10b2a5b4304007315f8a0c09
ef8b7dbbf8acd642de18bd61b0eed2b32fa9326e
6422 F20110320_AABTPR scharlach_t_Page_086thm.jpg
64606a37c813018e26983e41d7b3a527
6b6beffbd4060d10d3f85010088bb0fc639fc791
39647 F20110320_AABSQB scharlach_t_Page_009.pro
f743879e42773fecd48555cbd5f36981
f444a72246120261441d89bb0aed1e7486d22d21
71989 F20110320_AABTQF scharlach_t_Page_102.jpg
95b46b2a718d76f8f26e353ed796ae31
7aaae5e56200611e79981894a331f895846ab5e8
4775 F20110320_AABTPS scharlach_t_Page_069thm.jpg
45c9c7aad1f22b11bfea9069636b9f6f
5eb087dbead8e342779ef0a502a8e47d8481308b
3377 F20110320_AABSQC scharlach_t_Page_186.pro
0d3d2aa5a7b59f8fd8f8adb35de72c9a
48bc0d30d16e49b9d76544ff6d3c89ffb4c71e59
6211 F20110320_AABTQG scharlach_t_Page_190.pro
bf804a465cf63909e92204ed1f82fcd7
d4c71f7f2c0dda47fecdb5ac50865929fb9f30f4
2060 F20110320_AABSPN scharlach_t_Page_127.txt
432cb4cacad9a663a1c32e692042fdc5
495240c19a3e8dd7762fb6039d86a5b024d1b02d
23909 F20110320_AABTPT scharlach_t_Page_037.QC.jpg
fd8e0eddb57ae9938bb6086c03c2a96a
d1a34d9e84b89328c69aac7ad791bf8ad7588714
72289 F20110320_AABSQD scharlach_t_Page_094.jpg
efdf7b061af9f2e9b3673d570013904b
a02bbe6664ff48b3286bd480a2a429b529a2332a
F20110320_AABTQH scharlach_t_Page_193.tif
8aa78b1927ec59aa3d95fda82bf6e3cc
e5a3c3ff50d71ef91984dd793a8f31ca6754abc0
93211 F20110320_AABSPO scharlach_t_Page_100.jp2
48b101d77ee2b59bcfd9a123f6387559
6940a14345b21af22cfb84a9037e1fb7d34767a6
2046 F20110320_AABSQE scharlach_t_Page_115.txt
aa1303863423474f385b385e8a76bca5
5d664a64b3d9fad225bb21d98b2e0d42ccf3e1c4
2038 F20110320_AABTQI scharlach_t_Page_054.txt
cb76fdffc00a6ff70e0f5f3d1477e19d
2e836e1254973c73fa9616e4abec88a73c3c9004
43615 F20110320_AABSPP scharlach_t_Page_016.pro
9d1ae0b5eff55440ef9fbdf440119420
61f413f2ec296d4e7fa9d749d6a9d67457ac3b34
70910 F20110320_AABTPU scharlach_t_Page_064.jpg
cd1b76c745d52dc32f3d29392751ef3a
bddbaad265d2f23e1e598ab6af618d0ae11654d0
22141 F20110320_AABTQJ scharlach_t_Page_165.QC.jpg
e449455ca79f5898b8001969936ca34a
34fdb014e997de00c935ea82fdb2cc52de61b54e
F20110320_AABSPQ scharlach_t_Page_140.tif
20c8c4ca05271b61d72e68cdccb41f2f
a0e36c4f769a7480bac42ea127ec80d0968c59e1
37624 F20110320_AABTPV scharlach_t_Page_106.pro
dccef88785077c3b52fb13d465684ec3
e908a3831b36509207efb6592d222ac3b188534a
18138 F20110320_AABSQF scharlach_t_Page_155.QC.jpg
8c7764703970c52bee6424a14b60074f
bfe4becd1fd743cdd798412d6f8be81529ae5ecc
21343 F20110320_AABTQK scharlach_t_Page_105.QC.jpg
c64800d530170f0afe15f9ce4b862f0f
6c496ba214839b3315e1dd14eb265bb9dd69b140
18037 F20110320_AABSPR scharlach_t_Page_175.QC.jpg
5b3c8ef12b22158ba35b54e4b79a141e
bce20ef9c9aadcc874f53ca47d4edda9f856f4f3
979786 F20110320_AABTPW scharlach_t.pdf
5561a0c0f233326a72de9bbf9c6e6298
b7b7cbdf3cd7b80852e56e2a24ed397c21dcbce1
68731 F20110320_AABTRA scharlach_t_Page_173.jpg
f0e8863ea8b43e888a22d8901fa50b75
328d38d020a5daf0888d670d952e8f1fe3067098
105209 F20110320_AABSQG scharlach_t_Page_073.jp2
a72ca4daa7d8deade9dc93e63eec6319
803829e74e282afc74006ae5d134c351aca6e30b
5992 F20110320_AABTQL scharlach_t_Page_080thm.jpg
28fb0225d1474f70e44466798445e36c
8d07cb1811a5bdd01d1aec55f4ed8e8484c6246e
20207 F20110320_AABSPS scharlach_t_Page_177.jp2
347db0594c1f57d23bd7fd5d5f590458
e2be9836fa1cf70ef4e92243d0b15f3f56e8a181
F20110320_AABTPX scharlach_t_Page_162.tif
7a90ca509ea79a14c0debfdd098cd823
d292af38d95d199a986b4f7f87ffac440a2239ce
1986 F20110320_AABTRB scharlach_t_Page_116.txt
022ee6d60c2d685f3a166f82fb944e28
cc8d22f2ff139886406118f98dff1c03c32d1092
F20110320_AABSQH scharlach_t_Page_101.tif
541a188b5bf41ee6f78a7a3a5b9c8455
a24b2ae30e5dfe012a6a052781f35b2db3159c13
27792 F20110320_AABTQM scharlach_t_Page_191.QC.jpg
19226757b4c5f9f91ccd2ba8444a813c
57808b4b44b425dc2d97fff2e61c082c58f142d1
64389 F20110320_AABSPT scharlach_t_Page_072.jpg
164f7cd3896cd96f3a1082a57b803370
387437409842e40b93cd37e740e5cf0ea5b5ce2f
2026 F20110320_AABTPY scharlach_t_Page_096.txt
c4efd78f2fa118c0cb3e2f0d698950ba
4bf098a7d1294c8f1c7ca9cc89e56708b0bcdcd3
21287 F20110320_AABTRC scharlach_t_Page_080.QC.jpg
735d6de9d4826220edac7cc013a8202a
c6b2f388ec115a81c521de252a32fb78b7e3f04f
4084 F20110320_AABSQI scharlach_t_Page_200thm.jpg
96e8851ec58c78d97ee428988442f73d
2866816c8ef0989e82b9d6c0e2c7e176ce555c27
60158 F20110320_AABTQN scharlach_t_Page_149.jpg
5f43522bfaed76f46dfc2c1d08ce22e7
bf38d137d0f17b4ff529927d7e9f8db917aeaf90
19390 F20110320_AABSPU scharlach_t_Page_017.QC.jpg
8f7d11e1e692489658dc69d9f690d07f
2c1ffa032272070fc30a459d90d8fd329f2e9069
1828 F20110320_AABTPZ scharlach_t_Page_132.txt
d27c5acf1b368a11adc2f2fbdfdf89b0
cda82c3fcd2750fa413d6749a901da9c2a85bee7
70067 F20110320_AABTRD scharlach_t_Page_024.jpg
de85ccb2b0b231f7a092437690bfcd6f
e5c6ab3d2bc807b6ca67f6756342109b528b8c86
1814 F20110320_AABSQJ scharlach_t_Page_084.txt
bbad328c2c4083fc5b9ac899445e3a9c
b96675ca8a914225803e6f4142ac490483a9666d
13310 F20110320_AABTQO scharlach_t_Page_186.jpg
4f030965a6ca7ab6257bd62808fe6b0f
016497ceb812c55e07015f19b67eea5d14b31dfc
8028 F20110320_AABSPV scharlach_t_Page_001.QC.jpg
b8163294b4635a767a895c6296328910
3d9a272991343fe688d8261ceb91f2a35c57b8c7
21556 F20110320_AABTRE scharlach_t_Page_140.QC.jpg
ff676199ba449018f1e6794742c7806f
96681a3f39cbac15318adec448535dc42f578708
F20110320_AABSQK scharlach_t_Page_141.tif
bd3cf420a692fcd12db0ae3875634021
521f6e90c010128fecc39276aa669c905caa30f5
66748 F20110320_AABTQP scharlach_t_Page_129.jpg
194ee4098c5f539895a33acbd1143cc6
d967c3098d0c37b54317c1cf9096d9586ef1a117
F20110320_AABSPW scharlach_t_Page_179.tif
53c8e4281302a267817a6004a4c3a4aa
9c0fff9847279f15c6fc7f8a7b1f1d1de582ee77
2124 F20110320_AABSRA scharlach_t_Page_089.txt
4d25c5bc5a5100049fc6a80192162838
e8e9f9acec5d47cff1f7a7f384ed22dad57336b1
F20110320_AABSQL scharlach_t_Page_195.tif
f03cd20f9904486902d167e0e9f3767a
efa01f5d84578de7c28b7cd503349abf8117aa94
52531 F20110320_AABTQQ scharlach_t_Page_066.pro
9cb1c21f7e56e93bdc17e5e7940abdcb
ce29e59ac69dbe32345095af8fba4b36504632c2
F20110320_AABSPX scharlach_t_Page_077.txt
3e348cfb66e6beadfd8e75fbad6b91b4
e3efad67248a88c62bd7a214c373e360afd6a73e
24135 F20110320_AABSRB scharlach_t_Page_097.QC.jpg
8e78cc89a095731876f3ce46bcf27735
dc008e022ee66ec8fa3ca3cd78dd0337ff26d9d6
1983 F20110320_AABTRF scharlach_t_Page_171.txt
390116cddd2429f1fc3b5807ff096ba0
980761ad147d843095c7d635afdd12786ae196ac
70884 F20110320_AABSQM scharlach_t_Page_112.jpg
76cbab93cd53001f9e8ec971136d77ad
9e462090c166f41cdb09f19ba43f33cdac958c33
18705 F20110320_AABTQR scharlach_t_Page_063.QC.jpg
664e3460adc3f6bc2bba40907e27ff27
c37f273ae2699099ebff98c1d50a4c34432df851
55452 F20110320_AABSPY scharlach_t_Page_089.jpg
a4823887b9d18b423487a8035330c28c
1937de73605f5bd66247c0bffcf468d8976bbb5a
22883 F20110320_AABSRC scharlach_t_Page_168.QC.jpg
30419f07344df9abb93593adc891d438
ca675e9cc022f4f96294d9cbcc7d8822b749dac0
64935 F20110320_AABTRG scharlach_t_Page_011.jpg
5ccfa8202ffbe43be0684a078662b1d1
a84efa093626fa0b373088172a05e95edd54d85b
2025 F20110320_AABSQN scharlach_t_Page_081.txt
8bc37a4e6dcfde8d5da6372f0461680c
61f02464c43e5698a1b2af4ec8f6764a182e0a36
F20110320_AABTQS scharlach_t_Page_172.tif
4248fbbb710eea7f145cb84583aaff62
864eb5b9d173bc9be9ac03060c956ed7ab2c712a
1572 F20110320_AABSPZ scharlach_t_Page_155.txt
ca923dfaac772d75c53fd79356e02fe1
a7d67f656aefe87178dda13aa48874349ca14e85
6399 F20110320_AABSRD scharlach_t_Page_051thm.jpg
a52f8e9a463b4e320c6baa0726bed064
49acc4a0a90e058855a0e3d419c500bc3b48320c
23488 F20110320_AABTRH scharlach_t_Page_051.QC.jpg
c8debf3812286267e8ce1afbfd50fb27
f70a250d6bd33764f70bb1baac6526e5c8b4405f
18910 F20110320_AABSQO scharlach_t_Page_192.jp2
a493f3fb88fcad47b2cf3b1129ad8e57
7840dd37f6cb906c4adbae1504ced79f82e70ef0
103994 F20110320_AABTQT scharlach_t_Page_122.jp2
dad1eb59dcd81593dbf9e3d35d1892e1
020b27af9b94d01d6d2116842ab7d61e987c174a
2993 F20110320_AABSRE scharlach_t_Page_180thm.jpg
956d98370633b2ce63d0da571eabd2fe
b920e55e2a56a8075149ec47ad47063a603877dc
F20110320_AABTRI scharlach_t_Page_045.tif
dbfac8a1c2841b37d21af4d1f3e935f4
3cfd0e35ecc0ad5ed4c0f23bf803d00077264d0c
6322 F20110320_AABSQP scharlach_t_Page_114thm.jpg
2708affce7d9e1cbd960265685ee9002
aef4735445fd74093dae1d719ac79924580bf0e9
49347 F20110320_AABTQU scharlach_t_Page_051.pro
4ac68493d1a78a0e9d213bcd900e096a
b9f36690fb8c1d9dace172b48071e422e119a286
92028 F20110320_AABSRF scharlach_t_Page_067.jp2
52746c939348f334b970b97991669ac2
9b023c4ae4e9d496ded69613838f8496cbdd9fd4
6859 F20110320_AABTRJ scharlach_t_Page_196thm.jpg
f039b7924b119627dd5cbc51322b241e
5b0f7c761422651140bc43a29fd71a7bfa2cb7f5
F20110320_AABSQQ scharlach_t_Page_192.tif
6d9e1795d3f672b6fbba1343fc0885dc
7c6620d94f4e67ae56e04ee1c5f50e34d0320d82
73999 F20110320_AABTQV scharlach_t_Page_157.jpg
5bd916b8a3ab50f62c41a9cd9cad5517
dc79475fc7f3adb1820f9242c9888aad55ab9c1b
49423 F20110320_AABTRK scharlach_t_Page_104.pro
98d21b024c44d9410f6a6c38ef0e83be
5d816706aeb06a2009c004871edeee770e3ef041
17314 F20110320_AABSQR scharlach_t_Page_190.jpg
0f0470f1f6f7ab675382b66d0326179c
fc3029552c18006fb11bead554a13ae1c0775230
108139 F20110320_AABTQW scharlach_t_Page_161.jp2
b6e26021e5e37d8aff687fa7f77bd730
8db8b9d583c9b9f49101612aece98a24b503a2bd
F20110320_AABSRG scharlach_t_Page_134.tif
9dabfe87da94d65127a48da7b94a1846
64bc811c05c7c8cd71c4dbf2c28decc0f05a1be6
25244 F20110320_AABTRL scharlach_t_Page_196.QC.jpg
1473751218b40306af5a925cab0c7e49
dc2581e8dba4e0011819e47f783575d175fd2af1
F20110320_AABSQS scharlach_t_Page_019.tif
3dcc3da9007adef0a35ddd0940a08e21
749f5f885fbfd885ea76bfa98df04a72fd8592c9
17882 F20110320_AABTQX scharlach_t_Page_188.jp2
1bbe49fd06361217170ac1f96c9cc436
a6c9fc402abfe954563547c7a607e6c6e5e33935
F20110320_AABTSA scharlach_t_Page_053.tif
4b871b7a178f95292ab597b801115c59
d2d5f13c17d979ec082385b0d6f29181586d7d52
F20110320_AABSRH scharlach_t_Page_017.tif
e6d5371e05fc8f7d5a3a079bc656d40a
9e7e3a2930f0d5685b995e21f3a571eb856d60b1
F20110320_AABTRM scharlach_t_Page_015.tif
c8b1cf7297267fccca94c334f139fefa
df722b3e832bee144a13042ce5da7b49cbd28dcf
105127 F20110320_AABSQT scharlach_t_Page_086.jp2
c5803e070b6b21fdf624db2e94ae2a1d
ed4bb7715d14cb6bedbdea566179a9e4d4d0d01d
23609 F20110320_AABTQY scharlach_t_Page_147.QC.jpg
843d7a6738965cb1c2d551315c18f8ab
7bf0ef7b13417d8c292d7b43159110e8f8b91efd
F20110320_AABTSB scharlach_t_Page_173.tif
63f48f786be639f1bfdb2a79817c862b
8a7ba4a89899228675df5088f5455b1bbdb6dbda
5950 F20110320_AABSRI scharlach_t_Page_071thm.jpg
4e4239fb4ed19edc70f4a4478efbdcc7
11d24fa242ac21e4ee895d9547a69ee5e4fce1b9
1766 F20110320_AABTRN scharlach_t_Page_118.txt
08803f0a39a689d7866f727755a143d3
0030ff76b70bc41116b1beebfdc70f3bf23f107e
F20110320_AABSQU scharlach_t_Page_006.tif
8745105180b1da510541f218d084cc37
fb9efe827baa377895dcfe7f66067ec5ddc5961b
F20110320_AABTQZ scharlach_t_Page_167.txt
ef98a7b146132ea8b8aa1f6674fff069
598d79f77aeba4ef084723a2eb1914fd723869f2
1914 F20110320_AABTSC scharlach_t_Page_090.txt
feee51c94ca878976b168c5d0a0f2f43
21b70eede75480be84bba3542c39b28992d89c1f
41078 F20110320_AABSRJ scharlach_t_Page_045.pro
154951239965a374f088ecf5f3d8d8f2
3f1c572503378112f09d72bd714d812053f7cb23
70172 F20110320_AABTRO scharlach_t_Page_051.jpg
14a23aa6286d9511f6f123bf404ce579
9beeb915bb253d5435ef875c7290cf4325d0251f
F20110320_AABSQV scharlach_t_Page_010.tif
1367fa5408cf133415c6276fc4291257
add3ec5e8c955b05ecb5cd5b51dda89ce7d2cac4
76646 F20110320_AABTSD scharlach_t_Page_145.jp2
0318b89ffd172dedf02ecfb3e8fe700d
b998b9a64ccd1ad5f4e1fe0b897f51342186441e
5048 F20110320_AABSRK scharlach_t_Page_002thm.jpg
37d9198b6346b5f42411175e8894bda8
032f12865c83496eace4f2766c8153f3464c643c
F20110320_AABTRP scharlach_t_Page_060.tif
5d080cf5ae12f408bd8c378072928123
fe9a731401958ed00cd7dac5ad225eb4cbfda781
F20110320_AABSQW scharlach_t_Page_043.tif
e461a8c928fd772d4766918858b002e1
dc612cce032a1f2f262b5c5d6b04a7afa8dd8139
6095 F20110320_AABTSE scharlach_t_Page_156thm.jpg
06e536c7fe6e384b5bc60870382e766c
e2e6344672b70c39c4cc0d2ac3ab2f6fb254052b
19047 F20110320_AABSRL scharlach_t_Page_008.QC.jpg
3f37a5965958e1b226b2e3c99ecff868
ae6dee111e416ca55f23530a022a95e28b2e747e
F20110320_AABTRQ scharlach_t_Page_077.tif
e83c5391da87894f4a0ab270815539d4
a8ef948453e8f1838de5b1d2c8c4c7bb22cebe1b
6034 F20110320_AABSQX scharlach_t_Page_144thm.jpg
6264a8ade7efd57084f8130874a48452
14b8a8045c4b562fe97b1c8a7d4fdeff51b4f828
1630 F20110320_AABSSA scharlach_t_Page_017.txt
80f5e02aaa24b18efb2cdc5bb3a52662
ce66914636f298d1f59eea412d21b3447540df53
161205 F20110320_AABTSF scharlach_t_Page_191.jp2
8ac40c686788443baff3d18baa02ab9f
363012abf5765a1792c60160656433dfb5230a7a
11213 F20110320_AABSRM scharlach_t_Page_176.QC.jpg
3b0781b1f3751ed9984ab3c8e9e6c9c7
787b5d165b6acbce6d7495e30b5f5ad55eb5c207
1829 F20110320_AABTRR scharlach_t_Page_169.txt
24070a69c8f10c55f8f2f3257983d580
e7af8de6af4d3cf6d909119adf7f74dd43e9555d
1723 F20110320_AABSQY scharlach_t_Page_091.txt
ee324511a6d66072eded12b7cdcb246c
1c79217981d9d658eea590cc3d1addaf58abb2b2
50902 F20110320_AABSSB scharlach_t_Page_152.pro
2a94b542d22292990b27881211616ef0
4eafdb2ca02d7191008120438e5eba3d321817da
43115 F20110320_AABSRN scharlach_t_Page_149.pro
38472616e5795752e1132de9d60933b0
0c65cadb988b8b94903eea8999a554e62bccbf00
44036 F20110320_AABTRS scharlach_t_Page_146.pro
649faf79afe9b1142c81d2796a5706b0
1c46cd1acce47b86bc2d47cb9da3df51e8723035
64490 F20110320_AABSQZ scharlach_t_Page_118.jpg
2b3d4715987185baaea0bea412944c01
8ffcb3f33c7c18492d1b6fb4c10b19bcaffac831
6384 F20110320_AABSSC scharlach_t_Page_158thm.jpg
0580188042118b144dc235f95f3115fe
dbcda7e31e5a79bddcf41e853a3a8f1b090f2ff6
111892 F20110320_AABTSG scharlach_t_Page_138.jp2
0c63105b7aeb584b8e306222ef5feb50
ec398db82652c616665739b7d4f3c59d4b383b3b
70923 F20110320_AABSRO scharlach_t_Page_068.jpg
769633dfe601843ec2cae0349da5dedd
ff411d5d4c7bd892f9b248b8ebcc854fd1df5860
F20110320_AABTRT scharlach_t_Page_112thm.jpg
73c44ea5dd6cffb2ff8c4189cb77f866
e6d342dac0c6530898a00078825fc95704dde06d
F20110320_AABSSD scharlach_t_Page_137.txt
6e7a7cb506d7db93c9d660167c24c908
bd145b1a970426aaafddb6c83dc0de710a5660a5
1980 F20110320_AABTSH scharlach_t_Page_051.txt
a0735af7ef41376d7d122d30498a04d0
b0e2013b911cf4aaa4c86d4cce8d2649792120ce
1738 F20110320_AABSRP scharlach_t_Page_009.txt
3358cac2a8635ef9bda980150dad90e4
065b6be665a2591556f167e2d72e952f34f308ef
2572 F20110320_AABTRU scharlach_t_Page_178thm.jpg
df555725cbcef9baf58e60fc5fa31eab
3ddfc34a7f11b634c8c95a61ecb6e3afb864638a
71262 F20110320_AABSSE scharlach_t_Page_027.jpg
fb25b9f9a2a8b702151a6e546e1b7058
b3eb109ad51836b4a2ee018c310246a341320190
1958 F20110320_AABTSI scharlach_t_Page_047.txt
4529f58bf6c805e7a72d772107ea61cd
c9ae5df045f4cc7f216a6669e2b5606aae09aec4
F20110320_AABSRQ scharlach_t_Page_051.tif
0b36848a5112fe9c23304d82e81985f1
ccd0cfb555bbd3dddc9fb37abb2fd4b8f0f3fd1e
F20110320_AABTRV scharlach_t_Page_012.tif
6d8b2e73090e1c8546fcda9c739f5f66
26a081c3c5677980e24eb5823f120e8cf86a147a
22641 F20110320_AABSSF scharlach_t_Page_056.QC.jpg
72b8a3f3af09e03bad32b78db4d7aee4
f522e9bb63336f606943475f6d4b821fdd017d60
153 F20110320_AABTSJ scharlach_t_Page_059.txt
04a92db9daf2a32083430d033942a6f2
94eac6332465016b4e907a23e359d5f21415c428
53948 F20110320_AABSRR scharlach_t_Page_018.jpg
da568f322ad07d02a8d9832abe63d1c5
ed747d6360453a03f76a40de38ac0891365ec85d
6519 F20110320_AABTRW scharlach_t_Page_006.pro
06b73c5a18360a0cb02305ef8c2c1467
867f7ac8ab4b651d20f032e2804953191e0238c1
1996 F20110320_AABSSG scharlach_t_Page_070.txt
586f9451bea07c9172b5ec7ce9b6ea1a
05d7992baf76f08185607caa6044a1ff69ed8293
86538 F20110320_AABTSK scharlach_t_Page_199.jpg
d1216c6d44546e3521a73a2204ba538e
c0a576603c69405ddaf8bfdd064de0d9a2fd7eff
2115 F20110320_AABSRS scharlach_t_Page_088.txt
4a3d90c258c301a98bd69af951bf350b
93b2643f59be2de6f52ea2b5063364af5dbee09c
5930 F20110320_AABTRX scharlach_t_Page_169thm.jpg
39c2023e8189350b3317b8f3aafb6f00
092f464d29565215d07645a9ca1ffbfac9c43ba5
637 F20110320_AABTTA scharlach_t_Page_180.txt
a2413cd696fbd31865533f9b64c25e4c
bb63641da573c6704c0ca8c4c5556f1df1cb9da3
2095 F20110320_AABTSL scharlach_t_Page_030.txt
d80d5213ff03f0fc80ed8234cd6834bc
61b8fdf033179c73396899e54a52c2c46d1e807b
113080 F20110320_AABSRT scharlach_t_Page_095.jp2
e26b057f15d2a5ef23c6fd13a639d007
fc6af9ca004467b2dc305dcb9848dbef3645ae2b
1995 F20110320_AABTRY scharlach_t_Page_052.txt
383ca2032544b1688599c37ab12238d2
3298fa6803a6f645efabc48ad7ec52c0bf4589e1
76670 F20110320_AABTTB scharlach_t_Page_002.jp2
b4a2fdecd87b27d56a5b342f76e15a6c
22e9227e9238aa9287cf81cfa2f038eef956280e
3716 F20110320_AABSSH scharlach_t_Page_005.txt
25b299b86d4bbc622ef5b8a1afc1758f
13ea158fc2203766f6a67ac940629bc36b862e04
F20110320_AABTSM scharlach_t_Page_119.tif
5a67e2482698476ebb49abb5179c89c4
68bc4e0c4a2c7568364c930d57d00854b9288794
87906 F20110320_AABTRZ scharlach_t_Page_092.jp2
8a61d56978e7c975a377d9166ae0110d
f9acd5fd6850850d9f647f8c995ab3f8f38d5812
109229 F20110320_AABTTC scharlach_t_Page_041.jp2
0b987f48c6dc93a8d55fa441163e4040
6b962ec60d7d8b870879a097d8c279d68653baa9
63884 F20110320_AABSSI scharlach_t_Page_146.jpg
6b96e829bce18e533eddb75231e38bdd
c85312182581c7917cf1e337c8c74de3351d3d1a
68712 F20110320_AABTSN scharlach_t_Page_065.jpg
5505ad274002310af7a89cf8d7d693ad
761661d134d9bef26b4cde02b397ffcc79f6dabc
F20110320_AABSRU scharlach_t_Page_180.tif
7cb288f6fe926e17db6b5a72f1ce28c3
9782d71837ab081d79f9c68be573785b19534cce
67570 F20110320_AABTTD scharlach_t_Page_101.jpg
63634ddd76d1d9904ac9008706bc6031
2338fa5216996c43154a0867ca8f6c08bca540eb
65625 F20110320_AABSSJ scharlach_t_Page_098.jpg
179e452c9c146b59a1db63862bcc71c2
a710a2e5bb55310bf30a7ed1c98ccf91e598c5c1
81963 F20110320_AABTSO scharlach_t_Page_175.jp2
8e1c41aecde8fde6505d302b8dfec05f
f42a245426c72be1016a588165beee20b5a240d8
F20110320_AABSRV scharlach_t_Page_074.tif
27fddb4b7d81f9aa066b519c9f49db9c
cafd4123640ba9564bdf95b3ceed13cabfb525e8
54994 F20110320_AABTTE scharlach_t_Page_020.pro
d434f9b5740f53c36651a431734f7cf1
622462d862389584a80d9cf23b784ca7e3521c49
6356 F20110320_AABSSK scharlach_t_Page_076thm.jpg
fdba7cdb2cd7bcefc6738b14d3ae5427
47ae158bd2b74f8ba5ca75c226716de650d10015
326 F20110320_AABTSP scharlach_t_Page_177.txt
f957967aa355feeb23f68e5c36d1422b
ce48e64624ca1da2fa502ef2079e09782502dca0
22930 F20110320_AABSRW scharlach_t_Page_019.QC.jpg
74d4d2e67637abbb9c82288a96ed870c
44ec20f5e4d6acc0253b4dc0d588f761a0f0a058
69883 F20110320_AABSTA scharlach_t_Page_134.jpg
84a0b30b8c7f1cd532dd3b6cc8cff4f1
6b8da5b9cce5b6b896498fb8d55bf7196f7df921
22932 F20110320_AABTTF scharlach_t_Page_050.QC.jpg
fa3a195aab689f6382d1948f02f9090e
02f080b0680653e8cce42a7175e04e54f8c829db
2024 F20110320_AABSSL scharlach_t_Page_158.txt
a75dace490422a2ae079372c41353dcd
a4982d7fee675a5417be01e4ec054aae293a682b
71654 F20110320_AABTSQ scharlach_t_Page_104.jpg
379cc85e578de69525c8665108d866f6
6a2f68f19d89d4eb5ae82f74b1a5a6d89c1395e7
33367 F20110320_AABSRX scharlach_t_Page_184.jpg
60889843b16770a72c58c9d913a7e6cf
67ae0ad4595dc49ac01d77eae25d200127d73f40
70361 F20110320_AABSTB scharlach_t_Page_073.jpg
9de1ab29157460e9928913588878e474
122462b598272f35ea30fbca6c93e013f6e1797f
44001 F20110320_AABTTG scharlach_t_Page_011.pro
401f06ea2960d1f727972c4dba837660
89cb4987a6ad733a25d61f75724d981d5616d18e
107962 F20110320_AABSSM scharlach_t_Page_027.jp2
71149f7986c367249cda2473433141ff
65ae8c5b52d421ad88e84b7ab797eb323c8b1a3e
46798 F20110320_AABTSR scharlach_t_Page_172.pro
49ddd53b2c091bb94b79d887fb4a78ad
ab2147a54e11fd5305275b5cf694c1c600dbbc61
95919 F20110320_AABSRY scharlach_t_Page_011.jp2
d90632b6d8161e913d99426031681603
55f7cf8a72511a74ca5dfe87c8eab8b95d0c4e26
21104 F20110320_AABSTC scharlach_t_Page_169.QC.jpg
c5d80a03ecf2143b8002109a664abad8
b1c81df17070a1a6f8d4d875fa00f1945ec6dcb4
1051962 F20110320_AABSSN scharlach_t_Page_195.jp2
7336fee6ee01570d5653629f63bbf706
873acdaefd0520ca6de912ca37dac0e6258d7169
6248 F20110320_AABTSS scharlach_t_Page_041thm.jpg
d5d9cbc6d21f7bb962deb61183c65922
4772de55ac28677686d2e94ef4b61e1b92af680e
2231 F20110320_AABSRZ scharlach_t_Page_083.txt
cb44f23ebd6d6e737fcc7dc10178a0bb
5ffdc07a66f996863c1c226b234619aabd93950f
F20110320_AABSTD scharlach_t_Page_110.tif
46fca80c92853cd3e7a873ed053a3d50
31c36c09400968a749ff4336c6d6c5ef357c36ee
F20110320_AABTTH scharlach_t_Page_158.tif
0f6e55502ecd74b65dd3912b7960c29b
a52e2f43619f0b669ae185349edf9784c05bb9f3
40932 F20110320_AABSSO scharlach_t_Page_043.pro
e290e31693892ce6b4fce364aee09519
f3a2974f1df02643101b22bcf81040e6367925b6
24347 F20110320_AABTST scharlach_t_Page_040.QC.jpg
0d36d810f80f1a8f902be3cd2a14d74b
a0eaa622befb5fbdc74315e81bc949f67ed530dc
46868 F20110320_AABSTE scharlach_t_Page_117.pro
2cd946cbbf0ae2bd092a4242233a1955
75c855256f4405b6f2a77f7c29706f37bc32c31a
99983 F20110320_AABTTI scharlach_t_Page_170.jp2
0025ed55e7605a6c43f097dd20b2f0cd
6cef50a160e16548e37192c9f122bb86d2fc1a6e
6265 F20110320_AABSSP scharlach_t_Page_154thm.jpg
4c7a5befa6ca31faa0c0e4553e5227b3
0a33e3fc8cde28c28712c1d0dcb0d2599f124ff0
2602 F20110320_AABTSU scharlach_t_Page_199.txt
16f8369582646324b324c5e97ed60148
05ab41e09da9580bb4d6d428aa08389d66fc481d
22879 F20110320_AABSTF scharlach_t_Page_120.QC.jpg
79b13c56e5e13a9a754338407ddbdc9c
2de30390e91b6fe360ab3e22b67f3b304be709f1
23039 F20110320_AABTTJ scharlach_t_Page_081.QC.jpg
9bc8f2b3c962945d4163ac252b324315
1acc0b43169ccc58b0d25a2900f83ee6d66e5a4d
56225 F20110320_AABSSQ scharlach_t_Page_155.jpg
2aecd6704f2c4df3ea1c1000ae6a27f2
1c02437b6457ecd87716daa5cb42c3991c53befb
6523 F20110320_AABTSV scharlach_t_Page_157thm.jpg
7a1ab597fc338a6e92a30bbe50a696ad
02ef6a987efc24aec21d216fdf245d8f0e85c0a3
F20110320_AABSTG scharlach_t_Page_148.QC.jpg
93217d810b781115175da1959213f74e
fc4eec25bd99653876bbeab35f5df6302b1d43ea
73513 F20110320_AABTTK scharlach_t_Page_031.jpg
d1f42277660a27671ea60b38dfe77ff0
a5696774812992f3e25216fc736771335e1d6c7b
16194 F20110320_AABSSR scharlach_t_Page_111.QC.jpg
c22475446cacebf13f97a63b3bfd4d2c
451d4f397aefc3ea2cf8360f73371fc8b9bb8594
45847 F20110320_AABTSW scharlach_t_Page_170.pro
2a528aec0919e296b183abb8efdc373c
d51e39fbe921abdae722b27849aaf7ab54f56f3e
63166 F20110320_AABTUA scharlach_t_Page_124.jpg
4063b440bbc26a2e5ee538345496506e
f05e1c70289a60811b34b7b6c592b9c5d2348c0c
23721 F20110320_AABSTH scharlach_t_Page_115.QC.jpg
6e5967b8add5248fc485315c4cdee8c5
1369929aad301688a0ce54debc2c71da235d5236
66245 F20110320_AABTTL scharlach_t_Page_136.jpg
7981fae55370a63d703083fb069b1ba6
4e688c8d5fae2d141959a69eba2401c9c48ba6c2
6332 F20110320_AABSSS scharlach_t_Page_047thm.jpg
2cb3546c94091575ff6b06bcc7451a00
cb10332fa7e79c4b394199c0147a0cfc54e0328d
36103 F20110320_AABTSX scharlach_t_Page_175.pro
6a64428b6660425496cf774f92e8f17e
45d27b1527b09edade0ded9ee3d9fe0299662bb5
35351 F20110320_AABTUB scharlach_t_Page_018.pro
b5003c1966f1037bce7f486c84bf725c
c2a1137db3d86856300bb4f2fc1f99c48ce31482
71878 F20110320_AABTTM scharlach_t_Page_054.jpg
6a97dee9335971c500f07a5282d2fbdf
94b3adec3bcbb43b977a39bf0bc8ced723e3dcc1
F20110320_AABSST scharlach_t_Page_092.tif
1339efd6e562f85d15c08cbe622c68b7
a34158ac9e4658a6fe20e2aaaf8992be774b9814
6282 F20110320_AABTSY scharlach_t_Page_127thm.jpg
2e2deb1c648b9835055e8bf8a502c3a9
561ade8cebc71d79d546b6a74618e42418d6e5f2
F20110320_AABTUC scharlach_t_Page_049.QC.jpg
d7ba3241c87c4cea1970e2d9faaac152
ade885bc596bf5e89f0379a9d626b3ff61eb3e76
106638 F20110320_AABSTI scharlach_t_Page_127.jp2
4057eaeb7bbc2fc700b49aea7b76eb96
44672df03cfb6cac0c7245fb8075911922a0e768
17427 F20110320_AABTTN scharlach_t_Page_176.pro
170beb1277d9bb69d7e6ba774dd34527
dd4d7e606d21d945a446c40982f79defd1a62a01
69705 F20110320_AABSSU scharlach_t_Page_108.jpg
c2bfa5b1d674317af9e3e57d5fc876f0
21a7cda4cb7a6e918eaaba66e39e0d07a17dcaaf
F20110320_AABTSZ scharlach_t_Page_052.tif
d515acf90828157241400bbe22560631
b88b01aca6f60a047193c77f4954b6d36bc48be6
2394 F20110320_AABTUD scharlach_t_Page_193thm.jpg
916e470c1d1f369c021d01187a337a0c
b09c0af7d17230788126711cb0ce51cf7615b063
107271 F20110320_AABSTJ scharlach_t_Page_076.jp2
3f3703bbee33b6d27d9c72c532046bb2
778446ff62750a2ac49f5442459bbb996e4d0e8c
F20110320_AABTTO scharlach_t_Page_147thm.jpg
2a731e80d20ec0c88452a1417cacf4a7
a2a427e3ca8d523e593a9556045916734a910846
40621 F20110320_AABSSV scharlach_t_Page_182.jp2
d614fbf5f4fdc66ed50e6aa1be73908e
e97a5d50974eee1b4083d2c965eb8c6e5dbc3d46
51147 F20110320_AABTUE scharlach_t_Page_163.pro
2823aeafd1e76adf5fe796ed79785d92
1f7339a13484dc9bc017fc80de0b3b8dd429cafb
F20110320_AABSTK scharlach_t_Page_016.tif
3cfc5768ec4f165b669911ae02091051
bc460ed552fc844d6a641f72536c50494d71a87c
47415 F20110320_AABTTP scharlach_t_Page_173.pro
0674903e76738f409c56a13d1ba7432a
e3d72e138fd4f3263f5ee36bd186be01f1f306ca
24002 F20110320_AABSSW scharlach_t_Page_109.QC.jpg
ba47ca84fc538ea02132779bf7ce09d0
728256a5a4b4846daef15971e7f493c92bf458f4
54058 F20110320_AABTUF scharlach_t_Page_133.pro
3275c6a94f1b4d99039cd1892d15b473
da3d6ca90fd23f63c2884ef38390a57af0b3538a
3625 F20110320_AABSTL scharlach_t_Page_176thm.jpg
d1a1ca3bda3171c13ded4562d66c4bb7
b8ec326e17070b875a5b0c5ae42cb613e581fb81
F20110320_AABTTQ scharlach_t_Page_178.tif
e0c0e51c87a29c5a12b53a91adbc528c
7691bd3950723f1fe20fcc2303ae44c1c4ff1569
6601 F20110320_AABSSX scharlach_t_Page_126thm.jpg
a8722ce4a0f6ce7a8bd093ee5c19e424
6524eed26aa5fca7c92f9087ebd250df37c3f5f1
18379 F20110320_AABSUA scharlach_t_Page_128.QC.jpg
1c1c8d471f353bc8d1e6b41db3e8e5be
086d1943714caa99b10d1800c976a053ce37886e
67093 F20110320_AABUAA scharlach_t_Page_082.jpg
e60b00a92530f5a197f31a5994cc2487
16ecd6c4e78e6335b57740995ea03024bf2f8357
F20110320_AABTUG scharlach_t_Page_118.tif
d44a097e3f357c30be88adb6a2105a74
a9093874dd6dae3de2405da603f87a425a2cee44
39338 F20110320_AABSTM scharlach_t_Page_010.pro
846c788f2f5531d2eae85b67895621df
3c87c64348f2556e191a30ea75f06f20e360bf29
1902 F20110320_AABTTR scharlach_t_Page_142.txt
eef5e3afb26aa78dfb441873ddb98570
b9a97b7469e3a6b1686684c57a1107da565286ea
69029 F20110320_AABSSY scharlach_t_Page_048.jpg
bfae8b1cf27ef6790b9d12bb4e25c7ef
761d91fd0532c85c03a00942189017474ac291f3
49536 F20110320_AABSUB scharlach_t_Page_074.pro
36073dadfe7c85c88798cc5dadd63b96
7acbbc4f7d04ff7abdc2664bf4a1c0a3c6e0e4dd
65700 F20110320_AABUAB scharlach_t_Page_084.jpg
c007f8710ff717d4500a1079e2b28792
c94f2e782778444e8cb07d6d11d27d1ad74a8f2b
23692 F20110320_AABTUH scharlach_t_Page_088.QC.jpg
cae1abf4097f9f2e9a1d330dc5e62126
336ee342d5bb263565fc3eb7d3a22a3a78efeb66
108621 F20110320_AABSTN scharlach_t_Page_115.jp2
a749212a492b8928debb9118225acc91
361b803a0f9a102ebf622452a54e6d44019aa30f
109779 F20110320_AABTTS scharlach_t_Page_050.jp2
95c753d6ddbdcb14b5b5cb3cdc282f84
980c0913b2b2a940e62adecc1a98e5920e64089d
17148 F20110320_AABSSZ scharlach_t_Page_078.QC.jpg
bddef6b2f48f5acfa7a2ff7cbe2b0afa
0343e774b77e58f423e5c4f769a6a89a94d73b1d
1834 F20110320_AABSUC scharlach_t_Page_013.txt
9dab466e5d68d3e89d959a32416f530b
625d8c706e17fe0ecbb7b8d36028fbd3c703e6dd
74297 F20110320_AABUAC scharlach_t_Page_088.jpg
2622ac788493dae3ff8f053eb983668f
4000a3463e333fa8e834173207bfa005de77a505
115094 F20110320_AABTTT scharlach_t_Page_025.jp2
98ccc3501ebc502591813f5c5178376e
75cfa66976d8f56b07752b336270ec5f16564a91
5891 F20110320_AABSTO scharlach_t_Page_084thm.jpg
dffd39849a8d886abbd0450c8e19f780
561b0f69f927fffc2d2c29c90b511c5b512e34df
F20110320_AABSUD scharlach_t_Page_035.tif
9dcc4a22b90e852a852a6d2da86a7b2d
f0d0d7789a06dd676eb27c68f7094122adefd7c1
76127 F20110320_AABUAD scharlach_t_Page_095.jpg
a256afa59c92f229b08df6c788000cab
e00a9bfe390cc15c96c2e6b8eba2d3efc643777f
F20110320_AABTUI scharlach_t_Page_063.txt
9f3e9e6d2037105ebd09668b8e7a371f
6bba62a08b08555b9ad47a5bbc58f748bd8e09a2
F20110320_AABTTU scharlach_t_Page_125.QC.jpg
d5427b411b117b6ea1c9e7647efc1371
81a018c7ef6bd391f140ddfcfda3dcae77a8eca2
152 F20110320_AABSTP scharlach_t_Page_189.txt
e98d8e53b5e222132d77856387b40ce0
9755c64cba82f135998d0cafd884d894ff9891b9
59574 F20110320_AABSUE scharlach_t_Page_135.jpg
06a25b8c449e79061e6b55fb1374a8bc
b9b7df466d4665e806909f46046ddc3379332eff
52682 F20110320_AABUAE scharlach_t_Page_099.jpg
acc20568816edb075afc448d345b5a44
edfc767a6b825954e98d670f0b29f16f510ec9f1
59864 F20110320_AABTUJ scharlach_t_Page_017.jpg
a3e6425cacd63d497dead0ce18b33f6c
7fddff3b11bebe8bf25ecd2eca8ee918aade5cc7
F20110320_AABTTV scharlach_t_Page_144.tif
86d915a153229d62de744d329b7a856e
683e2649d615bfb991ae367f8fba9bea05c6bc33
F20110320_AABSTQ scharlach_t_Page_082.tif
7624b20740d0fa54c740f0b9eefd223f
1c8f7902cd756d11a108c70407e1dbcc9f91234e
107814 F20110320_AABSUF scharlach_t_Page_191.jpg
51d42d1a1b61e766fd8aca08cd6416e7
99f0dbfc686704c618def85f0ab9bf1eea12fd9a
60854 F20110320_AABUAF scharlach_t_Page_100.jpg
73cbd0e6c73f8204aeb6dc72f3fa2977
f287b80831f5c56912d3d2b3da059ff920005cde
5563 F20110320_AABTUK scharlach_t_Page_085thm.jpg
b9655d672fe4a016e737570e1f700dc9
563a2269610477bad7922060350c8a4fff903955
19010 F20110320_AABTTW scharlach_t_Page_043.QC.jpg
87d9ceba16a1f4df946fb11987f6e09e
ad9a715da132ba234eb0519954985bca8652806e
108964 F20110320_AABSTR scharlach_t_Page_164.jp2
54a237009792cfea4922ae989a0e1be6
74413c31f43c4b42aa96efcc004105bc1b495264
52220 F20110320_AABSUG scharlach_t_Page_023.pro
d07a3e135db83f6a9d6f51cafb117013
1b079288ff4b3128953b1646201612cbf06b7d5b
65806 F20110320_AABUAG scharlach_t_Page_105.jpg
4d1060105293bd18bbeb6d74952b31d5
771feb82accf813fa8611ac0c681108455f754bc
42695 F20110320_AABTVA scharlach_t_Page_067.pro
af593d2f0c23962374b902a08340e643
7627a28184c47dede180ee5e9e935c7a0f4ecad3
1930 F20110320_AABTUL scharlach_t_Page_174.txt
bbc600ac329a46584f09101681694d8f
5beeb62d528ef8531ce255da8c6d1b5bb461cd06
12795 F20110320_AABTTX scharlach_t_Page_006.jpg
df7f29c814a436ec719f90f8f1863028
49b75c4da5edfb67f9f898a624a8f199ea2b0ca2
6489 F20110320_AABSTS scharlach_t_Page_096thm.jpg
cbbfd3880ef8b230c0274332caf66022
d31ffeb861012a3e7bc6f4e5fa38009c366e4eee
1639 F20110320_AABSUH scharlach_t_Page_189thm.jpg
396544f536f8588a321eff8c02c67a0c
c51b75c9657b7ec73ff1890a3979b137bbc5b030
69141 F20110320_AABUAH scharlach_t_Page_114.jpg
5f39dc901afecf5bb6e63ad55558e315
81d1d3670b54c8ed972908e0441eac16c27d322a
7365 F20110320_AABTVB scharlach_t_Page_198thm.jpg
67153c2dadf4ec10a8db3fb8042fdbad
2bdafa4871b19ed5ed891b685f8dfbc03e37aa74
74687 F20110320_AABTUM scharlach_t_Page_123.jp2
ba3d60fa249c3ed8a7c0ca1b748d8632
dfeee1b722889e2648813e80485d5f036be1bcab
27260 F20110320_AABTTY scharlach_t_Page_042.jpg
a2ca5fabc8ae506a11c6e711c2f9bf1e
5b391a4f787abac9aca158eb4613e95a74c541e3
19005 F20110320_AABSTT scharlach_t_Page_146.QC.jpg
9c1d14287b21de3f67d1689d3a33e895
aea896f08cc674c3ab6e20538a36c708a2ed5f18
19139 F20110320_AABSUI scharlach_t_Page_160.QC.jpg
876c42a7ad7babd96c55f7976f5f1843
360ff3ddd23ec55bc25164a24a98aade2ea7dd32
72345 F20110320_AABUAI scharlach_t_Page_115.jpg
1131fdf13d04a7182db8bd2e0f277fae
1143c6be5fc4960cf17c6889963cee897fdfe80c
F20110320_AABTVC scharlach_t_Page_098.tif
8e84344c0a516784bace38743f3deadf
a310d99c3a70f0e2703da847f99dc7b33b2a5027
6536 F20110320_AABTUN scharlach_t_Page_056thm.jpg
4b25757ac0d851c75cc1de75077314a2
0b615b57e3dd2cbd0bf58631cdcc95cfd8181c77
26652 F20110320_AABTTZ scharlach_t_Page_197.QC.jpg
fdef1c43cba2c083fc194accbcbce0f7
463ae5d0b0330c1529f796fdffd1f513f0dbf26f
F20110320_AABSTU scharlach_t_Page_036.tif
18a281b30c7b0a9ee6fe86ee030a3bc1
a24067dc5673fd0f18c8868a4d08a9a83b5bc7ba
66354 F20110320_AABUAJ scharlach_t_Page_117.jpg
ae7d5f05bdfe199cfe0286556ba6b3db
4346702e9b39eac55ee9b6b0f26c19998a4935fd
5772 F20110320_AABTVD scharlach_t_Page_011thm.jpg
95e3bcc63dd37085fdc3d2595cc2e047
c5ad172ac294866344298475c7cc4cb7321fbcc3
4478 F20110320_AABTUO scharlach_t_Page_189.QC.jpg
a9c6ad9dfa4d3b983de87c57aaeefe12
c07219c866c37235b204fe06a9929d1f5f642b3f
1959 F20110320_AABSTV scharlach_t_Page_126.txt
8c53b2687944768880ae0b8c4e13be09
43a38b549816c952becc180eb687d97d4fece71c
91008 F20110320_AABSUJ scharlach_t_Page_151.jp2
236766fb90fb8308396d90fc7f55d62c
7610dfede7db0237693ee42a283b377b423e7709
81230 F20110320_AABUAK scharlach_t_Page_121.jpg
dd160ec9158dd518a02a377ca96cba2c
711ca6917286ab118dd5e08071b6e22910526f43
78745 F20110320_AABTVE scharlach_t_Page_003.pro
f16155f1b7ec45cc236d23570f9fab74
e535a6c539b722740c98d5ddd0b047dce72fc846
68079 F20110320_AABTUP scharlach_t_Page_107.jpg
5b5e040cc157c0364557ac4696814102
fd7b5a3db57687e7fd4fa726208a8e6a48bccbc9
67591 F20110320_AABSTW scharlach_t_Page_003.jpg
ba52ea4a50ac4ea985c5da9cdcbe6784
09235c807207a64ecafe0790511becaeefae93fe
6042 F20110320_AABSUK scharlach_t_Page_108thm.jpg
5fe3b3309955c11d64b9839cfb828173
563624a4a988462a450446f9ab6437825cd1a7f0
68288 F20110320_AABUAL scharlach_t_Page_122.jpg
9c06ecfe956f64978fa91d912d973a44
662ee967cb58340b9d8f7a534d7f0219f2cd1509
F20110320_AABTVF scharlach_t_Page_069.tif
b4e8d7928b9e34dbfb9352fa6a5d6d16
10b612502e3a633f1df1a647f6fa746ad885b742
6198 F20110320_AABTUQ scharlach_t_Page_072thm.jpg
aa188419e90ce34f1760516ecb307a97
3f832363df703f1e4f2e40007af28a6443c03e3f
65934 F20110320_AABSTX scharlach_t_Page_132.jpg
4a7449cc0dafb81bc8ba3540c9a7cdf4
b52cba6851cc56419380f6bba288f8ef717c7c6c
55247 F20110320_AABSVA scharlach_t_Page_095.pro
c08f079efffa0c43af5dad0f40488121
d4143f58d339eb17ed25ee690391268bd6949df0
62719 F20110320_AABSUL scharlach_t_Page_045.jpg
becb91877136e931c0c72b6ea2923647
784ab10f1581785d6678b2aeb6de1d93127cc625
68719 F20110320_AABUBA scharlach_t_Page_168.jpg
6a0b0dd8a340cde341700ea72dd66ffc
50e346013c5df96658188d3a651d5b9acb81fe61
70520 F20110320_AABUAM scharlach_t_Page_126.jpg
a3ee7af4a04fb6250e3b93c63c8eda3e
470ae4e1c121429b9ced671762d931a148eb8725
F20110320_AABTVG scharlach_t_Page_005.tif
af7787d0930a6c68bde5dd580d323658
0ca75296d648353730c8fd41d19c50c72a8f49c3
1880 F20110320_AABTUR scharlach_t_Page_146.txt
8e6b4876b033d9b605e05643b4dc6949
3481eda051cf4c48ba0163c36c007a9ed7002045
2176 F20110320_AABSTY scharlach_t_Page_139.txt
c206258358f6aad8f0d8a97924eeedf7
c9e842f61c2198f0126cdfb9cd72c5b940a5b453
50865 F20110320_AABSVB scharlach_t_Page_069.jpg
ed6bafca305bca18e1b1733512335b7e
3bf4bd5f338143f62b48132e0ab4831d5a8e2ccb
1893 F20110320_AABSUM scharlach_t_Page_129.txt
49d87dee4a9c6b8c3126ed9a2824dca1
350a596e648dd1f4ebddec6f5661e8b2194c7b3b
66408 F20110320_AABUBB scharlach_t_Page_172.jpg
3e426a67dd8022472f18ba63e5224170
9e4db3e3b7fd9962720044fe396d1d666efaab07
71416 F20110320_AABUAN scharlach_t_Page_127.jpg
8f4c4476fb7a421bef3aa2bd70ed41b1
746eb4c1400aaebb27848a0f1a623e0ed29e1cd8
72776 F20110320_AABTVH scharlach_t_Page_167.jpg
7151c9b0479ae68cea6bdb1bd8514fc4
317a5d36df7341c9e8b40b5d7f34f149dd1df7ce
F20110320_AABTUS scharlach_t_Page_123.tif
9a38ce326f831d78f72aff4351b91e95
4575768757c95412063b2b6d63cc45cca3698450
24186 F20110320_AABSTZ scharlach_t_Page_021.QC.jpg
cc2ef2b9e0c358970d53365f1e364897
972a985dac1724082b2217cc85470ed4168192e0
69985 F20110320_AABSVC scharlach_t_Page_171.jpg
c9293a4e2b21bd4e80559fa81c945f8a
ebf75ee6a0f333cfeab8288de19f75ad958443d5
50696 F20110320_AABSUN scharlach_t_Page_081.pro
6e833ab33d92242228e2cfec95565116
c5df4347ddf3dfb3f35720d04882098309b8323d
69452 F20110320_AABUBC scharlach_t_Page_174.jpg
9f6448d6e4120850a0ba8b64601ac2bd
33c400fcd467d7e63c191a4c35a5b3760654d953
75301 F20110320_AABUAO scharlach_t_Page_133.jpg
e20dd04b9f93f815f5e6440eb8346283
f688d746c112a51ea58d804eeb26ae5bcfe89faa
5058 F20110320_AABTVI scharlach_t_Page_089thm.jpg
59afdb884c51c4f39c903c6eb43fe8f1
d72f40a6a7ea9611941c6dc9bc550c5e571b54fb
106411 F20110320_AABTUT scharlach_t_Page_057.jp2
c606aef68f9cfd346dac433216b7f084
93e9bda9293a19935f030e13040c893b7d81eb38
647 F20110320_AABSVD scharlach_t_Page_042.txt
98d61c30d45de252de498831573c66ff
0d7fb42a5ec530864585651b533edb58314d4480
51495 F20110320_AABSUO scharlach_t_Page_123.jpg
84d661d8e106bc0c9b00dbaf044ab9ea
089ab2511cd7c92910fc264ba22d21be5cfed878
27974 F20110320_AABUBD scharlach_t_Page_179.jpg
7bee2161536d6369c52ca8a60f2638b5
a5e045a7a079c3ca341b338d3807ef1fac9364bb
73437 F20110320_AABUAP scharlach_t_Page_138.jpg
e5ac97f42ae989893265853f0b6c57dd
f4966ab9750c73cb16bdad4066e6e10f38260c63
1860 F20110320_AABTUU scharlach_t_Page_085.txt
af01043cd4c127aa9e2692e1ad15ee25
125a8f45339d6e998eecbd4b61c2d2ef5bead898
108147 F20110320_AABSVE scharlach_t_Page_102.jp2
9f088b5eb017ac977f9b6152f26bde17
ec0e5e3eb3a1e7e1ec2b43b832fd885bc2673606
F20110320_AABSUP scharlach_t_Page_183.tif
137e71795bbb5f87e7a9a22d387fa2e6
a2494048c03cd855280eee6a25545e5e24576342
17782 F20110320_AABUBE scharlach_t_Page_181.jpg
30eeba8e67a6e7ba82f1e4ac6d7a6a1a
ac0be7c8a37862bcea7a5fbcb760be4d26492d66
61792 F20110320_AABUAQ scharlach_t_Page_139.jpg
dbc073db5633d109d287dfd96dc9d5c9
d94b06a28018c39ffac6a7b4218f87e56b6653de
47729 F20110320_AABTVJ scharlach_t_Page_065.pro
b2aa0623c432125bd438d244b9f306d4
64d39182a6c35b040ef340b271bba3189e5fe2e3
37368 F20110320_AABTUV scharlach_t_Page_180.jp2
59078e7bd571b90889385912fd368f5a
7352a77c08655f53b809dd31f5ebc09c8d5431bc
6299 F20110320_AABSVF scharlach_t_Page_104thm.jpg
b2d0a1c1cb2aa90877a6c13306d1b20a
d2067d41aeea8c624e94ad2a2996e251e0d31633
F20110320_AABSUQ scharlach_t_Page_104.tif
c2f7c120f2fe4448517fd7f8611e04af
083990e8a93b13357acc87231885ce1584e77592
32326 F20110320_AABUBF scharlach_t_Page_183.jpg
2b4746b6e98748b174eaeaba50f7a490
cf18abb7aa1ff917d34480c7151ed1b17e506297
56527 F20110320_AABUAR scharlach_t_Page_141.jpg
b7aeff4d3de8faaecdbd1154d301a6d1
085d998ec83e4aca0f81fb15e5bc1e3ff541181f
7372 F20110320_AABTVK scharlach_t_Page_197thm.jpg
b27e50474c9833e89c89841596a56fdd
c11a05a509efb78a2a3d5b8e07d72893af81f326
56306 F20110320_AABTUW scharlach_t_Page_200.jp2
98d8849a0bb51084b31a5ffbd6bc85ea
2ec8681ea94e9378a2266927d8c97605c1ba6f8c
5649 F20110320_AABSVG scharlach_t_Page_093thm.jpg
22e7d5d7de60b6ea143fa62690ee8c77
55d92bd61380b9b405a63461f3e3cda89dacefab
21452 F20110320_AABSUR scharlach_t_Page_005.QC.jpg
6764e9c68f65350c124aabdc364a5b43
b029d79ff4b150f6f70885ec72864b2bb28f00c6
11163 F20110320_AABUBG scharlach_t_Page_187.jpg
3c8aa967efedcdd3ac9f09428a3157bf
16e0f10ac631485de79c6444e82ddf176a4699a8
68832 F20110320_AABUAS scharlach_t_Page_143.jpg
65a6057a987a8acf4fc3bb6b79d5058a
afa786ca29cb14ee9dd505845939dc1beee1c1cc
F20110320_AABTWA scharlach_t_Page_039.QC.jpg
f5fb94be3371514b7782e271d5ab8dc7
3ef46b37954639ad840976a8569c43d12245856e
F20110320_AABTVL scharlach_t_Page_002.tif
f061cb50679d9b336c44c386c200d3d2
45dbe72d4bd495c5ae18e12aea5adf99c9d72120
98437 F20110320_AABTUX scharlach_t_Page_072.jp2
959e5a3dff1ab925cef3c9a844d2473b
48c2c478971d53d6811f7706b7d085cbb9de146e
105822 F20110320_AABSVH scharlach_t_Page_174.jp2
53465657c709a51cf2d94ab5dfa14235
9b3449c0d6bbed0d5af7777f93c2384c76c2c5cb
1951 F20110320_AABSUS scharlach_t_Page_073.txt
43e393c90528bcc4a867a4cd732bd7a4
e7657cc6734094f107e996ebc38ef1aedba18a3d
23362 F20110320_AABUBH scharlach_t_Page_193.jpg
eafec482f535011cdc02eb8433330518
7e99e9aeef96abea884709e9d33df8f7cb9f7792
49027 F20110320_AABTWB scharlach_t_Page_073.pro
39e8decf29f648874ebe99f1cb689f43
edf681720ca545e4f465f190f78a587063fd3916
24442 F20110320_AABTVM scharlach_t_Page_020.QC.jpg
e74f93ba926dfb525f5861165e2c791b
354ffff9d41caa0f4038f3534277a4d1325fa273
83006 F20110320_AABTUY scharlach_t_Page_078.jp2
ae494f97603d9e4f94e213ede4240aba
62f68f00258f5071105c11655a9281b2737bd962
F20110320_AABSVI scharlach_t_Page_027.tif
7fedc68f41c73ee423c53805ee7c05ce
664a1951b25192a377f1889a50b836bb369f8e1c
6395 F20110320_AABSUT scharlach_t_Page_024thm.jpg
c1dab7c444bb970b3a9a1da143c1f45e
34ef55c08c6db8967d54c2f80e6fe5e079489f78
68687 F20110320_AABUBI scharlach_t_Page_194.jpg
597e83027eec8895feea4b8b6301c076
a15d27b8c02cdc855e89848d6df620255947e2a8
71968 F20110320_AABUAT scharlach_t_Page_148.jpg
cda01be68c6d34eb2ee551e5583c83fc
8adfee250f0009a7605a5fe70d237cb6f5a03d91
F20110320_AABTWC scharlach_t_Page_039.tif
9c52a1f4286f25a09b61b268c2291515
9ca950253a66ad18b2c62c94813b30ea94554279
66568 F20110320_AABTVN scharlach_t_Page_140.jpg
641669b7a62d8fe36ffad6e26852eb05
47949ef833b37badcd4732b7676501694b9e1057
4654 F20110320_AABTUZ scharlach_t_Page_123thm.jpg
079e600bffb277d181ed03c7d4479f58
404799a6460b11329bee332309b53e790f6df06f
F20110320_AABSVJ scharlach_t_Page_103.tif
0d618300bcca86d99cb40820e2b80eb8
4338c92091efe18a47239f18c8c67797ffef703e
50840 F20110320_AABSUU scharlach_t_Page_087.pro
ed444c984a6de3e432d10b5453970b26
e05c64e30d829a8be8ff72d37cec73db34c219ce
95283 F20110320_AABUBJ scharlach_t_Page_197.jpg
75ad7fb00e50ccde9d2a3c5f413bbcb3
e7a36a192b28aa1330f255999c10da2c8ae3d3f8
71118 F20110320_AABUAU scharlach_t_Page_156.jpg
f8ab1c2a0927fc73d9a59348a507446e
1351c97297d5bc8427fe7a8a1f51a457541b92f5
71473 F20110320_AABTWD scharlach_t_Page_034.jpg
9d22a09256d3e44eaab5b5687cb197a9
3fe99d9980b9e81d01720bb3e239ff076627f0eb
113002 F20110320_AABTVO scharlach_t_Page_037.jp2
36dabac8852dd50566cd839424e0159d
39913b7009d4b7413d1e0e53dd0ba45e5184f7e6
65507 F20110320_AABSUV scharlach_t_Page_170.jpg
7efedb4ebb690d4148cb4950a541b22a
ac6b07b038f0e414f9581866ab796b6f768ec6e9
101647 F20110320_AABUBK scharlach_t_Page_198.jpg
3f8edb2ee48c18a858f9122df23d92e4
b6d6d04cb98d0027d4fdc43aad4c39d8e42d9206
26357 F20110320_AABUAV scharlach_t_Page_159.jpg
16caabbb787546dee5adc0fa83ad12cf
cf61950e87eda9e56700e9686954af056ad420dd
F20110320_AABTWE scharlach_t_Page_025.tif
60361bf6914c24c158e68d6e1b9048f3
930d505f6a6152a9f0a81c7f97f25a76dae2ce67
61719 F20110320_AABTVP scharlach_t_Page_196.pro
94cfe5faf4a15e9b17e5891042642cc8
98caed7058c64b256fe94ba6ac07a3c89f3dd0ee
2033 F20110320_AABSVK scharlach_t_Page_058.txt
2ae0525ace6250657021ae595c3969c4
86f1215c402a138730bf7621be0661a92177ddfe
111175 F20110320_AABSUW scharlach_t_Page_034.jp2
df540e44636e56c1006604af05059e8c
bcb50301421980d6743ac58a89003e8577ab9c98
26868 F20110320_AABUBL scharlach_t_Page_001.jp2
0a1464b09705a375fc12bde20fd62305
46a35d4d7ec9b4d4e07e79a86cd633782b827fca
72756 F20110320_AABUAW scharlach_t_Page_163.jpg
31cddcdc221d0a513038ad23a5216340
ebbcd08f33ce6ab85d859291b892bd303a442a8f
6416 F20110320_AABTWF scharlach_t_Page_064thm.jpg
5f256d64674fe046dce3985d241e9ae0
377aace2e50abb27f3c57af199bf209d789c7001
1921 F20110320_AABTVQ scharlach_t_Page_086.txt
08946174f3a97e22f91cbc9aedc7307e
0b6448b74c7d2c5f0886a4fab02973d81272b5fb
F20110320_AABSWA scharlach_t_Page_132.tif
9d7bb6f4dd5ebaab552a6adbe71d0ad2
66d04ed62768517f7247a2193f590ae99a0fb363
85255 F20110320_AABSVL scharlach_t_Page_196.jpg
9fa1ac6bd8762efc610ebcff3948388a
a8ea76a4edb032b9ea0b09a3d6292d77fec37b94
294 F20110320_AABSUX scharlach_t_Page_188.txt
32cde5b66bdf63788b516ff969db66b4
dc7cd56e6fea4c214c8b74a8b2181b9198761e4b
90459 F20110320_AABUCA scharlach_t_Page_045.jp2
b69fbabffb80fae8d38d434a213d5cd3
041c72ba0e8ee1bd60b7f1a2192990af36a10c7c
147807 F20110320_AABUBM scharlach_t_Page_006.jp2
47df70f57b04397b5ea80b7e54e28e86
ba7c504b3246cd2feaaed15e33012b587d8209ba
70229 F20110320_AABUAX scharlach_t_Page_164.jpg
a253dbc77da6f1613196bd934bef6bf9
b2f1da0214b4e6c2914237aaf175daccd89aefa5
4920 F20110320_AABTWG scharlach_t_Page_018thm.jpg
0602fda01355f612da4b6843ae5ec4eb
043612595dc5a66d4401edc97af70141f7786f57
23035 F20110320_AABTVR scharlach_t_Page_178.jpg
786a1de8ee862ab16d70c63945e3b952
499bd733936655f4a5ac12244d8117bb3d261d6a
18335 F20110320_AABSWB scharlach_t_Page_092.QC.jpg
cc488b329bda8232d81dc1c52e9e2307
78c8d823e23c4409918c357bc2b723a878c78790
1815 F20110320_AABSVM scharlach_t_Page_105.txt
ee848a63bfa1081ae80b9aa3679975c5
fb5e6723a0371fbd63b7ac2f1f57f796b29cf649
111189 F20110320_AABSUY scharlach_t_Page_148.jp2
69bf6d58d8deef79728d06900b5509c6
af65368c626a8a34cf80154ac169753adb27b7c1
103809 F20110320_AABUCB scharlach_t_Page_046.jp2
00d2e209dbef811b2373d69c01044420
67bdea0b8e5969276ca056aeef980b16d8bf85c3
1051985 F20110320_AABUBN scharlach_t_Page_008.jp2
9f8765ba2142632a6f53d0df2d47bbb8
f82d33603ce40edff368939e20621d09a9a189d1
68434 F20110320_AABUAY scharlach_t_Page_165.jpg
3dcdadad01e854303c50290de8e1d1c1
d1844eca94356199ac06fbb213d2954a7b24804e
F20110320_AABTWH scharlach_t_Page_030.tif
faa175ee4226c0a599a78dc94fa06800
278dc35772908f5047acded9a1b7daaba5afc9ab
62913 F20110320_AABTVS scharlach_t_Page_071.jpg
ec495e6b1762f6fd91ddb767c0a00d8b
5fa631c388aa29d9c37de00ee169fb4beaf25afb
46337 F20110320_AABSWC scharlach_t_Page_101.pro
6972ff9e2396b0d26b37f4cb45c45d42
ff2c52b303fe3f08741b762ce2a301a0affc9f94
25781 F20110320_AABSVN scharlach_t_Page_195.QC.jpg
f69e251e860540676fc80f90e3d4354b
825ed1b6b1bfbc2cdc61da54e3f75932ced8bd49
F20110320_AABSUZ scharlach_t_Page_139.tif
afff208d3995427e5de9feaa6b2f6204
04a6dc5fc11b2037c5b3ed02363bb146cfc6b847
104836 F20110320_AABUCC scharlach_t_Page_048.jp2
0961aedadef6bda2f47536502e710657
0b6b05ac99ecf1ae0bdebcf7eb5a2e13446b55ff
103714 F20110320_AABUBO scharlach_t_Page_013.jp2
e97ad6fd70bb46d5398026570a1d907a
e6ca8d60525d5d51ca7022bb781078b0d1567f02
72192 F20110320_AABUAZ scharlach_t_Page_166.jpg
66bbfccd8c8d7170880ce42d95ced0a3
1c7abfcbe86cb0753cfd58a1c957892a5d4c3324
51573 F20110320_AABTWI scharlach_t_Page_115.pro
f2b65038410eee79b2db40a2d397121a
fe8eedeba42709923fed7e609abed8237c1089b9
F20110320_AABTVT scharlach_t_Page_018.tif
4feb75546be67f0bf175a018730094bf
ae43eb2be03f135f45f854cb3cd883c9ea4193a5
3910 F20110320_AABSWD scharlach_t_Page_184thm.jpg
210f1034b425bfa30b33e2d009feb438
bbcd0debf65c3a6858f73ffc681e922a694eac71
50345 F20110320_AABSVO scharlach_t_Page_164.pro
1a39aa53c2b2a7fab4c9ff39e981cdb3
c665e6ad821227673b1b3d6c5e78e37fa9d3e929
109938 F20110320_AABUCD scharlach_t_Page_052.jp2
ba9785138c7f86460700810503e998ac
645b93a690568b8980539c3457a46e6527b12f20
89898 F20110320_AABUBP scharlach_t_Page_017.jp2
90ae2440f6ce47e33b07c596e268d76f
986963239f45831b6e3d3ea6c11f65f8bb408e3e
59793 F20110320_AABTWJ scharlach_t_Page_109.pro
c06d5f07ed297b275ece661eac82ee63
cdf2dcaa412e58b7bf2468ce028ac98c83579dd8
1935 F20110320_AABTVU scharlach_t_Page_046.txt
10e800e254c12c54d02e2769a348d91a
80543f004b80d607f824dadb66811b0cfb0163dd
113244 F20110320_AABSWE scharlach_t_Page_097.jp2
0ccb9e4882e61093321f2f9f12731d8c
2001c437f934d954fdbef816eba4e268c0822ee3
1396 F20110320_AABSVP scharlach_t_Page_002.txt
508981600f9cdef308514de7cdf0daf4
e7ad1ef15a58c2dea3b7660ed54d2b393c5016aa
110465 F20110320_AABUCE scharlach_t_Page_058.jp2
69093458dbed5339350efa7436a7a60c
52c8764b054f850c136149b7f8ad54cfad051751
104424 F20110320_AABUBQ scharlach_t_Page_022.jp2
43660f2fd08e7083d6edba1ce21954b4
40f0b375b2b94cfc25f28d9d15f5414cc2ccf1f3
26295 F20110320_AABTVV scharlach_t_Page_001.jpg
0f95753c387afa07cb33fdce2344e9e1
22c89df6e7f8f0d58545b01456d70117c20a3ac1
4648 F20110320_AABSWF scharlach_t_Page_099thm.jpg
0c60859c91c8b7075d796990a992e9af
46cc462f4f25344797bbf2e5ae894d0919fdc5b3
F20110320_AABSVQ scharlach_t_Page_197.tif
00b359a67e8d4732c7870ae3736f846a
4cab44a3787fae1da7e52961f228e8cd7bb9267a
99205 F20110320_AABUCF scharlach_t_Page_061.jp2
5061e66deb68d542f688924fd89374b1
de15527145c8fa253d735cc465e5ac0036266603
106998 F20110320_AABUBR scharlach_t_Page_024.jp2
9d34f147f618833f95885502a4f780e9
a9ecdd4ff2503a8b3b52657f57876fab6719a813
3265 F20110320_AABTWK scharlach_t_Page_191.txt
0c02ab113a694574a9fa75694b1e3040
371644d46218a42176d61803fba45e7fd6ed16a2
5319 F20110320_AABTVW scharlach_t_Page_007thm.jpg
acc0935046ccfab44fea7b010340c552
23ed6ec64e2c0a2dea232987f2c5aae703962b14
49248 F20110320_AABSWG scharlach_t_Page_050.pro
87036968b678d47ee7607e68835c1bd6
028bd5e89d5a954b84a4b6a9a722eba711dc086a
23095 F20110320_AABSVR scharlach_t_Page_041.QC.jpg
8c9b51305445b9002551d7ba267dc033
a31ea993156487152e32abb90db32f9d7e659973
82342 F20110320_AABUCG scharlach_t_Page_062.jp2
0b51c941ea3e650ebd4658114ae817c5
a77f61cc51a78660bec2d9fb2b2978b273a39ba7
109681 F20110320_AABUBS scharlach_t_Page_026.jp2
c3a166171fa77657fe747e3deca0c923
1d5c391977a4f1da1e5eb2b57d230a3b040caddf
5687 F20110320_AABTXA scharlach_t_Page_151thm.jpg
cedd8f6c1a2c24d39bc4197dc47482a8
2bd7a7b9eabe65cfdd075ae906c7afadce11d401
6530 F20110320_AABTWL scharlach_t_Page_037thm.jpg
ce1a9ff3e7afe524973b3326bb941204
4f56a5e38e96bb10c4e0a44fb90b4686b6e2dab7
134647 F20110320_AABTVX scharlach_t_Page_196.jp2
fda8b3994dc00d8b52f88c46b48938ca
2d6db5281d24bbf598ddc80b455d3979d1e8af37
1920 F20110320_AABSWH scharlach_t_Page_033.txt
850bd90d1bd29b93fb55cc546635ca1b
6ff3d7c4893db796963e37b104a2a09afafb691a
22944 F20110320_AABSVS scharlach_t_Page_057.QC.jpg
dfc38a90377a72fd039d49d26d6dca0b
2b2aaa87b353d9ca8054cc30c5c815488ffbb742
109186 F20110320_AABUCH scharlach_t_Page_066.jp2
c5cc7fc785aea411cc831ed0ec0c5447
4f5996e3696062d8a0adad2f203cff683ddb2879
113625 F20110320_AABUBT scharlach_t_Page_028.jp2
087a6aa8e83c87bcc77e230a3356719d
f6457ac693aa33365efc55badde6240a59ea49d9
44951 F20110320_AABTXB scharlach_t_Page_071.pro
f8254d837dc949223e65c6fe385ba5bb
99ecc0c8e3051573f9aaaf44b06f4f15d65f57a0
48600 F20110320_AABTWM scharlach_t_Page_033.pro
d83a27f36416331d26deaf214638490c
d539ef6182545b20ea1c4ea74845d94a668364ee
1566 F20110320_AABTVY scharlach_t_Page_062.txt
f4bc51bd5de28613e7e196d07f209553
7ff868e6973cc74cdcef71ca294f5a61f04e9974
85556 F20110320_AABSWI scharlach_t_Page_005.jpg
13f9396b538857bfd2b822a148d4c112
3c866c2d4cea84f2b4e4c482ae8178b19384b575
6591 F20110320_AABSVT scharlach_t_Page_109thm.jpg
f18e0a6d6401763e846282092fff6011
ec7b2adb4f912aaab46ef367010748ed9fc0b70b
75246 F20110320_AABUCI scharlach_t_Page_069.jp2
11571b384a66819cc424b9e5808725a3
cbbd7e96eef6fb480031bd7c47a16af1ebd6c387
22499 F20110320_AABTXC scharlach_t_Page_077.QC.jpg
17aa30877ef75914cbb75fdfe31d5212
74ecf24645e0cb3b489199c4c590e2dc2bc41c73
71604 F20110320_AABTWN scharlach_t_Page_052.jpg
399389a231cffb335572b2ead5e5fa85
6a80ffc05cbda6664b30ac59a76df216c734ec45
85002 F20110320_AABTVZ scharlach_t_Page_128.jp2
f34130bf6746e51edfb10534b1ae126a
06382e8549233e6ff3b119955c9c6617a44a2806
110275 F20110320_AABSWJ scharlach_t_Page_064.jp2
e154ad6b147a9ac1a41466dbdeea6c34
1cbb1f8ce78bbbd99561ec4c2e9a7a4419400575
74150 F20110320_AABSVU scharlach_t_Page_036.jpg
da941b8fa13396e8527e9710058537cc
155c91f6960efb24da4d04f0b554de0904b96efa
110645 F20110320_AABUCJ scharlach_t_Page_070.jp2
b6519ade5ad8948ba0c371ec524c0694
a0a914bea3c65fabe0cb4855b9832e9e150eb8bc
105557 F20110320_AABUBU scharlach_t_Page_029.jp2
911d9a0c9a0a015397fbb5ac99aae46a
6cc05887e1ec445e2a8a0636b48b4530b18449ad
236 F20110320_AABTXD scharlach_t_Page_185.txt
80fcefd5b62c0c05c976299adec776db
8af719a999ce80e76b2b0f0fc64ec27368e0b7d7
265 F20110320_AABTWO scharlach_t_Page_006.txt
a41a676a909bbe02fe463a27b630b436
c3f23f67046b546798e7586360ca719ec61c58ca
5303 F20110320_AABSWK scharlach_t_Page_116thm.jpg
aa79732265fe9264ea6e651c7f391d59
c1a112c6bdccde98f6b89c56c79d8d13b0261bd1
6062 F20110320_AABSVV scharlach_t_Page_140thm.jpg
47e604494d7e6e257eb34f7bcef240a0
36253949188dfc197ec66ba69fd2ebbfe0376c34
104063 F20110320_AABUCK scharlach_t_Page_077.jp2
063dfa69c022a11a4d7a7499f3468f3f
7ea8063fc69ec378538a0b0742114ffdcdd5ec96
112019 F20110320_AABUBV scharlach_t_Page_032.jp2
d42162afdf1bfb1713d1cbc81519d408
c3bc1330d7dd39bb4f9ea53e01b53cdaea9027ff
2385 F20110320_AABTXE scharlach_t_Page_195.txt
9ef5c6946753ad6f90330454e1f6a2b1
c536b99b4bae6d686b0268a53d5c833be1560b05
72088 F20110320_AABTWP scharlach_t_Page_066.jpg
18f218c7bce5cd5b0811bf7a74be481f
f20a6fb3a2195c56656870a2d27ae9801591811a
F20110320_AABSVW scharlach_t_Page_014thm.jpg
3b817e80ce4bcff9dd953fc6bca144c8
bffa9b6bf8a21fdeb6c8b370d3874aec9d8a1a7c
74585 F20110320_AABUCL scharlach_t_Page_083.jp2
8e67b2ea0765be6ff818687716a226c6
5dcdc6376048c0f9a2e084163cb4d314f04ec5d0
106036 F20110320_AABUBW scharlach_t_Page_033.jp2
9b4e6d35ad54037e23f983c06c0f29f0
c82d1f9eb66945f0c8c3fb7c37af218598a1b3aa
50118 F20110320_AABTXF scharlach_t_Page_096.pro
17b598067df982fc856ab3dcc350e919
c901ed990a0e82a345a39b9e30480943718fad0e
46251 F20110320_AABTWQ scharlach_t_Page_098.pro
30c6519b3e5e1a5a0b7e8f9650ef74f4
9ae70c27744a26d65c0d6c77a2c130cf7208ecc1
F20110320_AABSWL scharlach_t_Page_076.tif
6e02af37002d40f92c2860eb1686fc96
232561635b175ede981109b0015d064396e05704
23036 F20110320_AABSVX scharlach_t_Page_152.QC.jpg
180c92660fec2844754e0ff1067659a4
64bf464145d9924a3aac7934ec93ffc5496fa83e
2182 F20110320_AABSXA scharlach_t_Page_020.txt
14366818a87c6ade043de0fa439f5177
fa08b12aa547fa8b00f3e3c5398a29218b60f596
108124 F20110320_AABUDA scharlach_t_Page_126.jp2
45105d141a56739330b17796fcf7cf28
ca32d3bee09156af1110b4cd8f2d33d70369524f
98816 F20110320_AABUCM scharlach_t_Page_084.jp2
a59bdd4006bc101212ff6aaaeb6299c2
914f7eaef5a7e73779d785cb1be11c44bab2e580
113360 F20110320_AABUBX scharlach_t_Page_038.jp2
c104b03b291bf685c3a54b7bbc0f1b21
ab00ea1225eebdde0db739fa9fde3fc0a65ca3d0
81413 F20110320_AABTXG scharlach_t_Page_116.jp2
d8c824cc37b3af7b31f664931bc3bebc
4bcfafa2a8f4c58d747b2e0fcc93cebebb11cf52
F20110320_AABTWR scharlach_t_Page_044.tif
d0722b15bb30f2853a30fa71415aee53
2d6228370fa8e57e92c2030578229703d22ad662
1051982 F20110320_AABSWM scharlach_t_Page_003.jp2
203372dd82375dd718d4cb70856a6c29
a1b985d2cac6fbbaaefa66da89d231bca02f1d2c
112505 F20110320_AABSVY scharlach_t_Page_133.jp2
1f6be44b106452a62f01af0151ca2fe1
556d9fe25fb6df4a46641e3cb04ae742382370de
2021 F20110320_AABSXB scharlach_t_Page_161.txt
7d7160b3d1f6acf8541d7d438038c4cc
294b69149b28918f9dd0b5d941f8306ee85eac03
102361 F20110320_AABUDB scharlach_t_Page_129.jp2
0bcc5b251c8a07299f237ab495fc73d7
1867006a3b5f76fac4d986a611a38e5c2aa1fd5c
94546 F20110320_AABUCN scharlach_t_Page_091.jp2
c6d3872244f41c6b0e424e78916afeaa
c949d6d44749d2f48d0497b9d31a0fcfeadb1a0e
115681 F20110320_AABUBY scharlach_t_Page_040.jp2
d9992db19adef756ce8e1e5c59efaadc
ded3704e5954070b60fbb10758a8fd7a35ed4157
52719 F20110320_AABTXH scharlach_t_Page_030.pro
a2d10d3fd7472fbfaf539172bd7c57c3
848ad04949e2aea619bbebf7efba20013126aad7
6534 F20110320_AABTWS scharlach_t_Page_035thm.jpg
fb5f94d5022d78a88bef669993eec548
fc1893a4e415760faeabc6ca4e03984edfb5778e
16669 F20110320_AABSWN scharlach_t_Page_106.QC.jpg
3f3c7bf86f4b2eee89d15bd2f528650f
3383f6b6f3ffd904d6e1dd50f989fc949e95d00c
23234 F20110320_AABSVZ scharlach_t_Page_104.QC.jpg
6f795b0714658560a6390e0403cfe1f7
5c410ebf56ae8839b1a98066ceaedec1194730e1
F20110320_AABSXC scharlach_t_Page_194.txt
d14d5028ced67761f5185fc82b1019b0
dcb1fdca1accae0163629e0bbdbb5ce7a980fba7
109751 F20110320_AABUDC scharlach_t_Page_130.jp2
b501abbb0c6e63eda61ffdc21aa508c3
c926bb7de0a82465f11cb9533b986fc55973e22a
100801 F20110320_AABUCO scharlach_t_Page_098.jp2
b00dbc6121de61ad941950c8c82b6d72
25ac6f6880000c6ea5915574debca64b990fc6d4
91815 F20110320_AABUBZ scharlach_t_Page_043.jp2
1d37ba9df6a227d263d66a2a12e78c94
490483a397e08c372cd53a9dcaa0584aa49a75a9
22219 F20110320_AABTXI scharlach_t_Page_065.QC.jpg
12b18e3a994c7c9261ca95cd8b4904f4
915ee2891bfdc1ed4ed160fa7348119998ced9c0
22032 F20110320_AABTWT scharlach_t_Page_112.QC.jpg
a865e4e68e167af2086d1fd29eae8964
72be8f4bb8715889dd69098e0d9782bc60454821
47247 F20110320_AABSWO scharlach_t_Page_142.pro
4802f500d22a553258dd6060fe165526
56919c78b5324ef25231203506342157dc70a6f3
22680 F20110320_AABTAA scharlach_t_Page_047.QC.jpg
b6d5dd9d94ad13158a44f204c7e1f878
ae49a51ecf37ab533bda0e87186691ad5034d7d9
6547 F20110320_AABSXD scharlach_t_Page_102thm.jpg
2379a790fb57773f2df13b954a83a64c
209023199aac6db3bda90568706826743a6bf183
88796 F20110320_AABUDD scharlach_t_Page_131.jp2
303caef2934a5134c6f3850c1c3a9c22
fe2535dafcb44c46aacd5851eaa6ec0a28ff6a74
76917 F20110320_AABUCP scharlach_t_Page_099.jp2
c2cae062cbf3610d7f9150110eb9cb8f
bf46c7bdc30d30c642843c3e18d4f8f43ac5476c
F20110320_AABTXJ scharlach_t_Page_068.tif
4f6d5a431d755406e1b2d48ac0e44b1b
37c168642d00ffc9526d93df48034bd5b8ad6185
98424 F20110320_AABTWU scharlach_t_Page_044.jp2
9ce64a3dba1ccb92b268c43992f6b779
8f46107cd78083fe861923ad2c655a3f62cf0168
24225 F20110320_AABSWP scharlach_t_Page_035.QC.jpg
2ffa9f618dd826906ef1d74de3ebb08f
6bfe9cd2f877229cab80cd8bf54f123525dde9e8
45215 F20110320_AABTAB scharlach_t_Page_084.pro
36c74c1aeb756f09be09e98b7558c5e6
dae065844dad61133ffc07608b57c30f2d473db2
376 F20110320_AABSXE scharlach_t_Page_192.txt
2b8b9be3a6c648ef7ed8092066c4ef1b
6582e1c081cdcd8c41e48e7b173159a71116f13d
98615 F20110320_AABUDE scharlach_t_Page_132.jp2
e065598e0c6dae26a1f7539eb112e5a2
101d82b4ada43fee8dcaffc1bb084c834122c00f
84421 F20110320_AABUCQ scharlach_t_Page_103.jp2
2dd195617af3c2211b24c4b43aacafb0
7ba4fa267a344996f8beefd1be9e2e3fcad883b5
74904 F20110320_AABTXK scharlach_t_Page_150.jpg
0d7c66df4a0abfa726f2fd3e6f3b8957
e65b1dd75580721891e591e36519e43e205e0b34
21309 F20110320_AABTWV scharlach_t_Page_048.QC.jpg
3dee76ad87989aa0596548053a028684
77ff471271391a930e895be3f526e0739c768c63
F20110320_AABSWQ scharlach_t_Page_067.tif
3165517847d12f91f0e59d1c11a16215
103b7780aa716309a4677854831223b74fa966e8
38755 F20110320_AABTAC scharlach_t_Page_116.pro
0d68269d7421149590d7f5ff8c19eaa8
0bcff224dc8c77214d478a9b6067921b8e019317
17606 F20110320_AABSXF scharlach_t_Page_018.QC.jpg
2b11a66fe11942ccd806f0daac5f82ea
ee3764c04b0a293de633be68666784f3099548f9
105258 F20110320_AABUDF scharlach_t_Page_134.jp2
5dadfc2ee2414cee0e9b9f57859e73b6
a5ef6b775cee4f5600b9c7d5793009975de56d45
107950 F20110320_AABUCR scharlach_t_Page_104.jp2
0e9d662569b8b5cc9adea9dd2423f18e
a027dea141927e4b2f9ac82c1a37cfeb6d9d1aff
58283 F20110320_AABTWW scharlach_t_Page_137.jpg
46843b0a11d15994cf6d1fc8992a1858
a3901e6a18ecb8df27daadf1bc466fd677021acc
113309 F20110320_AABTAD scharlach_t_Page_035.jp2
6f5293165dd2b14e742b9d80ca2cc51f
3c38bb137c6a8801d1529f5f03464bfddffbb508
23149 F20110320_AABSXG scharlach_t_Page_087.QC.jpg
8fd367070713e9bea8786d2a384d8358
26f810b5352accac9d332f01b49d706047f4c753
3949 F20110320_AABSWR scharlach_t_Page_059.QC.jpg
28d05809769558916665c0211255d4c4
9e95009298f2ebd8c5fdb677286ba2d5034720d6
89417 F20110320_AABUDG scharlach_t_Page_135.jp2
73361594c7d929a5884d76a7901ff8b2
57ff72978a4948a9a572fa09aa6636fc06a25de8
102798 F20110320_AABUCS scharlach_t_Page_107.jp2
a5eda3dac91366f125431ea27e931777
3c7c2c6384e97d5ecc721d09e13c665373e604b9
22901 F20110320_AABTYA scharlach_t_Page_012.QC.jpg
53e990e34ce27ddd83a6dedca8c65f98
7e19509babb0e564254829f65b6439dce900f17b
44046 F20110320_AABTXL scharlach_t_Page_139.pro
f9017715ace52c3c9a0a8564b35e080c
b8730116291595ee3a5bac42be17d32b8383eed2
20631 F20110320_AABTWX scharlach_t_Page_011.QC.jpg
e4de317b37d9982ae99c25967c69d309
78a3a6944335d432eaf20244bc695aa97b1cc48b
107554 F20110320_AABTAE scharlach_t_Page_120.jp2
eafd6f097623d47ed09f3e65fb663cff
82fd019d32b470c5cf12ce2bf7ed4136c0184b25
F20110320_AABSXH scharlach_t_Page_129.tif
ee6af608ea9643d0e855ab8c5c33c2ae
de51736ccba8749e0d63105720c973becdad5495
50033 F20110320_AABSWS scharlach_t_Page_076.pro
0bed82263fff2032f1f44085a43409e9
7bc42e1bf867753cad73f3de257c4dac79ff08f5
881482 F20110320_AABUDH scharlach_t_Page_136.jp2
6e90d4c67d5faa9e33b6bbc158e5ce80
c5d502b397843610af7fc1a908b05b2a2801d1dc
105361 F20110320_AABUCT scharlach_t_Page_108.jp2
768bd897b5e16a21cbd32cf444744259
88ad03871b9b66e44b681c5d6b9218def9b64cbf
49429 F20110320_AABTYB scharlach_t_Page_019.pro
bf712c309e856cbc8163e5c0f240daaf
d5c6c0f2897b7aa0f4d5d8bdb96f337da543d407
47856 F20110320_AABTXM scharlach_t_Page_046.pro
7441aca0ade285e1f9aa0cf9f2e70560
d72c8ae71dbd158befd916817e14b2b4dcc5c98f
F20110320_AABTWY scharlach_t_Page_085.tif
9f772f642c1b4619b222e78161125dc1
7a11861016dd9b1f72b230f2ea6660b69e96034e
23429 F20110320_AABTAF scharlach_t_Page_074.QC.jpg
652bb036d0eac5b327e214ceeec3ecb4
72d3bb6aa19f72747f22f566ab2551ea739153bc
34352 F20110320_AABSXI scharlach_t_Page_123.pro
1ddcb45251eb71b2c5eb31c7d3c33637
492bcbe5e2eb7a0f3bb455f75e722156fa0aa594
14974 F20110320_AABSWT scharlach_t_Page_180.pro
3fae8d72b2d34cabe03b6b3e270e61dc
a244fe3373feca9aa6cf91423cc9e7055ea68559
101973 F20110320_AABUDI scharlach_t_Page_140.jp2
c577e792cc86fa1737740223abbc0fd0
53e92cd227cecc52a65fddfa4187220c76385d78
945815 F20110320_AABUCU scharlach_t_Page_112.jp2
32a363e8d5fa0252b2abe7f70b4525c2
84c707b4e9da9afb8c2154a517e8dc8d0079436d
1938 F20110320_AABTYC scharlach_t_Page_107.txt
62fb8dd65d11233503ca3d22a00c6277
07507fdb13377dafc9adff7f671be0562e7c49b7
1885 F20110320_AABTXN scharlach_t_Page_044.txt
c0153c41aec82609e1b5865326974a64
559f4de8e34b5a2fbce68aeacf7bac83c7518c12
6187 F20110320_AABTWZ scharlach_t_Page_048thm.jpg
28c9875eb2cdb5768a08fd6996efdc3a
6d54900cfd67f7ff07fa69f684c75f3a87b21998
1891 F20110320_AABTAG scharlach_t_Page_185thm.jpg
8c678b5c97d284ca216650d0d04b0c7b
a290fb0de011ece902c43a990aaa83ceadfd9a4f
F20110320_AABSXJ scharlach_t_Page_041.tif
517e27be04ed397b0073cf241939c024
69f0876cb014c06fefef17c6caf0a96f1c81b5cd
91267 F20110320_AABSWU scharlach_t_Page_139.jp2
ff14b169251410eff8bd8d56e1a04e2a
5261223f86e7cd71b04d1c64ff3cbf5d0e1dc31c
106508 F20110320_AABUDJ scharlach_t_Page_143.jp2
2a4214402a630fdc7af1801abe98fc41
a22f601a9b23835f5930c9d7eff49325aed4c254
F20110320_AABTYD scharlach_t_Page_142.tif
e35b6f1357d3d3622743a10ba7d8c848
4fc8e7e490f75b46bd4373e30bd55c66f499c82f
1582 F20110320_AABTXO scharlach_t_Page_111.txt
c8ed3482aaa56a10970fbfe71c5a53ab
9e607921303ad8837e7853772b49877339680589
6240 F20110320_AABTAH scharlach_t_Page_090thm.jpg
aff875e36f42913eab4d516f7a435740
ff17c7936e6345dbb23eff782d5e8a55a26b801e
5746 F20110320_AABSXK scharlach_t_Page_190.QC.jpg
8c2d6729c92019f560ed49946da7e664
bfecc4a188c09efa447b02f2e98c30fbefda98fd
80571 F20110320_AABSWV scharlach_t_Page_106.jp2
6ee30005372103c1cb2455ee4a1ee4ab
bb0e35a1480c7f69546f8b29e48eca18f7c32a27
89648 F20110320_AABUDK scharlach_t_Page_149.jp2
6bd8ec058eb0854b59cb17f810ae7513
d52d5d6b9efa6e8eee8d8aa8b9bfc0494a38928f
104601 F20110320_AABUCV scharlach_t_Page_114.jp2
5cc3f2713e24554a3695a128c07b5ce4
8d14111ee4184929629576d4622783cc46129fde
F20110320_AABTYE scharlach_t_Page_056.tif
7b67afe71b9a269c553838b21fe5a169
8b28cef4b965c78689eae856bf5b367e18d54548
29074 F20110320_AABTXP scharlach_t_Page_182.jpg
c8c136e0c2bb5d4f7433a333a19d928f
faaacd3803485decd8763edd49fdd2a8d211b131
F20110320_AABTAI scharlach_t_Page_094.tif
3b602442c16c0b30c2fddfe2413fd077
553e0c9a879f7fcc02ef9fc058424f9b2e494ba4
11812 F20110320_AABSXL scharlach_t_Page_186.jp2
77632ddec0796aa81195f620bbff9d9f
4d7405366234a037d729cb9b79d5e98ad6ae6ec0
1823 F20110320_AABSWW scharlach_t_Page_153.txt
ad0a29e7b873d2fce496a509072f7736
82a7fe92f890ff83f964aa7b14aae69bb79526af
108558 F20110320_AABUDL scharlach_t_Page_152.jp2
b7ac54431c707d3b1fd38697cce7fd2a
913e91dbb25942265442c406040863f6527776bb
101436 F20110320_AABUCW scharlach_t_Page_117.jp2
825b1421a8f58568b3083fdca87707b7
d97476eb17880a0c2469ce189adc3acca7d945d3
23941 F20110320_AABTYF scharlach_t_Page_036.QC.jpg
4f93b38869cfc23105ba06ed7fcf8124
872d466a706b64228a279a4fe118086cdb606125
F20110320_AABTXQ scharlach_t_Page_125.tif
1d3920fd030b306dd96f900051ffd7ba
85554cc42bf9a4c0ef0ad8c324c31c680790c049
F20110320_AABTAJ scharlach_t_Page_091.tif
d92a94d3266d3e9897662509649bed62
0f29180813d12412ae1030da30110d4648008c25
108080 F20110320_AABSYA scharlach_t_Page_094.jp2
754cc441d402d74fe347d8c7c00d52a9
7d2c70e640214efc57f07283f9c5507d42139e74
19963 F20110320_AABSWX scharlach_t_Page_139.QC.jpg
d3dbf5a28280bea2b55b6ece53ebe56f
9a13143b34cfde56d3986c838cda09c1b01be307
17451 F20110320_AABUEA scharlach_t_Page_190.jp2
3bd2a6677fd80bdcea251924ea9b9f77
1b889fb99fa72b4eb8351ed2e5a050afd32df8b6
85636 F20110320_AABUDM scharlach_t_Page_155.jp2
77492c8f05c3a2e21a1d5a8d94abd7c3
9b59dca429a8fa9383010d7bc0af46a3438e38a1
97566 F20110320_AABUCX scharlach_t_Page_118.jp2
3a3434727a5fb653517e5b099036c7c7
759b460d88d962666f9f9bcc4cc2f1fa2b4f7dda
F20110320_AABTYG scharlach_t_Page_020.tif
d5d74fe0f5a584d340ee8e637ff74290
37eca1a88b2fb7530a7b8ccabfb1c030dee09bf9
5922 F20110320_AABTXR scharlach_t_Page_136thm.jpg
b2e5716548a13e3f0a35417c950ae88f
1e71624a65e7fb7c56326d9ac46fa926524a5d6b
108016 F20110320_AABTAK scharlach_t_Page_051.jp2
cfb2507e58958ffb0bb46fdc9dd3db8f
a8e750ba16b22158a3658222be81445dcd201847
F20110320_AABSYB scharlach_t_Page_133.tif
121a13d4092283b7e42e81e345862fe7
79c80baeb58550deba6889bb9c6a1c57d00c2310
48126 F20110320_AABSXM scharlach_t_Page_143.pro
914e8f7ad8fb12e1597f7f8ac448260a
674993ebc9bff74d1d2602727129955ac3e0670f
F20110320_AABSWY scharlach_t_Page_100.tif
29df1a924b7a74d290b633bf8a20288b
37bd33cb80cffefda224fe2558e5e4a9323ff7e4
29226 F20110320_AABUEB scharlach_t_Page_193.jp2
3c5b7ffc4291415e33139cc5a0cfddfd
6a043d134ddbe92e3e710ff13103152a5b79775a
109692 F20110320_AABUDN scharlach_t_Page_158.jp2
c0939d86ecd35acc120eca8afff3488b
be7238a427e53338f2ab68684001b762403eeb5a
76961 F20110320_AABUCY scharlach_t_Page_119.jp2
b72b91f39799fd89c3299e01408fe394
bc3c3f1d450c8aa5e175ec95d7cb49e84cba0651
23189 F20110320_AABTYH scharlach_t_Page_126.QC.jpg
2fdc051280778d91a7f07b040d6d6761
1c2c9d0c0d64fb27e89ddb7067b78d3d3326331e
F20110320_AABTXS scharlach_t_Page_169.tif
b74f3626315875f2fdfd90d0ccd6d5f7
efa5fa0b188938f712b64651117f67f86e9ea408
42632 F20110320_AABTAL scharlach_t_Page_091.pro
e8b64f0a663211bd15688271b0c35d32
11587ed73332c2f8abb12afca0f5f908ece9cd2a
F20110320_AABSYC scharlach_t_Page_174.tif
0f9bcf6c9ee0f2fbd2c4a3c24237f4a5
d903a2eb2524dccf1880ecd1c220e628c17b86d7
73564 F20110320_AABSXN scharlach_t_Page_037.jpg
b64423b276b0e5780e7355bb809bc125
37dd6b2cbd216a3bf5798d2da11f77f8f089c6d8
1821 F20110320_AABSWZ scharlach_t_Page_060.txt
6b4db991f01ed575411e626123d46912
8b107d4a964848de427f57bf16c9e7eef172b64d
1051973 F20110320_AABUEC scharlach_t_Page_198.jp2
12ef20f8f5a7deb88b570676f2d8bf32
a53fa22bd75fea0fd09e438c4bd42f03ca5f0911
88392 F20110320_AABUDO scharlach_t_Page_160.jp2
74a1c465d00fe6fe4984ea8b6fdbd935
19a9cc36909965de24d2681209782e57d2854ce1
95502 F20110320_AABUCZ scharlach_t_Page_124.jp2
2caf5193fdb0f76f700773af4731fc11
89c6325d6ebadc6111976534027aab535049a429
6048 F20110320_AABTYI scharlach_t_Page_172thm.jpg
5df04fd14140068812c90fb592c407d7
ae3ccbb868c6692f3e869f3537b67489c7cfdb0b
108394 F20110320_AABTXT scharlach_t_Page_171.jp2
06f460ce2c1cc87dfd90991f704ec373
7fb389fdd42deb730bdc3e900fddcd04b7489d20
F20110320_AABTAM scharlach_t_Page_049.tif
e23d50b6116f4a9f317758d0f44dbd4f
88d26c786e4fa61c78e4e94b28afcf88631ef86b
F20110320_AABSYD scharlach_t_Page_173.txt
f8edabd614c19ac2de0e0c4d3f47557c
3bb87c5ed23f0868ab7d04f8b6a04361db2a9b81
293 F20110320_AABSXO scharlach_t_Page_181.txt
676966d87d42f45ccf7e6ac9ace5183f
a088ecb5a713107d9a074b987ef513c11e9913b9
21998 F20110320_AABTBA scharlach_t_Page_055.QC.jpg
bdac2a584fb7502397dd80f6b9141691
7034672c558394551f3a20ec52153847035ce617
137890 F20110320_AABUED scharlach_t_Page_199.jp2
0cd2e22b1d02150bfd2ea200b6b7e09f
848bc7bc7ea6bee5d0db4105469dfc7bd6ac32a0
104427 F20110320_AABUDP scharlach_t_Page_162.jp2
b2146c0ce1d22e6868517954d414dadf
1464070128f2c85217f7d5a3d0c319b1ea3961e1
21580 F20110320_AABTYJ scharlach_t_Page_013.QC.jpg
bf37d18383bc203a637369458aecdd42
fb0102cbf82c40909bc33d6bb392a7435b67eef8
87344 F20110320_AABTXU scharlach_t_Page_085.jp2
84984f5d2dce5158da67bc2902fd48f0
cd1b71933c7c86a67057c41f4dc8b4d46d706cd1
F20110320_AABTAN scharlach_t_Page_161.tif
00024a7e30ed9b6cd210deba83bd2576
4e7f59971120a19ea63c582e10eabd51a0f6d5db
47417 F20110320_AABSYE scharlach_t_Page_144.pro
6242811a511a6988c3b676e7d8e696f1
23311dedbcac84f85f660a593d6a0fd91e5cbc76
F20110320_AABSXP scharlach_t_Page_090.tif
2e7d4311ab972b22dfaa04ddd651081a
195867d3fb465f34abef35930cc7743f8b1191d2
44685 F20110320_AABTBB scharlach_t_Page_183.jp2
570b4c686e70aa8f31a0484a07ecc98d
39f192d460f4aa9cb3adf1aca9f9df7eb9b39f9e
F20110320_AABUEE scharlach_t_Page_001.tif
5c5c93e172af8a63be4644a2dfa27b1c
316d36c49a223eb02792531776197bb183766d16
104549 F20110320_AABUDQ scharlach_t_Page_165.jp2
95a9c37929fa256bc96af3482bed102a
e78a79d9e2976995c45497e6220eae56b768a9b7
94195 F20110320_AABTYK scharlach_t_Page_195.jpg
f8d66bcd9e4dc63ae96605c91a68fcae
2bda6f73c61899803c6ed4a67b8905479f2b16eb
99749 F20110320_AABTXV scharlach_t_Page_169.jp2
50039c2e550ba7ba4d28a859b00ff98e
1fc0a752aa5a7155dea90200e4a555b71ab575a2
55283 F20110320_AABTAO scharlach_t_Page_175.jpg
9b1c287601ea92a13d1f4ef1f770e03e
ce63dc0c18bc8f52899fd01a1555061fc05c3dff
5990 F20110320_AABSYF scharlach_t_Page_110thm.jpg
e3822830215c14a63865217fadb427e4
aaeacb6962545a287ae1fd5f789c2fce6d112b1a
F20110320_AABSXQ scharlach_t_Page_102.tif
f603c2738b6637e627845fc6a91987e0
e0179368699922b671d363ee8291bad9e4dd52bf
50903 F20110320_AABTBC scharlach_t_Page_058.pro
31909f2aee59e04bb33b7df536e76dd5
909534b8902468889f56f76ba475845be78ade6c
F20110320_AABUEF scharlach_t_Page_003.tif
803fada2ed33ced8244de05a3ef915da
8630ca4ae816108b594d1688a9de5f1bac2fe418
110603 F20110320_AABUDR scharlach_t_Page_166.jp2
afabce8c21370e96e834c47a1344fbbe
1a8c1ee63b97e49cc020c95e8aa1ec8477a7d7b4
1962 F20110320_AABTYL scharlach_t_Page_048.txt
c732e262b89adb62cb6de77511058b52
9a7cc63882cc7eda44286565b834576489b46fad
F20110320_AABTXW scharlach_t_Page_186.tif
d12e2352e658f20f12a98e0c8bf19fa2
aa2fe582f1a89b9e122f22217140c26e341b366e
1841 F20110320_AABTAP scharlach_t_Page_170.txt
addc7640bd7e90b3e7a863e4238f136d
ba3406b20b5a718bc03b52bad064e3c298e2cd91
1670 F20110320_AABSYG scharlach_t_Page_135.txt
d971764f404d26ad6354e88004242f16
b1688348139b117c8625dc12957a32af5ba2a5b0
90136 F20110320_AABSXR scharlach_t_Page_125.jp2
3ee4bcc012b89e236e4451aca053c386
d0674945a6bb2d8a7cc1a99998e1a01520c0fa79
54117 F20110320_AABTBD scharlach_t_Page_116.jpg
dba21f3efa83a7c6d416dcfd3f54fd4f
813fbe8523058c12a6ff4707a3dd739f6bc9d22c
F20110320_AABUEG scharlach_t_Page_004.tif
54b6ef658c126468363096f9c5d20eac
f7aaadf3e8a41aaaa82a1b48ec6119f8895fe960
110735 F20110320_AABUDS scharlach_t_Page_167.jp2
6421793b811608bfd5b9a4ada7effca5
771c557c416900225d88ad1ff3ba6f9ca19a12d2
74438 F20110320_AABTZA scharlach_t_Page_021.jpg
63ac66a015fdc9dc9858a65b80a36618
76039d05cdb1dd194ea92de95db2c21b13843752
106300 F20110320_AABTXX scharlach_t_Page_154.jp2
f4da268c9d0df7428cce2a9221849410
a4d70b2c8c64fd8124364d3dfeb345bf3a7a8ad0
16234 F20110320_AABTAQ scharlach_t_Page_099.QC.jpg
766c7619838edee730e3b505438121f0
7891846f0519910e4e56b5409adb0b4735cb14ce
F20110320_AABSYH scharlach_t_Page_026.tif
edea64ae6efb68be26ee0d3a2aa641d9
17e6389f2f6892ac8f06c1f108d9bcbedd8b12ca
14556 F20110320_AABSXS scharlach_t_Page_159.pro
83f2b1ceb0b640c84bc7869cbef7d6cf
9a014f17da1cbd94c5a930159b1efa6e63e9e7a1
23214 F20110320_AABTBE scharlach_t_Page_130.QC.jpg
667e105edceadff9a189b0f5f4acaaba
07c005f3445656d63d0a9349238756228df6afc5
F20110320_AABUEH scharlach_t_Page_011.tif
4f5885199f3f7ef3d118b5466efd0d7d
4dda2e6afe2f2f01020095513890c067fae11795
43439 F20110320_AABUDT scharlach_t_Page_176.jp2
fa4443f0a409a5ed905dcd81676a1989
f2e0b72d03945611123efedb535c792929ca83bb
75198 F20110320_AABTZB scharlach_t_Page_025.jpg
4a54150612d81882cf2f8d35d05a4c12
83af4188fc9f16d988aa6e89cb6bd719d728f8ce
13130 F20110320_AABTYM scharlach_t_Page_200.QC.jpg
c58d3ca204451863417046392a812b49
0c82d65a6f2178a3e5be2b1b51b3b74810cc9c2a
F20110320_AABTXY scharlach_t_Page_055.tif
abecb624d2f03f47393fc4e7ca5a82c7
b343955e9ef2cdd71ab99c3dec8349cd74814557
F20110320_AABTAR scharlach_t_Page_143thm.jpg
eb78bc94076b45d99348ce6484e63eea
822218d00fdf651a5100b6ca1b018643636689de
49363 F20110320_AABSYI scharlach_t_Page_108.pro
2f259e81c18cbb36744300fcec3cf984
0ec8a603107fdf7af6d06ab25762d535a180fc63
6471 F20110320_AABSXT scharlach_t_Page_133thm.jpg
66ac773111b6141ac96a4fc19be4d933
0b3fb57ab6bd513bb81c904c9672b809ae0e5a93
1802 F20110320_AABTBF scharlach_t_Page_016.txt
7c1f38c8f3c5850d0c0c5bf66547d52e
00d64dc353c9a4ff0a4812fe96f363da1cdbf5f6
F20110320_AABUEI scharlach_t_Page_014.tif
e1b209ce885313f8d337576ab822837b
f940b2a15280ea44867043ae414ec4ca4fa285a7
28166 F20110320_AABUDU scharlach_t_Page_178.jp2
9b0a870c89d304cb59180fb30d0149fe
db191d4df4b4e43c5e20d86a4e72b2cfab382bd2
72213 F20110320_AABTZC scharlach_t_Page_026.jpg
b18a8ba44bc6c2661121950c099587a6
18c6067860442f44b20e50a09cb6fe6107c0a0cb
35506 F20110320_AABTYN scharlach_t_Page_119.pro
a55d4c7c45c95773b7c367787a68bd37
8370d3aacc2c0d648c705a511eed78b3d8908788
F20110320_AABTXZ scharlach_t_Page_149.tif
69d94199f74290943f869f9310af389f
d61776db67920b6b69c163666a9f506516b427ef
F20110320_AABTAS scharlach_t_Page_037.txt
d129c4086e36fbc47fe69ce7381e83e7
2ce10b790a5b6c59f0a9f123f04b2573d083e52f
F20110320_AABSYJ scharlach_t_Page_073.tif
7673e2396f4955a84281b6a747855127
6160f2d8add271ad6ea9148862d15639567315f1
4955 F20110320_AABSXU scharlach_t_Page_145thm.jpg
df6428edec1def4914547c30dd004db7
e7dfb9e4cfd2f1647ee1015a793ccbcd03dd5379
87970 F20110320_AABTBG scharlach_t_Page_113.jp2
1717e679f9964d72501f0a7fb86d1d33
16c293bddad4ce056e0139d5512f857b857f1e38
F20110320_AABUEJ scharlach_t_Page_021.tif
6e309b3f9d7df83110d6bbe88a5b334d
ec5a456bed76392343ffdfc84ab643eb5247481c
36572 F20110320_AABUDV scharlach_t_Page_179.jp2
22de55b7275ec8ed0823dfac3e6ccae6
f267d6545cee386fd060d2bdfb2f69b820444985
74489 F20110320_AABTZD scharlach_t_Page_030.jpg
974e0be01ac488b750fa20ef8f25298d
2fc4ef27eb4e140e4eff0cdef06a8062574d2b75
33122 F20110320_AABTYO scharlach_t_Page_176.jpg
673e2bc5b3848c2398d72213a4b299cd
6fc048ebde84a7434a1d41aa367418f640ada02d
5529 F20110320_AABTAT scharlach_t_Page_188.QC.jpg
811ff8f93cfcb66467b2fe3f4939229d
78e6e6d10ae8cb1787e927d4e610a2c20453030e
1051959 F20110320_AABSYK scharlach_t_Page_004.jp2
088026cf41f37172a4e6c3a84a78f4a4
ac6cb9cf3402617551aa2233ca53e414d490ec89
3445 F20110320_AABSXV scharlach_t_Page_182thm.jpg
83b9f1c145371b684d1da75721835890
f6ea9d7222c537390f7900fa4f513a2e96e850cc
103944 F20110320_AABTBH scharlach_t_Page_168.jp2
3d5ede2b89611f8076ac40160cf4502f
2d850c7b90ee986bd31964b714c2b55545b20ba0
F20110320_AABUEK scharlach_t_Page_023.tif
8cd56d3124bbe188891738ae074019b1
795a4b8a28cb59864930b479e1542d5422b2566f
73611 F20110320_AABTZE scharlach_t_Page_038.jpg
5c0332d9f93a7cfe5a416a07f4f71802
6176af95824bc42c7b79be9b5a10964eb07dc948
3525 F20110320_AABTYP scharlach_t_Page_183thm.jpg
8b6a21228301517ef5f0be54be577228
da23a3043e225d1ba5f76217b1fa3e9b347db323
106068 F20110320_AABSYL scharlach_t_Page_055.jp2
39cbc979c53742d1d6941b51b95cf776
b2b86f3185c0068403b630c058087064e800cf79
24504 F20110320_AABSXW scharlach_t_Page_004.QC.jpg
d76f34adb17f2530e9efbbc3d43db500
9f1cec90bcf22ac0c17bff3649ae243d2cebfd20
105186 F20110320_AABTBI scharlach_t_Page_173.jp2
3152902f64b45c8355305d8abe3907d9
3ab53ce712ae1ae804942813417f114150c77a26
F20110320_AABUEL scharlach_t_Page_029.tif
77affc3d8189fb317a216cb1b8d85f07
cfc25522c3de90665309ad5d74ed4db4bcd505b4
19816 F20110320_AABUDW scharlach_t_Page_181.jp2
872207c59113cceb2748078cf64859ee
75607ab22bbf08d72547ba341f9f9520f8f9587a
70887 F20110320_AABTZF scharlach_t_Page_039.jpg
442ec8dd0f848214c8f13913cb6d759b
cd076b5ead3c177322de2f1324862b22c6f9fb80
2294 F20110320_AABTYQ scharlach_t_Page_095.txt
74c4f387608811cd739c979fefd175c5
14b00f683178bedf49f68055b317f22a42842ff0
1988 F20110320_AABTAU scharlach_t_Page_120.txt
03670e607898cc1b6ef81fe8d70a1e4e
d6c2b339c50ea956f224ee0c532d7976baaaf5ca
67193 F20110320_AABSYM scharlach_t_Page_162.jpg
b13aecbd9bee395b1459e9aacccc7624
412449f8250d606d197ea4cc168d85a29e07a06d
5444 F20110320_AABSXX scharlach_t_Page_103thm.jpg
f449bde14a670c6287775e62374ffc4c
6e89b77d542f2e55b548432d613bccb8e2c02881
6325 F20110320_AABTBJ scharlach_t_Page_050thm.jpg
6ea64efa3c32f92f6a90204a27fedbb6
40d4c4f121084739af72c7553492becb12005b8b
F20110320_AABSZA scharlach_t_Page_105.tif
9d8e64db1af714e9d3de2d88b18914a4
253a6223411528595848144dcb3681cf7bf5d46d
F20110320_AABUFA scharlach_t_Page_083.tif
da775ea0890f6a066a62c19992588efe
82d21dd864c1dc69e3a91ee8603dcafbb634b8c8
F20110320_AABUEM scharlach_t_Page_038.tif
d0acc743928f08de15e0db0a7f8597e5
ad65d8db5d11d45a7f47a1aa6734ff88df752360
49578 F20110320_AABUDX scharlach_t_Page_184.jp2
e04eb412b5ebe15201eec5cd88455bb2
9f6ec838dcb83f2bb6bb6ad584c3d5be289da451
74823 F20110320_AABTZG scharlach_t_Page_040.jpg
8d72802a8b63aeb00fb6861017112aff
6c6b1e6fc59812b248530723f6210c6fb03dbb58
61317 F20110320_AABTYR scharlach_t_Page_009.jpg
1bc4044167171b3c7e5398336b5ecb70
f0916153ed1442980f18d2947d7c1b8b6c3997c6
69545 F20110320_AABTAV scharlach_t_Page_079.jpg
e3da5457f9bf45f67d920f5c6a970540
94b35170427130392e1b38ad361bdfeb775b6fe0
5795 F20110320_AABSXY scharlach_t_Page_004thm.jpg
4e03fc65128ab842fb36e7c9cf60d4f8
0d9842c514280a37b7a8f09b99bb28b162cc8f4e
71467 F20110320_AABTBK scharlach_t_Page_161.jpg
5c307034950b49e88ffbd47eef2b009c
1a195b88bc87cd5bbceb653125c8f526a5d91acc
68787 F20110320_AABSZB scharlach_t_Page_090.jpg
7ff5644c27e7a16b1ac5fa6e6f8dc1b6
ee40ed219e2a506c74adcda6716ee2c0cb5a38b7
F20110320_AABUFB scharlach_t_Page_084.tif
afa534497c104d64b95891ad9ce6c12b
9ce9187a8dc0929b1cfc997931abf26d11aef471
F20110320_AABUEN scharlach_t_Page_046.tif
b5eb40ef107576e711ee4c0f8815d435
d6655e4902cbbdcaa2998693af5082317ee2fc67
15785 F20110320_AABUDY scharlach_t_Page_185.jp2
1d86a63ac5e3c0c9ba3b0cc36e575e27
05c69bb8e52ec3fe86599dc82d69ebc0aaba5510
70207 F20110320_AABTZH scharlach_t_Page_041.jpg
ec711f8fae76b86b3f1a095818f1ee49
3926754d734cb3fcd58e6833d2030004cf8fee8a
1051971 F20110320_AABTYS scharlach_t_Page_197.jp2
93e047be89bb4673f9482b54338116a0
9005ed7fc699541c6df60f4f3829e18ab1b2bb9c
111172 F20110320_AABTAW scharlach_t_Page_163.jp2
2e9817d41087518784d2f2b53995331f
0b12daaa14fa0a52effb14d6586093fcd97af0ab
6658 F20110320_AABSYN scharlach_t_Page_150thm.jpg
ac91af38d025f0e55875a53b3b163536
94268d33938421c53a4adf2a9fdfe4fd1a8ddcad
F20110320_AABSXZ scharlach_t_Page_153.pro
d2258842ad82f37003a2d0ed42c10244
f2bd9692c6fe35ff02b6c89bedb221fde2965684
6576 F20110320_AABTBL scharlach_t_Page_038thm.jpg
225147fc90bcbe0dd93ed8284d26c191
ab38afc3e94d560fe42c98d0e1fc25b250e74797
18982 F20110320_AABSZC scharlach_t_Page_085.QC.jpg
49b26a37fe37098587746e7b1c5344e5
c902d283a41552dc2b04c1b5e4789a79c7c70e6f
F20110320_AABUFC scharlach_t_Page_087.tif
d8dda95b2c1ee7d69cffc9b4b146ee60
23679b6b4d269a82fde599f74004b29924e4457c
F20110320_AABUEO scharlach_t_Page_047.tif
785dee9b281a95895b37c293e052af2f
5078631fad8afec4eca487af2504420596dad718
10866 F20110320_AABUDZ scharlach_t_Page_189.jp2
6e36c51b58e3c3961abf218fc7e4be13
433770ed1199bd29d1bde6741c6db9c14d48f1fd
60558 F20110320_AABTZI scharlach_t_Page_043.jpg
c8e3a2414321dd30622c47e50592325a
846bcce874e002dbf2aff9a8480f9c36e5379541
232744 F20110320_AABTYT UFE0009344_00001.mets
a196abd5827b383c664f3f3949e17dbe
80c40ae7b1221832d99a9077906b2123e2495c31
6402 F20110320_AABTAX scharlach_t_Page_130thm.jpg
b48b7dfa790723b8d99c24cd1e26cbb4
c452b567fb1a2cfe54f13d299150f03d7ca012e8
52782 F20110320_AABSYO scharlach_t_Page_111.jpg
f597209b1983ae6187e61b09c2033393
2ebb55d0509e6f8604b2c54f187145187428ab7f
62555 F20110320_AABTCA scharlach_t_Page_091.jpg
ef27308fb7b4aed5f9db58438c86ca15
fa4df5c42cdff67c1cb2bcbdd05faf1d4a46b510
50308 F20110320_AABTBM scharlach_t_Page_083.jpg
98f0937ff76498a25e5387b9aaa23b75
dfec02eacd6724c6c4bd35615b6539aeaa7c8c87
22182 F20110320_AABSZD scharlach_t_Page_129.QC.jpg
0b880e5bb890313fa7376e7a10611918
09955002ced9d6d3510eda4679c3be46d2224b92
F20110320_AABUFD scharlach_t_Page_088.tif
5119728db325d3c2feb16a8c0cc3d887
e8652c327b950363e18836a5bec82c18f5dc13f2
F20110320_AABUEP scharlach_t_Page_048.tif
94bfa4c186c12ddb4a8fb3c40cf26824
ad0a8468a74f660e1b870624802dbe5b774ec392
67995 F20110320_AABTZJ scharlach_t_Page_046.jpg
a640ae297a807538451af6fdc330d737
ef66a3b6d62edab2199002d6a7ef4efc4308c1d3
6537 F20110320_AABTAY scharlach_t_Page_021thm.jpg
76ef709e24cadd8f929d9f4cb9d029dc
2506d16b21235ac9b232bbba5e6bd40a61ac87df
49803 F20110320_AABSYP scharlach_t_Page_039.pro
492fd5a2af4922966430e6798102336c
6c843dba4459387dfb6f26f517813b03b309f399
36920 F20110320_AABTCB scharlach_t_Page_042.jp2
71e588da389f7ac32174463e4e55a35e
62aa88ad44c2a8acea9900faeb418a7f71c2d9d1
24549 F20110320_AABTBN scharlach_t_Page_121.QC.jpg
d8cc82ecf58dc0b69f40fc2b57a31c09
fc1fface14df31253ab7f52bdbe4734da3b0dac8
48152 F20110320_AABSZE scharlach_t_Page_090.pro
f4aaa8d879affad70a446664ca77ff81
b2a1d03d6c79c2380ae3fae4f8573dfc62a6e368
F20110320_AABUFE scharlach_t_Page_089.tif
fd264ee0781f037353ba6ea3df391197
a4baba765a85ec5ff02b351cb7e54e9c2cac8377
F20110320_AABUEQ scharlach_t_Page_050.tif
eef7f544a75bb8ba4a6e5505782c2382
401807658183358a9d9b3bb4f4d34171072a1159
68549 F20110320_AABTZK scharlach_t_Page_047.jpg
03c08afb20200311a50d531bebeab5db
4762a6fbe8cff625fb9432360f5af96577658078
110684 F20110320_AABTAZ scharlach_t_Page_088.jp2
a9c9280511a0d484867596da033249aa
92c76cf00c54f6fdd6f3620a106cf7d8e029ea21
23842 F20110320_AABSYQ scharlach_t_Page_032.QC.jpg
d71f00853b8d7ac52ad7caa22e96a818
ec52463d8c3fa1a2a12f4a2af50b5fda24e8a1fd
22618 F20110320_AABTCC scharlach_t_Page_127.QC.jpg
cc3ae514d64fc671ce2dd968e775536d
3b7bfed2f6d67b3b09fe017e3a673f9085829ece
67244 F20110320_AABTBO scharlach_t_Page_144.jpg
71bd72fee32986fb28ad68f39c807db7
5ada247df2ecd5f50c2eefa430bd7cd9a3853073
24379 F20110320_AABSZF scharlach_t_Page_150.QC.jpg
21a418e0d82a50e9eaa688ccf24970c0
70e48f7f3723982baa0eabd298897d22ffd01cb4
F20110320_AABUFF scharlach_t_Page_093.tif
a81749ca9d766939ea5a1311101b8cb7
3b34f41d953ad965761631fab035bfc49e527f46
F20110320_AABUER scharlach_t_Page_054.tif
9a63755ae5ac45e85ec11d925b5cd1e0
467256a93441f512eefb7f482f641e23857719df
70478 F20110320_AABTZL scharlach_t_Page_049.jpg
8899b898bb2739163658e05cc5c7e0dc
c198eaaee0a8af4210419276963bc4200931f008
52998 F20110320_AABTYW scharlach_t_Page_002.jpg
1de876e9ce313c0832ec8d96a1daa03f
e3ad6a3325c12ef9f6ddde593a595d48ce350281
46744 F20110320_AABSYR scharlach_t_Page_140.pro
c7bb73fe9854d53aef26acada935e18b
c15fe280d8a96fb5eda2e54547522dfe36faddbd
F20110320_AABTCD scharlach_t_Page_057.tif
ee3d856831d6ee7889ffdd88a865e7d8
024520fdc08b94a317d2cefcce15a20d6bdfb822
46263 F20110320_AABTBP scharlach_t_Page_013.pro
1eef6783ff9ff30b7a6479189a3c1a44
0f6c98b8f4eb995adb68bf7fddd8e67a76c5367e
6242 F20110320_AABSZG scharlach_t_Page_142thm.jpg
57c1fda37d38e7f80c5515e039681460
d9d2c296e3dde5da33018fd1c9087d70a73d14e4
F20110320_AABUFG scharlach_t_Page_095.tif
e5efe7e226edec087866441cf566a8e8
6207fe11f7c5249c4a4f44a2fe4e21860f701dc8
F20110320_AABUES scharlach_t_Page_058.tif
1cb6c60cb37b538b95e33df8f16a97a5
0713b532b29384b49aa8ba41efcf4d15def4ac6e
71182 F20110320_AABTZM scharlach_t_Page_050.jpg
c921bcedb49ce79c34dcf5013d20dfeb
28a8590496f98a9b193ae594ccdd96673fe7dd62
67184 F20110320_AABTYX scharlach_t_Page_008.jpg
747fd7e2a5c792dfab482f83fd79175f
b6770deb7b2976f6dfe76bb1f87cd11f5bc01c8a
F20110320_AABSYS scharlach_t_Page_108.QC.jpg
47dd357d6e70128350113f17e4c842bd
4c3968265b29568c425f51137e132274bc1b62a3
61831 F20110320_AABTCE scharlach_t_Page_151.jpg
56e6a327ff9f73652713fc9957d64358
8a52ea2eca20928ca8ad04dfb54cc677deefdcf9
F20110320_AABTBQ scharlach_t_Page_163.tif
160b9245066f9e24281fdf1536edcbce
15683968f6c58d7c8dadbc965e03f0dacec1157f
F20110320_AABSZH scharlach_t_Page_099.tif
d0c648d52bedf172a6cc7bf18ccc7b44
498401d7dcdfdcd3c143944da768fcba9527cd26
F20110320_AABUFH scharlach_t_Page_096.tif
91c90611fbb7325bf54e1d249b00ba86
5dc51f992036c0bcc9b31be6dbb09d09debdeaee
F20110320_AABUET scharlach_t_Page_061.tif
0be96bae9ce4652f949e79a0601de511
f9eef3618e6cf67dda76f36918bf8b89ac2a89af
61425 F20110320_AABTYY scharlach_t_Page_014.jpg
bdcc7ceb8b17e98391aa4efc460da388
b0a26ba58d2504f62a38f73b6370a1538588d73c
59884 F20110320_AABSYT scharlach_t_Page_125.jpg
2422108259d2b15afa4e774555bd409e
4602e218c16ededaecc7a1ffd95727be56172db8
102000 F20110320_AABTCF scharlach_t_Page_194.jp2
8e042c9dc7fc0e0364f26b9dfc79c363
e09753ee6727b9f4fbe018a9c38186becb29615b
6263 F20110320_AABTBR scharlach_t_Page_079thm.jpg
8a2ea261b698af925cad7def88aa3827
82c28d2bf6825bf3f9c70016dca30bab3089a67a
6138 F20110320_AABSZI scharlach_t_Page_161thm.jpg
ab2bed6a45e272c4d495f3262e5e9d6c
519ca35c9e7544c4787f27461bf5072b8a5e1f40
F20110320_AABUFI scharlach_t_Page_097.tif
f3aac939d663a03081ec491f99b984b3
21015aa5d8a53c4b747d50fcf56b306e141587ae
F20110320_AABUEU scharlach_t_Page_062.tif
340b32b0d859f0dc5a27ac8f2826a44c
3030cd1222f7f2ada62e34b060987856d549dda6
67677 F20110320_AABTZN scharlach_t_Page_053.jpg
eb2736dfbfab11477a2f3d2b7a9227e3
1b41916ee43e53020e02575e0dcca10e9f05a48b
76519 F20110320_AABTYZ scharlach_t_Page_020.jpg
b0b34814f79715b3d798ac8d34b3538b
2412c7431f472965d4633d649501993f18346f90
123001 F20110320_AABSYU scharlach_t_Page_109.jp2
62aa186d9417e00eaf2ecdb1b35ac3c3
9c2048c443aa3ead73e72c4603690a26da44f109
2491 F20110320_AABTCG scharlach_t_Page_196.txt
b43f4a0b416288e8ed9932222cbf20f6
95ca9a551f92417e6ffe08e71d72d0ca57fd1e5d
51255 F20110320_AABTBS scharlach_t_Page_167.pro
7d58b37442acd8ebb2890ceaadb233f9
c9e228d7dbfe0d8c1f9d262a418f5229b3b92ba7
F20110320_AABSZJ scharlach_t_Page_112.tif
4bfd2e1871777dc1828f7d33747fd878
702ecf624a720e58be05267956db0731124e291b
F20110320_AABUFJ scharlach_t_Page_106.tif
102d1ea6920122a7b60417b0e05fe2ea
c5ea3f11d52320cb56815d5b13998dd179b4c297
F20110320_AABUEV scharlach_t_Page_063.tif
359682ee8ef69cc3c1005400ff4eb71c
66214aa86efa1c15aeac01b9cd617b3c38c67fb1
69566 F20110320_AABTZO scharlach_t_Page_055.jpg
36882b9558c39eac0650623621691394
bd314c13c79a5d806c294e414fae90719d062860
48395 F20110320_AABSYV scharlach_t_Page_008.pro
2ca4c8f6b50e3e392d8ebdfe882d5079
a9543f9896242c35e4b1e1731811f6686faf495d
F20110320_AABTCH scharlach_t_Page_107.tif
a3cf7da7152b3b736ef25355e0dd350c
45a3a159094a1a869e2dd56bd6ce638b040e2f36
23544 F20110320_AABTBT scharlach_t_Page_026.QC.jpg
1e6f0aa44e85fc5ad2daccd3d578953b
8384b5088d03854c19a32d626e3119e1322c1078
35663 F20110320_AABSZK scharlach_t_Page_111.pro
3134893fd57d35759f2874f3c02cd4d7
ec77eef76001eb6a0940c2e252cb48d5a37d3de1
F20110320_AABUFK scharlach_t_Page_109.tif
e4342c9b370fb968755db0891d9a1fd5
afd2cab268cb7ac8ffff3f9d3b48d7b8fd34e114
F20110320_AABUEW scharlach_t_Page_064.tif
728d05a8160651e822ad74ef99d461d4
59e1686767df9b983d79c9131445213c6c9c17a9
69034 F20110320_AABTZP scharlach_t_Page_056.jpg
1a4b8a63b08cafd5fbb753494a7dbb44
2bed9a53eade83dcffb2b346167b890783dbad51
F20110320_AABSYW scharlach_t_Page_113.tif
4cabf8ff3b32b7b3aeabdfb9b9c448a1
3aa3ba62c24dca685c7581d974448e79de6708bf
51109 F20110320_AABTCI scharlach_t_Page_130.pro
05e4b1f3886aab101ca03e3f3074411e
1d895a1f9fe8cac4d7a0d6d3600e041e94d491af
1761 F20110320_AABTBU scharlach_t_Page_072.txt
7002914de51af53d72379e261868b5bf
706e2407f044809f93d13f2b9412bfb76f94b2c7
F20110320_AABSZL scharlach_t_Page_009.tif
8327d61577bd841ce932ed5a1c37af75
b2b7c3ec72a1f4099ef785fc63b5ab29abb0d090
F20110320_AABUFL scharlach_t_Page_111.tif
bbfd17f7217629ac71b18476c6cd1680
5e36d17d6dadc5d00b10075a76f07e664a586187
69876 F20110320_AABTZQ scharlach_t_Page_057.jpg
6799eaea1ceb1d57f5b822fc167b7bc5
cbfeb0af795aa8f8c9b3784b74c4a23a7894e44f
F20110320_AABSYX scharlach_t_Page_033.tif
95f0f1259cfb568c375a3477b225cd0f
201ca76697622ad4f5756fd74bf07e88c0d2a95c
5676 F20110320_AABTCJ scharlach_t_Page_091thm.jpg
e1471a09f991f96a2ef7e26f5603c85c
194b3b2e6c2dc54b75a5e027545e96f86ebc34a9
6093 F20110320_AABSZM scharlach_t_Page_117thm.jpg
12b0f810d9b0463e6c66f1c0744d2e2b
b675feeb3b80f5cb9d804421f9c041da5ad04952
F20110320_AABUGA scharlach_t_Page_150.tif
a2dcc374836fd6a249b7ef9ee7a8d68b
840e6399fb6c65f227fd5680af3b6639d5fbaf79
F20110320_AABUFM scharlach_t_Page_115.tif
7fee43d8ad1f5ddc34f532a75e4dff06
db3aa4ac0e0c51c01b17e96742caa41d8fc7b353
F20110320_AABUEX scharlach_t_Page_070.tif
473e3d605fc0bc01fa0df98746677d07
9bf3c689e9a84b22655c0f2d5939baa5032e7867
71794 F20110320_AABTZR scharlach_t_Page_058.jpg
8f7ed738aa04fc5ea71bbb135c942478
0ad1409f94d58c54b38a170e2750fd72558921db
24110 F20110320_AABSYY scharlach_t_Page_030.QC.jpg
f23955e5b34a03dbfe711651bd1767af
2fb61ca66394aabbb071883c42e3d089ccbd65dc
49881 F20110320_AABTCK scharlach_t_Page_120.pro
077c29ba664f258edd0b0664ab152df6
fff208c9104f9d92f802fcc7d297872b9c4a9f21
52249 F20110320_AABTBV scharlach_t_Page_028.pro
6b3d7d75fa20d31b5b58310c1418c361
c801ec4ec6ba8d0d42c3a52f9f0eaeb9ea01fe1b
96362 F20110320_AABSZN scharlach_t_Page_014.jp2
576f8b4df16f94730f79e4fbaed375e2
e9a267c6e8173062db19704d158501915dcbefc4
F20110320_AABUGB scharlach_t_Page_151.tif
4d85b023455bba3ae96a4046e497be62
0b7dac258843a98f0855514fc2638ed226575096
F20110320_AABUFN scharlach_t_Page_116.tif
0ce4b2083c14c83f838ad7c7ca152e9a
b0c2431113c30514ab83022192b6ca626455fe0b
F20110320_AABUEY scharlach_t_Page_075.tif
3483398ae64cbece30484883bad03a36
20afbc123e32088ed9774160dac0c1b294685c77
66191 F20110320_AABTZS scharlach_t_Page_061.jpg
4b7ed9b300153b6bed092fe834d60c64
f3fb4eaf725cbe7f44858f746a0b0021df67618b
112736 F20110320_AABSYZ scharlach_t_Page_023.jp2
9ab719d498c93b3199643e1e16329e64
ee52fd93a30772b72fa997a18511bfa022dc33f2
48717 F20110320_AABTCL scharlach_t_Page_057.pro
33c322d01ca11b29351b0a6f6e6d20bb
571d85f7d8d4c51a6f1cd6516efcb650359b6cfa
1755 F20110320_AABTBW scharlach_t_Page_067.txt
cdf31de70188f0bf049380bd319b5065
0a6dfb5d05aaa514ba6f21d4c0e5783d61f1de83
F20110320_AABUGC scharlach_t_Page_152.tif
946b78beedb5f0cb9e759bbf85c3e820
b5564efd1bfb9beebff02dcd53078b05c3a95f50
F20110320_AABUFO scharlach_t_Page_117.tif
70bb40c2b88fd88cb5243a13fb411fe3
272882190d08427b5a54736f0f36253ccca6c8f8
F20110320_AABUEZ scharlach_t_Page_081.tif
6f73f91f9070541050a8571d42ea6bd0
c7826166e70f2c3d2acfd25e9a4cef7b246f1e79
62523 F20110320_AABTZT scharlach_t_Page_067.jpg
8e53ce286fda5133347fe933533f2d23
5471e096ba6fcabb3793d826ec509b315cd70944
34220 F20110320_AABTDA scharlach_t_Page_069.pro
9e342e54f3cef4cf12949e0d8308f277
e0b12a2c329eba28576c575601608e2a0bb260df
6108 F20110320_AABTCM scharlach_t_Page_170thm.jpg
17e5fad9c910cd030ffcc00a3a92745d
99de9f7c50d8a5175a5ca7212ec9ca74a7210ead
90232 F20110320_AABTBX scharlach_t_Page_137.jp2
ce7c03f37d2ffd021960c18a86252ca8
74c1f27eddd991f24ad3bb30a31f19a59cb31a6a
36295 F20110320_AABSZO scharlach_t_Page_099.pro
8f6984b085c2a13b3a354992bf6ecbdf
ece76daa7f6bafef99206ed30621a15aa7b6910d
F20110320_AABUGD scharlach_t_Page_154.tif
eed0c1c57bccd18cd2079bf36b2e14fe
57b364575ffdc99b34017f47cc3d38db58244fa1
F20110320_AABUFP scharlach_t_Page_121.tif
3dcb82fd366ae708bf6d2b477b5c67db
7f6a6d7219a3af567d4e5843709e4140e374828f
71988 F20110320_AABTZU scharlach_t_Page_070.jpg
217b94324e4692b474e3b11acb922021
66569e4cf9c69f4755bd6d9876d87c32aadd976b
F20110320_AABTCN scharlach_t_Page_056.txt
efa93ce6edb76bf26debb5dca4386447
4e4e120b1b83be2dbd51a5e98bb1c47db0f47de9
20926 F20110320_AABTBY scharlach_t_Page_122.QC.jpg
2434d7a0e49e8198d6c1a77a44a02bb0
4fb82332a90c0864168b4ad41f95ef90f986cb7a
F20110320_AABSZP scharlach_t_Page_153.tif
bb3ab04dd6cdba8b300adaf1816aa5c5
d4838dde0df8f0132b3ab7c2f248e20af24fc929
108614 F20110320_AABTDB scharlach_t_Page_019.jp2
f0f732e0a7ebb244f8f802822e995c7f
86c1ffa270f1ea81f49a4c8cf727d945cd57cb0f
F20110320_AABUGE scharlach_t_Page_160.tif
4f5ee3c78ef19eeb8b3151c8d50c5491
b571df9a3af29224c999dc69a689993c042ae892
F20110320_AABUFQ scharlach_t_Page_124.tif
b8fd0ea54d56062a69ace80b41a2e19f
cf061b1515b5dfad7b278954dad07f664d64f288
70924 F20110320_AABTZV scharlach_t_Page_074.jpg
9bbed002ed70b71032928749667d90af
ae2532284629302a0c0fef6a59f71fb622b3563b
6478 F20110320_AABTCO scharlach_t_Page_097thm.jpg
96ffda50e0132951d5a7a998611e5eaf
0595e6ae5b05c8fcb698db3554a0a75a3cdd9b1d
F20110320_AABTBZ scharlach_t_Page_071.tif
8c83932fed68e27aa28cabe0b0d8b8ca
8eb702e0342a57a502ea75bc40ea7ba2f6513c1f
21732 F20110320_AABSZQ scharlach_t_Page_117.QC.jpg
64af9484e015824f661c36a7955fdb3c
4220a216b7ae86b8b32e3772d1a26f85dc3155a2
89909 F20110320_AABTDC scharlach_t_Page_146.jp2
1ef052223646e22d5e2dbac7a777d58a
bd3855a1b03d444b41d557e4c3c05c86c5ebd752
F20110320_AABUGF scharlach_t_Page_165.tif
ad16a86cc24340320f36c79348f7fbe8
60f6f94a09dfb073d500fedf6844e53ee701a096
F20110320_AABUFR scharlach_t_Page_127.tif
eda2b2db79fa2c94a9700b8d9c93012e
b739e30f757b4569dac6825a88d9ab1eab04d309
71452 F20110320_AABTZW scharlach_t_Page_076.jpg
28d4c3ee117188916f1525bbb1711616
a6a2347ba9696a4e7bb6b520302f094d62607db6
5535 F20110320_AABTCP scharlach_t_Page_185.pro
2cb3ba5e5d23a44b3b1187d4b6cda706
fc7b2081338f35215853091af97b7bf453120e44
F20110320_AABSZR scharlach_t_Page_022.tif
2787fce63e275be4a24d512b7d910d2f
52f8ed5edf217ba705bbb14ab916da72e2b77a90
76366 F20110320_AABTDD scharlach_t_Page_097.jpg
4a31c0bca71e107400760d251e83d1bd
5f954c6f1e14ddcf7d14f5438574d7042e9b0b1d
F20110320_AABUGG scharlach_t_Page_167.tif
308efcc96bec4936582712e8ad0e1ec5
3e0f4562a50c033c7b4e006e8fcacd76b51ebc1e
F20110320_AABUFS scharlach_t_Page_130.tif
975d5ba13dae33063ea4b4e354eb497a
f392fb1282c2b970d7b3c68950a86b7fc7f72c0d
69112 F20110320_AABTZX scharlach_t_Page_077.jpg
b68c7af1af0ee6839ed04ff974fff6fd
4ac63eafa073313183a58725d8a3edc0c10bd757
F20110320_AABTCQ scharlach_t_Page_034.tif
fb3a86996b6cdb03fc45ddca9bc343d2
a585efcab8f8d35e92c3dda8037fe25ea2e18a8e
79697 F20110320_AABSZS scharlach_t_Page_018.jp2
162bc489fb7e4cc7064b10e2eb3f02ce
72e5df31022bb9fb8c02568cf83d91adf9ae5927
F20110320_AABTDE scharlach_t_Page_008.tif
127bc792434bb73b9bcf269ddf704a2f
b27fa3bd8fda6053d9ebcd96bd48d69a43d806cd
F20110320_AABUGH scharlach_t_Page_171.tif
410a4bb3a6c4785ca8f4682d3157d33f
ce460b73b956fafac189f6f611c5957ecd39d0e9
F20110320_AABUFT scharlach_t_Page_131.tif
3986854072b0acb111699c6598e4ae8c
3a3a48ffe3adcc4ae4752d48542b15de17b01d4f
66266 F20110320_AABTZY scharlach_t_Page_080.jpg
e05ba520a744ca8ec4a02fbd445e55cb
d1d9fd53f3059dfcdc4fcaa2a31d2cadda1353ce
2049 F20110320_AABTCR scharlach_t_Page_035.txt
c4b0f78a44c8c9f6ba6266b12fdd6370
741b93c471dae14eb470e8f61537830d678d060e
70873 F20110320_AABSZT scharlach_t_Page_120.jpg
296ad4d965b960fa30a0f7d446b84b12
c87caed37ccdbc75c5bc55261746bccdbae00e84
5872 F20110320_AABTDF scharlach_t_Page_124thm.jpg
5c98528f243c869e00ac23a466f6672a
759630cf9c6903c52b5a269d4875d831bd505f4f
F20110320_AABUGI scharlach_t_Page_175.tif
a182e2e05710caaa912532b5ca83b6d2
7bc308b8a0eceb100370559bde26bd7d31003700
F20110320_AABUFU scharlach_t_Page_136.tif
fe3daa5f62183ec84317262b58b7035e
0763ed03bbe2b5e84967db45c97d83659b368605
71550 F20110320_AABTZZ scharlach_t_Page_081.jpg
b2503af7d113978a45f6f7e03c6a75d2
11777190ca5b170c973f3120c02647d3a1219873
19544 F20110320_AABTCS scharlach_t_Page_136.QC.jpg
af33762f4b02a79adfd28f671d08cc07
31ca61c92ff58432c36f18a39fda329f20efc5f0
109113 F20110320_AABSZU scharlach_t_Page_039.jp2
317ab16d91c05670dd547531ba88c6a1
0722c05371d61b329d3cb809c029efddc0236a10
74937 F20110320_AABTDG scharlach_t_Page_028.jpg
4b28d29c751aaf9f644d0f7b5ebf9cb7
412963198fc5ea7a8652e8c35dc8f94ad0aca9c2
F20110320_AABUGJ scharlach_t_Page_176.tif
25f9268485b5f3aa33e59a20f56d6b45
036cde992d27184d23237d87fd70fe6e8b837784
F20110320_AABUFV scharlach_t_Page_138.tif
2674848125e73a01572dac7ca8dc3e21
7405b1e47b59b589e3d5aa262231ce9f1a48756a
34645 F20110320_AABTCT scharlach_t_Page_159.jp2
b170799e820c723f8927837b4847bcc8
69f8c0875bbe0d5252142e1ca171c5137c3b1a34
6251 F20110320_AABSZV scharlach_t_Page_120thm.jpg
84c93d0af6d3725a32917fceab5bc97e
fd43ca4504563b2e70f1bd2de6939ce282380bab
1848 F20110320_AABTDH scharlach_t_Page_011.txt
f9a5fc408e3927d689e686e280bc77fb
460111778a5636eb5ab87cfe0928f7680521dc89
F20110320_AABUGK scharlach_t_Page_182.tif
8a7d0c0f8bbdf802551fa68711cd3d07
a37468a151f2a35f05350d6a1cc5951ca15ce1ff
F20110320_AABUFW scharlach_t_Page_143.tif
a1932ce567ca9695eaa4ce89f4dd1582
a318174837f3e65fa330b6235cc298d70cea6c86
F20110320_AABTCU scharlach_t_Page_196.tif
5cc0c4216bbc3cbaee6ff4229d68430e
28358b569a5e45c9e2b8c8aeef49f9841b9c5b96
55875 F20110320_AABSZW scharlach_t_Page_062.jpg
3b5eaa1405b5855abe0c476a21d6e824
77c86d70c718821e633e31d26cb7795dde81d4fc
1739 F20110320_AABTDI scharlach_t_Page_078.txt
4cd3cd16d3bd07599f8100bb87620381
148e7988908b341714450f9521c2dca86df4d32f
F20110320_AABUGL scharlach_t_Page_185.tif
95dc63dd4f850305dbdfc2549266579e
d3872603f9469b90e717d663a4b007e7bf9bc190
F20110320_AABUFX scharlach_t_Page_145.tif
df3ef6e3a50e06236a67f0d22c7ec194
3e909cf8d69e61d9f844a646e3cdc1a320ec5975
6839 F20110320_AABTCV scharlach_t_Page_181.pro
30151247ed71f171beba281e8917e262
101820a4b0e3a78930f911e8aea2b44fe50c1569
F20110320_AABSZX scharlach_t_Page_159.tif
cad7adbdc9a75ec75a6e75ecb8f7876d
0f243e7a6e8481990757e62e231e5ef6788c5ca6
104070 F20110320_AABTDJ scharlach_t_Page_142.jp2
e3df907fa0cc77f782f5b06ecd1d6720
0d9057110103937595e2b3e54c746fbbfa9d5a8b
51679 F20110320_AABUHA scharlach_t_Page_031.pro
8282720797d56ff8a284ff8485995ee9
75a436e3c63b9990cc1257f2e02e7fc99beb45ce
F20110320_AABUGM scharlach_t_Page_188.tif
4355d1b7ef443a0604f3a835e75c10ef
daf59e8065f9935605ea5a71426dc39abc42991a
6278 F20110320_AABSZY scharlach_t_Page_012thm.jpg
8ac647a4d529c1b4cbccaadd05c1335e
7b4fd301744e9f1131a191d74361787b4abfc402
F20110320_AABTDK scharlach_t_Page_065.tif
b15537e466fc073bb9e004f27e294d26
8e12db2dc699c0f72d2c0394d0cf34deff01035a
51551 F20110320_AABUHB scharlach_t_Page_032.pro
61bde5e8889c6385822885939929267d
1c6ec0e01165191bbc9f976591caa545ead3f652
F20110320_AABUGN scharlach_t_Page_189.tif
da8c477fd6e3847090464230a8d0113a
69f2bcb1c46e3ca6e2b5546531c5da95e6617e69
F20110320_AABUFY scharlach_t_Page_146.tif
04eabfa2518c3994003154f08acb1818
98f5aa527c11036cf0da0937113315b4be6844a0
57172 F20110320_AABTCW scharlach_t_Page_128.jpg
d5319877ec1c3891a544e62df027879b
1b93f0350643f8bd0dff7491e931ac124dfa1539
6801 F20110320_AABSZZ scharlach_t_Page_028thm.jpg
3e36f7f9d9fe3fbb40c588a2c8899673
a600a9d699af1d8f86e2ce0071e4595a1db7cc2a
F20110320_AABTDL scharlach_t_Page_042.tif
9dbbfbb9c4557759ded49459149b7f4c
0fb1dfb53d0b494498d1548d9a89e3e3c34ca876
52100 F20110320_AABUHC scharlach_t_Page_035.pro
f101c3fb1a51a30380a33f3918d7fbab
3443618150aeb3547bb1c184562d113dd0cd504a
F20110320_AABUGO scharlach_t_Page_194.tif
e60d87ada7e562d1511c6bf260c9da88
bd19089ff2e5d00b42aa1a16c52273a2adbcac17
F20110320_AABUFZ scharlach_t_Page_148.tif
920945f7e75ecfe961f8fb5d3626b504
458ff59825a29dd71e4a437112843eaaead976a5
6681 F20110320_AABTCX scharlach_t_Page_054thm.jpg
ae3fec863575266add1fa2c6cbe94764
d1c4fa05dfd7325bdbc2560204e900c88c7c1101
20416 F20110320_AABTEA scharlach_t_Page_015.QC.jpg
e88a96130e5b8a07b84c235073934264
252e143b8c298ac65168d6ebb4039cf6b6c7ef19
99248 F20110320_AABTDM scharlach_t_Page_105.jp2
626d832df0fb5d5479b96627e065937d
edd4bdf85b3520c09133179e462f8244d4e0c158
52802 F20110320_AABUHD scharlach_t_Page_036.pro
c5c0c9c3b8d167cce8fcf7cdac31f1c6
2ea5420d8f18abdddf92a94bc6d3d56ae6463f8a
F20110320_AABUGP scharlach_t_Page_199.tif
c817981bc3d071f0386e29565431743e
a7fb6c30fb7ff64e3d283ee11d9e4fb356568861
F20110320_AABTCY scharlach_t_Page_065.txt
96df23018bcc5b95796a7a3f8461f675
cd5209d057245efd5420915e6d7ce7e2e3b4b69c
105686 F20110320_AABTEB scharlach_t_Page_074.jp2
1296097d10e899dbf8fcb4138638774a
f3291b341f1e88bdd1f04053672cd3b4a15e57be
71482 F20110320_AABTDN scharlach_t_Page_158.jpg
6a48f3932fa6df4f60d1512852210f87
81c1bd660439391cfc17b03c280d2a711dc19b13
52380 F20110320_AABUHE scharlach_t_Page_037.pro
8ce9ef16f930c58f7a725fb6775c0d9c
c56639e5e1ec54cee7cc1a813801bea9aada9752
116512 F20110320_AABUGQ scharlach_t_Page_004.pro
1db553055ba8b701a89ce0cb72425a15
e15203596e1f3dd2b4a69028b67ddb7c3f8c7f4f
65829 F20110320_AABTCZ scharlach_t_Page_153.jpg
650901938610e6588f1ecdf917553e2a
cfb5b4fd684f6d46b33fa283008b6b1624b62186
95838 F20110320_AABTEC scharlach_t_Page_015.jp2
49ab6c9e95982b2fc6169285a3b27da3
edf9588cd5a93444ca50e0ea8196afb199453b74
1591 F20110320_AABTDO scharlach_t_Page_119.txt
e5891f9d212683f53c444646befc12ff
61c7a86416d96b089c90664f4f5a2961d93a4ec6
52171 F20110320_AABUHF scharlach_t_Page_038.pro
8784cf1e58680c45aa3ffb384be83d5c
8dcabf81200e8f2b8d8aa843aecb107a1df034f3
90927 F20110320_AABUGR scharlach_t_Page_005.pro
30d74670b0d0bd2c75e3c771b5b5aafe
13c967af3f7530e2c18c4febba06dc47d6967ae4
9153 F20110320_AABTED scharlach_t_Page_042.QC.jpg
e76d15247508a6f29457f9b92076b515
a6c028b912cc46d8a0130f266a868e7ebac24ec6
F20110320_AABTDP scharlach_t_Page_086.tif
7c5d420470934c4a489c2e5dcdc5feb2
3332179e1380316755ae342514df78d9babbf41c
52604 F20110320_AABUHG scharlach_t_Page_040.pro
a1bca50565493ac0de67345927242e4d
07d6e1016495eb72b7be86b7bbd34b2cff9dc197
50072 F20110320_AABUGS scharlach_t_Page_012.pro
08088ad998a3d99c8e0baa171a075ed0
b94f1d7799933d4123ff0b18dd6b089188b88ca9
20741 F20110320_AABTEE scharlach_t_Page_132.QC.jpg
8f060e1a334e0046eadb3cf6a2e198ad
e0c29c897bbbf8b8b720d3b7edfdc3e404e8d3a4
1870 F20110320_AABTDQ scharlach_t_Page_140.txt
dd79b556dff5c7d2b7aab72c9b59d28d
8e223ad43ac975312791fe44aef1cd082cd59b39
49896 F20110320_AABUHH scharlach_t_Page_041.pro
bbe18b76634b6ded2b37a26b53c2d803
f5a4b1b4fdfeeae5aed7e33e502b1b1295685be8
43793 F20110320_AABUGT scharlach_t_Page_015.pro
a8b31e6d594f212c14561b823d47c585
a32bc983c73c56488547d2a4506fc5e215478da4
5257 F20110320_AABTEF scharlach_t_Page_008thm.jpg
c1c48f582d81a9e553bf6ad501d6bd5a
63503add62c95aa463f679d1177ef600f25c37c2
6638 F20110320_AABTDR scharlach_t_Page_040thm.jpg
3e4e88861abeb2f3c17bc1b499d0d8b9
d49b83bbf59540e1a3c1a4afba2c2a3a7ce31a0f
48593 F20110320_AABUHI scharlach_t_Page_047.pro
c1db1fb080152e4bf8af0a13ff6226a7
ca06109aa6dfd41698e998c1f4301934f5ee20e4
52491 F20110320_AABUGU scharlach_t_Page_021.pro
7bd10da42363b04d9f252c480976c917
a4a68f4b40e4d59bc65b68cf367d394f587ee856
89869 F20110320_AABTEG scharlach_t_Page_009.jp2
49614d0ccdbf23152a7c1e0444f2cf95
e2ab1eff3a6c10d6d89e62fe264970c2f072ae4c
59492 F20110320_AABTDS scharlach_t_Page_131.jpg
513975b2b2080c08076aee66319bc1d4
b3dc10b702a198b570b6ed47dee9bd3412794171
47568 F20110320_AABUHJ scharlach_t_Page_048.pro
02875b98cb0a9b120b60449bbc03361a
533be73219aba91d3d0cb1417290f43fa0bfc5ff
47824 F20110320_AABUGV scharlach_t_Page_022.pro
245797d372de675ebbc95954666ac4d6
b7ace63104a3313c155aea462830bc56c7ac2026
F20110320_AABTEH scharlach_t_Page_187.tif
93c15d8716e3246f84895f98679a1433
668a22ac664c8576f190564ff0b47b68b89dbf19
66370 F20110320_AABTDT scharlach_t_Page_110.jpg
8585039d7b5cf2fede3533af2042ff79
b6855560d49b464001c3435309357dbb2c887cfd
F20110320_AABUHK scharlach_t_Page_052.pro
791d9f8be5421afdcdff8e8a0f9a9232
24c74d89196e2cc62daef8f64c92d660abe61cce
49551 F20110320_AABUGW scharlach_t_Page_024.pro
ce659ade34671bd6ab15e7ab49bbb8be
5ff27ea0f809967b53c27001037e4e03f8275daa
51671 F20110320_AABTEI scharlach_t_Page_166.pro
e8060564d33ac0fcee78e39cd3690f20
1e1ae379f7eafaec15e9c09933eafffe48a1a6f1
68037 F20110320_AABTDU scharlach_t_Page_086.jpg
f6b8bc7196cf4b38172c1966f51dd129
5362f81fd6117c56011548a0ff538c4e87758ed8
47077 F20110320_AABUHL scharlach_t_Page_053.pro
6d2e2f4e823cc79503c12d662c7ce4ca
b6de3d7376c8bca2fc2a5a90dd5d7e80b9d55b49
52111 F20110320_AABUGX scharlach_t_Page_025.pro
6a83905e859b78fca64cb746d72d5098
3c2ed9e48ee240356648a6ebbf842440773ad5f2
2084 F20110320_AABTEJ scharlach_t_Page_023.txt
f6088e477998f1aad8658b793ee90e1d
e8018a638dcdb46efd40b4801fc910fec5e4ba83
17987 F20110320_AABTDV scharlach_t_Page_103.QC.jpg
d3fb82a1c26d9156342f07d1327bb883
be967e9cbb84a1a1da7ad201a1203e6e8fcc7bb8
38948 F20110320_AABUIA scharlach_t_Page_089.pro
d985959be997d30083f1371b0101c656
a9e50f860db759e6a063170f70cc4ab2a3ad31b6
50908 F20110320_AABUHM scharlach_t_Page_054.pro
484b32789fb7bdfd30b3d2698ad9726f
26339142f821e6802551fda253402d45bd8235c5
50454 F20110320_AABUGY scharlach_t_Page_026.pro
f83cd878d2cc4438ffc17eb395bc2c32
6e467ce29571074193df4b57bbdd3f05ce2c0c76
9209 F20110320_AABTEK scharlach_t_Page_059.jp2
c127792d013de09a51b9f2cd35ee9386
9ef58129190ae9405b148a4080f34352cef3fd93
3124 F20110320_AABTDW scharlach_t_Page_189.pro
2e482ac409e9b339a1b89167d3745677
a3e31f25ab61bcf50dde334081db23d0424e5542
41927 F20110320_AABUIB scharlach_t_Page_092.pro
75de09d81592f6db9cd20c2f804b3e32
4e4d568ae0aa5c12ecde3d59286565611bbd28bf
48798 F20110320_AABUHN scharlach_t_Page_055.pro
2d670353189cf65be4072faf9c2d8429
47fff84a98db562c353b3a1d4b616b5656f84268
5228 F20110320_AABTEL scharlach_t_Page_009thm.jpg
085c1d5e00165a6cac93b7d4455086b1
db921bee2f066ef7c2d0af90700547f3d3661efd
51347 F20110320_AABUIC scharlach_t_Page_094.pro
2eaa6ee7b7ba31cf438d9671e84ea407
a5a2d0bee874a6c98be8fe3159c4481fd2f01ee6
49515 F20110320_AABUHO scharlach_t_Page_056.pro
6c8e20882b57ed910e3977dc265552f9
91ac3f44e55d16a495bd4cd0fde88870da4756c1
50536 F20110320_AABUGZ scharlach_t_Page_027.pro
22569fabd458fb629a0f8465b77a3ce3
e0b395a5fcbf59b0dc3192881297c2cb2de50f4e
6662 F20110320_AABTFA scharlach_t_Page_088thm.jpg
600822c85985ad3753c8c86fbcb9c032
86557d59ba337aaa3ac011e91068a56f04ff08fb
80479 F20110320_AABTEM scharlach_t_Page_089.jp2
0a6041fc897156b7ae9c0eb464a6af5c
13a2befc41986f967213ed15c97d467c46961677
2728 F20110320_AABTDX scharlach_t_Page_159thm.jpg
26f432d07fd0221d3b4e7a2d791e4131
1ad749c80f6efb34631114b6f4500f6b7ea4856e
55088 F20110320_AABUID scharlach_t_Page_097.pro
f02179cbfef7880af02fd469c8176fb7
03108ea92c1915b8857f9c9dd6322c3a5aab8c7d
45673 F20110320_AABUHP scharlach_t_Page_061.pro
67d3b5061b7f2df42060192c930aab47
8ad5a0c2b2bb53c099812bbd501aa6861a50a264
121117 F20110320_AABTFB scharlach_t_Page_121.jp2
814f692d0c708993d4bf5186379b6ef1
fd8ab91d4758c45b9d47451a706a11bfabf13c3d
6338 F20110320_AABTEN scharlach_t_Page_026thm.jpg
3b5d8e7f0d1cd83064642ef6d0e9b9d1
636261938bc3dc64ee592c0258289f44389eb05e
22893 F20110320_AABTDY scharlach_t_Page_033.QC.jpg
d5fed72c667861caf0843b8bfd68e3ca
5e364dab62fb8bcebd010af0a9b2126ee90f9029
50555 F20110320_AABUIE scharlach_t_Page_102.pro
27ccd98133e18ca6274d1088cc731af9
4283dacae4e2479684a41627639590dc8dc64949
36213 F20110320_AABUHQ scharlach_t_Page_062.pro
cc47fbbdeb8d5d1cb7d5761ce185e409
bb544410ab025b96f94653a65cda93fb44f38113
2359 F20110320_AABTFC scharlach_t_Page_121.txt
6a938744fd43b5fdbea044a66ed4e53a
be54c1c16e7f8988006669f96e4174a65ecc775c
112492 F20110320_AABTEO scharlach_t_Page_157.jp2
135ce03635137549afbf1546f0c8c8f7
40230dc84971b8b818f99bf36fa73e6aac9d76bd
4203 F20110320_AABTDZ scharlach_t_Page_186.QC.jpg
fc578c350e1e982a45f3692cb4a5d66c
2b3c67522173f723e49750b914fdef2d6a153513
39554 F20110320_AABUIF scharlach_t_Page_103.pro
bdcd755cb044fc9b6673af299d7844ed
379cced38bb6770e41bdf7f0986ab205eea158d2
46850 F20110320_AABUHR scharlach_t_Page_063.pro
0fae9fbe7728db30642c9272ec321a4e
8aadad1a340cbc19a4e1ed2e16d45af5f68f75b3
F20110320_AABTFD scharlach_t_Page_027.QC.jpg
830a85db301701951c45098a5936f532
c985bf3596ca7426a88c3ad993f1e1c4f4c0ec39
2148 F20110320_AABTEP scharlach_t_Page_106.txt
703e28b347fc2df07c3f4557842aec41
18b2881280b01af67b61ee7ba9da3c215a22b683
47862 F20110320_AABUIG scharlach_t_Page_110.pro
440cdd85236c2842734a56787d4f970d
eaabce4e71239c7d938e12dfb058b97d0e20dc8c
50360 F20110320_AABUHS scharlach_t_Page_064.pro
cc87d3eb1044b48f26d9ca1f4998c037
5c10f223a80dedf83c5790f32b1c2a4c566b7564
68503 F20110320_AABTFE scharlach_t_Page_044.jpg
a57fe7816249cd7720b7f49870ba6110
bbd6d2c86f7022570386d87ddce46c9f678921bb
77066 F20110320_AABTEQ scharlach_t_Page_111.jp2
cd679e005eae81f91e946ae3efbbf228
381e5b7bbca3b4d5c83ccba9d30495c66f190923
44054 F20110320_AABUIH scharlach_t_Page_118.pro
f0e9ffb81acd416d3feb3ec0a49f67e2
08a0b93cf6db56af6fb116904ea0c1bf8dc90bcf
50152 F20110320_AABUHT scharlach_t_Page_068.pro
220eba5652ab314b0fb8779bd888e124
4093c8ffc96df0cb9a26aa5bc9a9f363b8694d4f
103690 F20110320_AABTFF scharlach_t_Page_004.jpg
6e4a2f3d9ee75cbaddda6386134a87ce
59e8f1dbe9a8fa350bef2a07a4baef936c1ba938
F20110320_AABTER scharlach_t_Page_122.tif
75da7afa0167ea5ef4f3a5411d2f34e6
dbb3599c5df0e3194509b7e535d5fb33563b8304
48787 F20110320_AABUII scharlach_t_Page_122.pro
436b94737ab33a871cdc1047a40e6c40
4e9dec08f34d6ad01ae3821d92b6ba43f0c4be72
50465 F20110320_AABUHU scharlach_t_Page_070.pro
5545464efa88d39b472aead9f70eafdd
d33b7cfaa4c011820ad69cdbc148ef90e2f51f03
1877 F20110320_AABTFG scharlach_t_Page_098.txt
b2909f76f8563946fe16746a17ee2ee2
3ef65de34959d544e9b0f880093abf8acd93d666
6055 F20110320_AABTES scharlach_t_Page_082thm.jpg
ce5d73af800cfe76a5ab1f96b6e8c7e9
f9ea2d4651cd55d44125745465da5156b1b802a9
43366 F20110320_AABUIJ scharlach_t_Page_124.pro
6fb8d5738f1880942b22fc563ea75553
b98d1e98abcd8bb74dff502639c8e0fe345b1eae
48044 F20110320_AABUHV scharlach_t_Page_077.pro
552496d0b5949b1a9e6afc3b18c4642b
583fdcbaf567e1bf3ba5dce85541535f259119c2
111651 F20110320_AABTFH scharlach_t_Page_147.jp2
a517ed232ec2ce3a0625cc8ef17b0d6b
7b6c7c13bb5733d972daf15557c516344d9b3365
71880 F20110320_AABTET scharlach_t_Page_152.jpg
9a24041f7dc3e855be6888394ce4f695
a0e456abee6a13a466a59eb2d8466b1758fb1a21
41972 F20110320_AABUIK scharlach_t_Page_125.pro
c7883e23dfe07f244bd07372eff974f6
e5a97c086ec05cdd7a57e756f339a96685774df5
47889 F20110320_AABUHW scharlach_t_Page_079.pro
93628e2aa5a2ed926036b37048068263
1e1a22e33a9a3cec61e3f40535ab658453089bc8
33845 F20110320_AABTFI scharlach_t_Page_002.pro
27f362bd31a8e403353efad63157e272
076c2914f5dec7dbc1e37261846fe3e61b90f9e5
59948 F20110320_AABTEU scharlach_t_Page_113.jpg
dc94836b3baa09ceb65f61c2d67651bc
d6847fc991ebd17b35cf342c2c3bff2be4301aad
40707 F20110320_AABUIL scharlach_t_Page_128.pro
84bbba9ce0f86ba8ee292b0082ec2996
d3466478d57dde8824256c341a4d408e7254b2a4
46325 F20110320_AABUHX scharlach_t_Page_080.pro
056c7eeadf6d2a311099f82be969f5a8
b1ba50e3d85845cbabdb1a23694d6df3ed99d9f8
50804 F20110320_AABTFJ scharlach_t_Page_156.pro
aaa4b00adfcda171356c58b836023834
589103ad494237dfbfb4f76a8de8851e9022ef65
57909 F20110320_AABTEV scharlach_t_Page_078.jpg
d9d4142cc85ea37f3b623fe764464160
55847c26dc110dd41331fef02d27ea52b83b2a2a
10988 F20110320_AABUJA scharlach_t_Page_178.pro
59ba24f6748db770a179255014ac4886
c3c4941129a2c21dc6c7488088866a5ba13c6ce3
47076 F20110320_AABUIM scharlach_t_Page_129.pro
37acd745c6faa02eb2be10ab391b3fac
d35f1465a11e425ef50af26a51bc57686cfbdd0c
35316 F20110320_AABUHY scharlach_t_Page_083.pro
e39e2b3a92fb3274c029acc6dfbb68fd
98d1d1cdb1a7f18b8f8d462030bc27e6702e68be
62962 F20110320_AABTFK scharlach_t_Page_060.jpg
05bacfff4af0a913704fdd15bbe72214
a598e66d353a217620750ab06529272744cf1b81
F20110320_AABTEW scharlach_t_Page_177.tif
1651dcb729c848061b08d3ffc5fa1afd
904e1f9ecdca8ba0256a0325ddd904752b58379d
14570 F20110320_AABUJB scharlach_t_Page_179.pro
5a2c8a98453b3888ab79ca875eeb7bb9
a5e59aa962cba32618030578d81127a544aab546
44986 F20110320_AABUIN scharlach_t_Page_132.pro
2fd064b61cd38e247d3d2a8bcca7d6af
d5b325983318f96a4db5993a19b746281d5cc65c
48281 F20110320_AABUHZ scharlach_t_Page_086.pro
759c29466016dda6c2c46709ccd8f15f
7a388ba315852d1b5803dfaaef8958315eae9c8a
F20110320_AABTFL scharlach_t_Page_094.QC.jpg
c33c0eced23cbf3b8381c09db8b0faeb
faecd5e07ba9e3db61a4c9ff1780b350f9890552
6620 F20110320_AABTEX scharlach_t_Page_163thm.jpg
ec2bd7fea39ad612821de1feb375e0df
1364bfcc279612d571e7a2ce899534f999147e94
18146 F20110320_AABUJC scharlach_t_Page_183.pro
a77969c90dde515b1df497922aa2bb7e
bfbf055d65986de813f960e7eeb8324bb319709b
40486 F20110320_AABUIO scharlach_t_Page_135.pro
a0a3e5919b49ee2b6b5f233fa7cb9244
300ae442b490614ffccdfdce4c9957d633381fd4
1051970 F20110320_AABTFM scharlach_t_Page_005.jp2
603f74b4cf7095ffbae4bfb11dfd7224
60b19dd18157bbb47429a650c0a536f921aa5a9f
49358 F20110320_AABTGA scharlach_t_Page_134.pro
fc9bb1436edcacc141714fa18218ecb6
cc8ea6e20edc958f7c1471dcba3031f94a324e96
20198 F20110320_AABUJD scharlach_t_Page_184.pro
c0df63d8f22950cb2a917a4bf6833fc7
e0738022ec67b8c950075ccc80620971bcec07fa
40856 F20110320_AABUIP scharlach_t_Page_136.pro
1b6f78239e4100d15f0b19908f3ca8cf
adc19f7a84ad58c46de9a5a081f3544724d4a194
F20110320_AABTFN scharlach_t_Page_200.tif
cfde2be9def1734ce3924dc3176f6c51
a7e9f7b717b98e30d46a3fd35fd16cd24734cb18
2028 F20110320_AABTEY scharlach_t_Page_166.txt
a601fa7e95d56a785e67b1bcbac18330
0b8ef82f23bf3526b5f98b1bb2b2c5e783dc5fac
1903 F20110320_AABTGB scharlach_t_Page_029.txt
3c402753954014add0ad0f5ffc641a35
f2eb8a740f3f32cff6df8e1239ee82070dbf777a
1985 F20110320_AABUJE scharlach_t_Page_187.pro
e67e38be0ad3117037e4d72166c9d710
505e4ae627ea4768db4199d6bd3673c6b93d00c5
42386 F20110320_AABUIQ scharlach_t_Page_137.pro
3c1b07aa6c00457075bafd73d2919c9c
e701a39b613382be0b0fc3e7a0a3b8c6a7b19de7
3183 F20110320_AABTFO scharlach_t_Page_179thm.jpg
75e2d89c2776d3cf61c09b8d0b8c4065
eb6c5d350fbdf7dea37345527314fbd484b6d733
49532 F20110320_AABTEZ scharlach_t_Page_126.pro
d7d31e65b8dcf328094af6e56ff97fe0
30de22642a3471f380ae58e74c45d4859d6325cf
71788 F20110320_AABTGC scharlach_t_Page_087.jpg
7121c0ed345c5c8fc867928146025d8a
9612e669425be207bd2d21b367310e27deb2e951
5778 F20110320_AABUJF scharlach_t_Page_188.pro
71e8ffca27277b26bca9d62b12f8c7e4
af8ba6b7cdd4af6de983e52f137fe534bee90c72
39325 F20110320_AABUIR scharlach_t_Page_141.pro
fe108f0a9b4eb3753c0e4df4e59cdd95
c80ff8e8ff645a0758643f182962496aa4be2c1e
F20110320_AABTFP scharlach_t_Page_108.tif
f63b31e6fb48691164062dffe3cc1f28
ee7b3f240e6b260c71c9dd983cdc4a3da6d8f83c
4749 F20110320_AABTGD scharlach_t_Page_004.txt
d0d0e772c9b0feceff0c5728529205d9
1d296caa434e95b7b4fe5918a054dd4a758e28ea
44823 F20110320_AABUJG scharlach_t_Page_194.pro
17271f185afcae3ac54bedc4b8c00185
43f15f8d303a5c69f424d6c7e0e627fc99f0a4da
50997 F20110320_AABUIS scharlach_t_Page_148.pro
120b9814d24ee0f61ea1f367cb29faf0
5afc647b8055368dd2f6aa04aef7e6e087864fd0
1932 F20110320_AABTFQ scharlach_t_Page_079.txt
43c2c09d8abb7ad6ecabda4ece7a6fe4
ba7ed21b0e603683be0b10b32439870a629a4085
2435 F20110320_AABTGE scharlach_t_Page_113.txt
ea2ff3d0a3709160a08c3e56753a2453
30f84320132944257fd14b205021794c40c19be3
58894 F20110320_AABUJH scharlach_t_Page_195.pro
18760881da5a26fbdc972323c081be95
a3187826d2e30805000d28435e97bb6e781e2d60
54051 F20110320_AABUIT scharlach_t_Page_150.pro
3b00c94b1886446904525e1f0016b121
b1adee79aff5e5cb6679a24fa27a755a29c2b84c
48770 F20110320_AABTFR scharlach_t_Page_049.pro
229c2dc113f0b6758cc5f0a152d2b639
edddabdbf3521d261848a73a621b40fe1e576419
F20110320_AABTGF scharlach_t_Page_032.tif
e80784867703804b9debe6a49f3b9d9c
006b98f1ac011682bac3f12a7d96449ce0cc6977
61319 F20110320_AABUJI scharlach_t_Page_197.pro
127f5b1b17093f65c97685696e4d3d24
c271c4b4dbcbf02db246ef54462afc419fef77dc
45495 F20110320_AABUIU scharlach_t_Page_151.pro
570c7838dae7c80766db517e37488c1b
716de1b45dce4a3b8aca366943ed7e7ac944b100
6267 F20110320_AABTFS scharlach_t_Page_033thm.jpg
0ee4e7281e88db4defda7707196dee55
5e716701dbfec5df8339f84076ff84878937ea1a
5266 F20110320_AABTGG scharlach_t_Page_010thm.jpg
128eafcc4f642d3fbc1564edde380202
b6b2a85c4386c80c157c556b26658f47c023bcbf
64690 F20110320_AABUJJ scharlach_t_Page_198.pro
9c6b2acc0c91ee465318bf09587bf81a
f635878be7aab086291c4fe6d6bfd4a1cd668129
39627 F20110320_AABUIV scharlach_t_Page_160.pro
e534d45ae8ae634e5455de0c977e88f1
3e77790ca2dac2557257df19bd87b74ca1461058
F20110320_AABTFT scharlach_t_Page_149.QC.jpg
93d3441aeb907fb221c7454d7df3839a
d5293820c53a022d48d051c83e8d7dce2efdfcfe
71070 F20110320_AABTGH scharlach_t_Page_019.jpg
f24ac7e49a146035a46285e6acc6d017
a3d8cc357404386c0bed61c3270fbf72c657919a
64103 F20110320_AABUJK scharlach_t_Page_199.pro
bf7717cbf3e02893a3fe5560d595911c
a6725650c90f3823cdd82e464adcf9aaed31ea98
48705 F20110320_AABUIW scharlach_t_Page_161.pro
36d08a2b4052df38ac3bdf09313251b3
3ada197a95db4a2550084e61d342f90496b46d98
112470 F20110320_AABTFU scharlach_t_Page_031.jp2
88b1f276bbde23a23f450c084817f4a7
7a3c789af72837aaeed9994ac0fdf596e3b26ede
16621 F20110320_AABTGI scharlach_t_Page_145.QC.jpg
ecb34bfb02eb18ab1605d65b096702af
4a64c679f041e67e769c7646d00ca4f2d209f1ab
24168 F20110320_AABUJL scharlach_t_Page_200.pro
8fa24cfb43e162697d6e5cb6e742e520
4b475cf34bac3e030f49775ec41acaeca39bf1a7
48033 F20110320_AABUIX scharlach_t_Page_165.pro
3cb78420740450a78c8a473a4952aace
c698c1e14ab90d1edd7df9e9fa47f4cb9d7c0cda
107969 F20110320_AABTFV scharlach_t_Page_056.jp2
c3848f5ac7b88739a745c366d3b62665
59eed12b851891f355d4cd650ba87f4e7b11e068
F20110320_AABTGJ scharlach_t_Page_080.tif
9fbf340571386275750618a32da1ae2f
df8f9df3d4f15d8a50266451f83e12ad831a0260
F20110320_AABUKA scharlach_t_Page_034.txt
b7baebd0e1cab8d900af25bd4c8b6aa3
e80cf46361e1042fb2d7dbd114c610d985b1f8dc
464 F20110320_AABUJM scharlach_t_Page_001.txt
90a239a9a4a9c02d98b9e46b468ea6af
2ca4c2fd45e65d0180d548bf998dc307fd4139d9
49832 F20110320_AABUIY scharlach_t_Page_171.pro
9bad423fa8394d5b47a73e8d72fcb502
f0bea639e4bc098e92bbcdbcc99eb1cc48faced6
15260 F20110320_AABTFW scharlach_t_Page_042.pro
263f6b0a149dd4f511f3dc1918dc6c32
2dfaec588fb673c77c71c72f97b01d03d93886e9
22296 F20110320_AABTGK scharlach_t_Page_096.QC.jpg
de6b9f24c57110729da25801ea2502a6
8add7caa7e5f125b877eda5cedb5a612c71afd5f
2073 F20110320_AABUKB scharlach_t_Page_036.txt
7081dfd4adf3d89dcdb37ea2332c7f7f
f8a48ab742034dfe3d3fffa1fd29ef2bc7d55fba
3231 F20110320_AABUJN scharlach_t_Page_003.txt
a90eaae6364edfa1f1b83b1e9817eb16
f73b25eb937f331e7d06bcb18cae9273eba0a950
7407 F20110320_AABUIZ scharlach_t_Page_177.pro
42959ef0705d0ea098dfba7b67154f0d
83ad75306a08c03bb8251bf6176723e5ae8b0e49
56699 F20110320_AABTFX scharlach_t_Page_103.jpg
4deea11315f254a432d1595e790eca3d
dfac74c9c418229fa6c7dcc864cfcc2aa45a65fd
6611 F20110320_AABTGL scharlach_t_Page_167thm.jpg
16bc523ef710cd6c313c1b7bc8eb3fc0
f6d99570bde107551f16cf3e0651ff2b9b1fddfa
2048 F20110320_AABUKC scharlach_t_Page_038.txt
338d288657c5da4dfea2cabf2f16b102
30c4315daa2b5b998182e734be47d60b334421cd
1926 F20110320_AABUJO scharlach_t_Page_008.txt
efe46a88fbaf88ee980495d6c7f366d9
e9a86ed57d196ad1cd3df19afd1bbc96509a8d0d
6273 F20110320_AABTFY scharlach_t_Page_162thm.jpg
889f713dba1dcba03f798ef7b64d1234
7ca0e127c2a2fb3269df81ba9d820fd7faff8009
51317 F20110320_AABTHA scharlach_t_Page_127.pro
d8954bf67d05263398fe0d76f3db9e2f
e460c0b0e5b812c64077b01858d7c38f8fa47bab
103870 F20110320_AABTGM scharlach_t_Page_079.jp2
5f702a792c6fdbb812de67f9cd5566d3
3b7ccb145d554915cac46139b0f70e125c9d0e5f
1961 F20110320_AABUKD scharlach_t_Page_039.txt
217384953248ee18ef23ccfefb4efd87
8277af94eb9a85c48207da915a44e57081a59ab5
F20110320_AABUJP scharlach_t_Page_010.txt
a04c8c2fccc972098a1d07973163eb94
d5b070af1e942fbb2d53093243cf0804a4760357
57881 F20110320_AABTHB scharlach_t_Page_085.jpg
7090b0d9c8a8c26a55579bb42c6f3613
aa710a08aba6b83111adddd63dea0e67d568930f
17871 F20110320_AABTGN scharlach_t_Page_131.QC.jpg
f768122eeb45ef142a833d4b99f1e190
934fdaaa7e7fdcd1617d84d032fb7f8124c164ec
1760 F20110320_AABUKE scharlach_t_Page_043.txt
c2fd3925d3ce8dc0df622fa37d058caa
7fe6399fffae5c9826bfeb56a429b635650d1bb3
2006 F20110320_AABUJQ scharlach_t_Page_012.txt
7c10bdbc9282ae71b680dbe2509447d6
033d596c7ebcdd9af57c86434950f76615cc095a
4347 F20110320_AABTHC scharlach_t_Page_119thm.jpg
8fcd527f5833c38802eca30f569150f9
37508cf50f219c149eff4895d0b8eeb5b6685771
23781 F20110320_AABTGO scharlach_t_Page_167.QC.jpg
887bd15c9d14ae81e68c9e2ad2cfd01a
a88e705c4817eb58a42884e821fa7eb564d1605a
107557 F20110320_AABTFZ scharlach_t_Page_081.jp2
59f26204734ba5c091202abae8d70e58
cde98074dadd03bbe86be65d478d372a9e840f0e
F20110320_AABUKF scharlach_t_Page_045.txt
328fa96acb530451dd3874db5b519745
e1628c28e6cafa73c0306d464a034e867fec9fb6
1813 F20110320_AABUJR scharlach_t_Page_014.txt
7f33cb6bd6b2f2a5752b8890222157fe
8b2f0e55c6a0e3edfdc4d19c204d5514e2b0a4e2
23107 F20110320_AABTHD scharlach_t_Page_023.QC.jpg
6df909de469005351d2adbe94fc6e8b9
261b30f79e39cd092ddb81760a503da1edee7522
6417 F20110320_AABTGP scharlach_t_Page_171thm.jpg
46bda119596e1077c02bb156dd104cb4
2ca60e157542a1a2cd0ba037eba342397adcab56
F20110320_AABUKG scharlach_t_Page_049.txt
15c1d481d23273145c49afeb613781d5
916d60f8da72950585f3a970e4e6f50ff6fa357d
1778 F20110320_AABUJS scharlach_t_Page_015.txt
63e0be166a19126a6f4d65f0b6e09202
273ffb83881d4e06c2d622299497e881e3e208dd
52924 F20110320_AABTHE scharlach_t_Page_088.pro
eee1d40906d8afce472047c9359b8bbd
49e836594e3c4f737a01c82330ec244e9bba5a4e
5730 F20110320_AABTGQ scharlach_t_Page_153thm.jpg
d1f164c955521823eb2563ba1d5905de
1ad6f254d07e59748d04d886879b5d055057eb92
1928 F20110320_AABUKH scharlach_t_Page_053.txt
0228f20e0a0c968e06f62d09ee38fc7d
2d3f510412e49e2daf0e52489963c53a87305f7b
F20110320_AABUJT scharlach_t_Page_019.txt
9e2cdd9668530083f473a38439290338
db0f7df89c95825c1ca227cc4c1f9e8fd367c2d7
19950 F20110320_AABTHF scharlach_t_Page_194.QC.jpg
83d232886d6e6bcae40aeac129abb4a1
8a12ba2e80a3b0812a09d1fe1618b8088248891a
44319 F20110320_AABTGR scharlach_t_Page_072.pro
2103eac1679ffe6fd210e3050e0c4a27
a66751e2a17c270cebf792bdd58afe93a2b6b935
F20110320_AABUKI scharlach_t_Page_057.txt
3874eb7dfae5791345a84747bc1ad009
7d052f328835b11851ad1f0a5e647bbe5f3b125e
1892 F20110320_AABUJU scharlach_t_Page_022.txt
ba75ccd81ec08929a6cd7e8f26b866ad
6763705e2aef8b10e08dec0b89231b8ef610ec9b
5849 F20110320_AABTHG scharlach_t_Page_061thm.jpg
b3dca3608829fd5d098c1092873b8448
5f8b43ae950d242e8ca7e381d8851018424a9091
39016 F20110320_AABTGS scharlach_t_Page_078.pro
fd562e2fe29f09b33e606601fe56b17c
3075d69f3fb4af75529c403871dcf02e120bbf6d
F20110320_AABUKJ scharlach_t_Page_064.txt
3c717c240855b846dd39762caad0f360
5b5e3ee3a81ff79a4d3dc2a2c5ae53e1e4926b69
1957 F20110320_AABUJV scharlach_t_Page_024.txt
461d0dd8e44ae002311029083e0a8136
d884ec635a679eb0b18bd64e4d96ff6331455d63
F20110320_AABTHH scharlach_t_Page_156.tif
f26f6b8ae0c8dbdd0b8016430cd00552
a9767884b4b0481d995b444971cdea1e110a8b39
73896 F20110320_AABTGT scharlach_t_Page_023.jpg
f0cb272a10ea6b6a40d6898535a3900a
3b149d232979ff3ef91c6293c167ac4ea335c2fe
2154 F20110320_AABUKK scharlach_t_Page_066.txt
d377eacfd9f73a04b715ba92fb4385ae
84eb23807887c5088cd14a4afc012eb710ea4c08
2054 F20110320_AABUJW scharlach_t_Page_025.txt
33e66c1746aa97bbba74fb9e187b5ebc
cc24a192a055fad58b540e9cfb3b63b7c007f6c5
6086 F20110320_AABTHI scharlach_t_Page_094thm.jpg
0341f212f97c3aaec684c5e0aa900241
3890920e01fcf377dd57e9fdda46ef68c4ca285d
6652 F20110320_AABTGU scharlach_t_Page_070thm.jpg
1dee41775d0884bb1726175e67b7811b
21f81a0a5959db07d15f83fd2423104a0531358b
1529 F20110320_AABUKL scharlach_t_Page_069.txt
58f4182a99545af6353a98c233966178
ee73185f42570bee40238a3503e3f7503515c7b0
1994 F20110320_AABUJX scharlach_t_Page_027.txt
a3f55eed2637a1b9d474603628ef1980
5eb3f4b5ce436d1f061b3775d8bbeb5c540e6544
52143 F20110320_AABTHJ scharlach_t_Page_075.jpg
3a97737e288b1648cb1f061ed77bd02a
6f9e17ee9fb009da5746bd6b6213ebaf0198cc33
9438 F20110320_AABTGV scharlach_t_Page_182.QC.jpg
4f64f09ee3f446ed8729a15169a3684e
326823fa56d5a3cc021b23cd5c24850378a12710
F20110320_AABULA scharlach_t_Page_122.txt
4f32caa4f1b371323cc6eb259cd157af
fb84cc02db133e25dfb1fdff0b81a7f5633547c5
1956 F20110320_AABUKM scharlach_t_Page_074.txt
fd30abc012b7a40823fccfc5a47ffcb8
d6e86779fb30449df4397517874678fba3db7490
F20110320_AABUJY scharlach_t_Page_028.txt
b3de344f2ef37632d560b9d1f57dfbd4
367840749bf02e11704d23a369b5d60ec6019acd
116963 F20110320_AABTHK scharlach_t_Page_020.jp2
a758c4d5e85b7b537cf6b8d199b4b3d8
ab474be639dcac49fe69e4ed40a210e2f6a9ddcd
72502 F20110320_AABTGW scharlach_t_Page_032.jpg
6174559f62add5454c0118a7c1e5c469
5c687e3f13b890ec2f3652241ab037428a09eedc
1532 F20110320_AABULB scharlach_t_Page_123.txt
022b50c9e27d50475f1a0b3060228906
bd0b49018b39f1e19a515f97427ffe754f373be0
1993 F20110320_AABUKN scharlach_t_Page_076.txt
0f72fd01683fc4d7a6f55171a313e989
4ee1aee4c55ca4e1efe05033b56893364b673fb7
2027 F20110320_AABUJZ scharlach_t_Page_032.txt
b80eb3632d6bea2d7c954093065a85b9
357fdc64d532f51653be4be5645be7344b334ab8
100345 F20110320_AABTHL scharlach_t_Page_080.jp2
8c1547ede2a0cedc51f273852c6d2925
ad08a96c8304c48310d425ad337ae482d36a95f7
4667 F20110320_AABTGX scharlach_t_Page_111thm.jpg
ee43f0c2d7d2af898cc042d1ee3c80c4
341a8112ea5617ece81b7bd7bf04570d42c583b7
2057 F20110320_AABULC scharlach_t_Page_125.txt
a4001b5e12bc99b4738d0c838ae7e523
40beb1a2e6c87177cf7a438c435dd81d33f1f409
1865 F20110320_AABUKO scharlach_t_Page_080.txt
ebca9c062c515e50f53a63eba6ac5a11
c3b57dfa96f869137b27233f922f25d6c457839d
19597 F20110320_AABTHM scharlach_t_Page_044.QC.jpg
2e5c3024fecf02bf385414f237f22406
a6296e32ea0524e13c5ac7b98d45695ecec69f56
1467 F20110320_AABTGY scharlach_t_Page_187thm.jpg
0f7841fd16185022a82146cc8771f4db
5b4784697140e1184c39dafe644dbba53ed701f9
6387 F20110320_AABTIA scharlach_t_Page_164thm.jpg
40c52ee654f8e210cf182802800093ef
c32f8ad5edf927cedc22c976476112d0bb5e1791
2042 F20110320_AABULD scharlach_t_Page_130.txt
bbe818457a9326fd1cea2d9429885c47
939e09e5d4a8d74e5c6d3a3cc13ae8b8e21a114f
1899 F20110320_AABUKP scharlach_t_Page_082.txt
58b82405cd439c1e63a5873afaa260da
0e2ba4f0a769acf09db2eb315c4c2e2d70d033a2
2058 F20110320_AABTHN scharlach_t_Page_021.txt
857938063e199bc8583139bbe7862622
33c601d919a3e180dea0ffeafc6914ed7c34819d
2034 F20110320_AABTGZ scharlach_t_Page_031.txt
0714d851622d6718a2cf1cb2ee5aa6d5
5822014cbbcc21737456443064d1495616da896a
83496 F20110320_AABTIB scharlach_t_Page_109.jpg
e7077d76084c250c97c472d163a20c81
70cb538c70c6605fd73aa4d04830ac52711fc5f7
2203 F20110320_AABULE scharlach_t_Page_133.txt
3d19f7f2462913ae5c8f37c27e532d93
2599be9e121a6a01148fcbe845f30acca085d859
F20110320_AABUKQ scharlach_t_Page_087.txt
cf0ba3c93b6c3a4a4814e95ab6a53c8c
054678f032173ee9751e285a47b2d92dae0c9db6
19054 F20110320_AABTHO scharlach_t_Page_010.QC.jpg
4b784c198e8f2d361ee91cdb7a9deae9
21241db71064abd293a043318601f3b218730ec3
67486 F20110320_AABTIC scharlach_t_Page_142.jpg
b0bb1503affafcc453871213cd1059f4
7176e487a2339b98178bf1a12314c37ac8eae68f
F20110320_AABULF scharlach_t_Page_134.txt
cf200d7588faa70bb133ff5d5559cd7f
270431bafc788b117a8c83cb91daf1add89d0573
2473 F20110320_AABUKR scharlach_t_Page_092.txt
1fb9f07bafa9d44b25d25531da86ab6f
790242cd6e38977086f984cba5562b002b58149a
F20110320_AABTHP scharlach_t_Page_120.tif
0ba607a4ecb0cf3c2c08ae987be85854
8f9f9c331c836d7ac7d6b9f891be2e17a67b22cb
2731 F20110320_AABTID scharlach_t_Page_059.pro
f1fd010e646ceae1b03511004549df0a
3d7555c3e96e6319bb6f516a881458c18052fc9a
1908 F20110320_AABULG scharlach_t_Page_143.txt
26ce52c7cdd94bde9ab20ebc777a13f7
1207f6ea9e5c3afac2e2314456b590572b83a2de
1668 F20110320_AABUKS scharlach_t_Page_093.txt
f064e2f8cb30783de60105d13c098ee9
39dbb2c48759a527fa6776267c14c3a4f0caad06
F20110320_AABTHQ scharlach_t_Page_128.tif
4fbdeb14dbbf68a657442cec49588707
933ad5d7ba3964aa8621495158b7791f5350d067
1960 F20110320_AABTIE scharlach_t_Page_168.txt
5fd90c2b8725357d4f3ee4c32fb06971
3e213f7b7e9aeda79e7d74ab8bc6310ca2b69b15
1890 F20110320_AABULH scharlach_t_Page_144.txt
ea1a5e8bfd09f6f33562205eb9959488
226caf1e27b099b7d103186e64f66ed79fa12bce
F20110320_AABUKT scharlach_t_Page_101.txt
073ba9e54e98b84bceae002c1a0a618c
d1f10f096f7ebcc10715baaff68be643a8d72e02
6290 F20110320_AABTHR scharlach_t_Page_129thm.jpg
a298b29797d8d895d7681ebddbb5c3e2
ee6357e7add8498e04d56f9930b4ab090a50385d
24081 F20110320_AABTIF scharlach_t_Page_157.QC.jpg
b41956a706fb62265fc137da37fddb93
32c649e54d39b5c8c9a9e156c57fe20d6ed8dbf1
F20110320_AABULI scharlach_t_Page_145.txt
78f56fd1544f9c2def375a8e946db674
a52b5ddc5d200d837bed0be22d028df024401705
1864 F20110320_AABUKU scharlach_t_Page_103.txt
8a59e50ece1028f1d80a572468236732
6ba22aa59c9d35716854ee07b1c34adc04ee1168
102919 F20110320_AABTHS scharlach_t_Page_144.jp2
7f33f6de437be6f3d06b522604b2897e
c6d604a51b72a22b9eecd58eed1e1f15e681fb30
40032 F20110320_AABTIG scharlach_t_Page_085.pro
0686185d694f7b743ae024fddb82ab2e
a46bede56202333706901b43ec6e7d9c9dc3c8d0
2039 F20110320_AABULJ scharlach_t_Page_147.txt
26de0b9d35311522117aa68b4187b89b
e0aefac32a2edefdd1ad49aec10d3e06ecb27fd3
2036 F20110320_AABUKV scharlach_t_Page_108.txt
29557ada03c621e52b33be82dfe86c66
e22db303ac67bca2d3bbce39655478a460ff830d
108596 F20110320_AABTHT scharlach_t_Page_068.jp2
920d15955df5b7b39c11d08008e3d782
e84fa6f3734a68df011013b7d7c040de48e29a6c
F20110320_AABTIH scharlach_t_Page_190.tif
ea4d483f16e35c997cb8e68736826751
364f154803089337b3daa80926852b31f49642ac
2018 F20110320_AABULK scharlach_t_Page_148.txt
ba1f13cd93fb925322a37db4e941ac05
e7d02dd33768b536bac8927c11be09339fb4c6e0
2443 F20110320_AABUKW scharlach_t_Page_109.txt
d95d012d84e70c9be68161adc68bc8a2
fb1e4e939a5d662398b685c28a6fa5740411153b
21507 F20110320_AABTHU scharlach_t_Page_170.QC.jpg
15069d12ad20f83760c4a7b49bbf6ac1
f19cac095ba3fa6d0abe9c000357fca158442e07
F20110320_AABTII scharlach_t_Page_050.txt
ae443166c463e18a601f0988ab8500fb
d9d7abd783bf55557717b3ec6b795163b15b5077
2130 F20110320_AABULL scharlach_t_Page_150.txt
1f9115cce517738b5a707d54ffd8ce67
eb3e605258dc9fe7eb9a6a0deda1bf8b160cf087
1812 F20110320_AABUKX scharlach_t_Page_112.txt
b9d59fcb157440452a1677bb893cccca
cbf4a7a280ded779602aae84cbe2c676466359ab
F20110320_AABTHV scharlach_t_Page_081thm.jpg
e7e3f36eeae1bc00d2ef677406fbe0c3
8ed0be6a53fbbcbc1352a5000990f03cf159b6b7
F20110320_AABTIJ scharlach_t_Page_104.txt
a033eedfb60941c6ab595b5ae7b2cc47
4d7dbfcde591f9d19168150b21de0510ae534a41
2507 F20110320_AABUMA scharlach_t_Page_197.txt
e19a562758f41f5f0e5d4ab464529978
94a66887d2abe5a723b0e2c2ab00ab7b136114ed
F20110320_AABULM scharlach_t_Page_157.txt
ab4ca75b9ad8a55f8163bb8e59edfba4
fc81c25406afd7b94042b2e6b07619f86da3fc52
1904 F20110320_AABUKY scharlach_t_Page_114.txt
a162cc5d593776803eb4123d0f5d8997
077ca6f6cd38823b654a5c0629e2ac7eb8577fc5
65128 F20110320_AABTHW scharlach_t_Page_169.jpg
1d8abf5875eef18a52bd6a1791fe9b56
10580e624bc480b131f5eff37de61fa7680f639d
67698 F20110320_AABTIK scharlach_t_Page_013.jpg
bcfbfc173a15af44a2a2b6f84fbeebfd
cba1f9211c2cabaadeb4daf058f006e699136cba
1020 F20110320_AABUMB scharlach_t_Page_200.txt
b1f2b7ff33e5f4b411233099ab081e97
74e1b75b72904cdaf14c0687266cc7d9dd79e9ab
1689 F20110320_AABULN scharlach_t_Page_160.txt
6518b64e8be8f38642f0f9001b8dd40d
8c16e826a3b95da5cb398ffd152b3bd456fa3b49
F20110320_AABUKZ scharlach_t_Page_117.txt
dd9357cbf2e9ec3ba053bc27e46920d7
20ef9b680aa73b52f8ffe0f7309b8a293286d5e5
96017 F20110320_AABTHX scharlach_t_Page_016.jp2
f5b0ee15e8c6e04b5372dd3629281104
1e138ebf830343025baf58c1389178575f822ed9
94951 F20110320_AABTIL scharlach_t_Page_153.jp2
c006483cbaab82c1875a8605fdcb89ef
0078e8813ebfa2b264e0354f628f01fe7f6a8b90
21073 F20110320_AABUMC scharlach_t_Page_118.QC.jpg
fec1e569d33b5718236f8b3451d74a1f
881b3fcd07b36c5f9bf221e5df95a20609539735
2020 F20110320_AABULO scharlach_t_Page_163.txt
a952de3b1eb057a57cc66714a8f617f8
bbb3e349f2a114420ae4955da1b142ae3cc229f8
F20110320_AABTHY scharlach_t_Page_155.tif
1f4bc688dbd9e7a901a02340f30a479b
32c43cf291e834ac95c2d9b83de6267bfe9e50af
1747 F20110320_AABTJA scharlach_t_Page_124.txt
4c52b3d90b2252adf502844c3bf20d13
9af9d7def9ca7d53485ce3d9fc1bd1feb7c078e8
6498 F20110320_AABTIM scharlach_t_Page_034thm.jpg
6d038e485735534ef605b565fbd4a5ea
ded69ea68d838a050c2ffdacdcc68f62dcb0994e
21991 F20110320_AABUMD scharlach_t_Page_079.QC.jpg
b5972c48b1a32b868449b46f70df3f18
48218d5336c534ddbd7c904dc1e3e4b1d4cd53d2
F20110320_AABULP scharlach_t_Page_164.txt
5d405e2c3288b759e9a22c6f898195c7
19afb8499425726472e521cc2c79fedf2896e8d5
1936 F20110320_AABTHZ scharlach_t_Page_151.txt
58523eb8fb7fb6e4d9b71f8a88624e7e
935391125375db8352381a772b4173bb66a878df
6434 F20110320_AABTJB scharlach_t_Page_152thm.jpg
808e3dfd0c9a7c892bd43c488c07a552
27d9a39c1e7bf17506a4e926ee392ebb4f8f3cbc
2119 F20110320_AABTIN scharlach_t_Page_149.txt
d375472c61c62ce77bc71439f5c63add
0dc86f1110ededf8d656a994e73b3c4a598b03a0
5604 F20110320_AABUME scharlach_t_Page_135thm.jpg
64d68cc9ae7d71bfe5e2a2e53b6281e3
b8633429f8d7ef4f185b3d557b5d5909356d52a7
F20110320_AABULQ scharlach_t_Page_165.txt
91cc6fc29ecebfffbc2cf24897e94f0e
599a1d78b31581537ccd8b0a6409840452edb7d6
99563 F20110320_AABTJC scharlach_t_Page_082.jp2
0725287364cc0f6f104d2bacd84f59f0
ea2b8165aef7f88c30bcdf38be54e71540e1b7e6
2621 F20110320_AABTIO scharlach_t_Page_198.txt
fc891c34e405d5902e3785b88e562c3c
0a1676768f0e5e4896ae113670c5ef4970a59ef4
6339 F20110320_AABUMF scharlach_t_Page_052thm.jpg
40562cdb9178975b57835bf0071685f0
b3740f26e5095a6e3fb93dce6025fe387fe32dbc
1866 F20110320_AABULR scharlach_t_Page_172.txt
bc3cca5c3a3c3d436782b47a76b3a871
3de5140f37ff1987b5fe0b8a357c581ee291f7f0
51978 F20110320_AABTJD scharlach_t_Page_147.pro
df63b944210a00428f84be9d8cbfb75d
485285c94c8ec354511607f57f0d045153192911
63296 F20110320_AABTIP scharlach_t_Page_015.jpg
c123d3442bf4dbad3804d7940f73e06c
99d9b6fee5db7a56b9149da95f9aeccf4bde3aff
4906 F20110320_AABUMG scharlach_t_Page_141thm.jpg
81802ac70c54867d5b64d671cd08dd8e
fc6103d520f7d5f8985092495622363506334234
1487 F20110320_AABULS scharlach_t_Page_175.txt
869d4baf8ef9a7dab31e7e625c3fb989
e5eadf79dbdfb7ad76aae1cc57de9af741d57004
46630 F20110320_AABTJE scharlach_t_Page_082.pro
ab69cce2841f5a42d41e1a8bd49b61c2
783ce598706d4fee3629ff1281fd1a6397d77c4a
17589 F20110320_AABTIQ scharlach_t_Page_116.QC.jpg
a23c00b7949c100aaceacfcbc35fbef9
13fd4c95a460035b37c7d217cc37834e08cb07e8
23040 F20110320_AABUMH scharlach_t_Page_164.QC.jpg
ce277b7a6d0cca2f2692acfa8d36d268
e901c04f922ed987f2d544c0a2cc24aa29b7bba2
860 F20110320_AABULT scharlach_t_Page_176.txt
338ef70088e2c3893ac20c602899bc4a
0dfee6e9d06edc1d09c02fd8525199f5581bc641
16065 F20110320_AABTJF scharlach_t_Page_188.jpg
65cbe6bdf7b256183914d0df6bbb7807
bbba5a337b2b46a2e2b2e1112c0ecce99b03996c
F20110320_AABTIR scharlach_t_Page_007.jp2
ae1e27163b869270da4321af85ef54ca
1563e4b7f10f2d3d954458fc777376fa7c6a14bb
6154 F20110320_AABUMI scharlach_t_Page_107thm.jpg
122b1f226f725a6166b485a6b6223706
d7ae716d697d51895e6d5009ca1b06eb954d2403
517 F20110320_AABULU scharlach_t_Page_178.txt
7e4b58afff01ccdeb6f59803fb645591
7c4af65b3ea376d42a3a0c77b94e0677801ba044
F20110320_AABTJG scharlach_t_Page_040.tif
0b771df562dca9c8a0d16d9fb2a95375
7d0c969573b91af20fc23236af911d0f27b258fa
16075 F20110320_AABTIS scharlach_t_Page_182.pro
cec9ce36dc8c53acf289dad06266816a
097aa0294b4985001059a2ba6404c979f9b173f6
5426 F20110320_AABUMJ scharlach_t_Page_155thm.jpg
b1544d7858b141f73290aee1f5f2a34f
14b2d89d81ef328faa66496420b4ac4cb8010d7f
738 F20110320_AABULV scharlach_t_Page_182.txt
18a5d2429726d8f7a19f2167778c31f3
d0244449f6e9fc6a04a79c653eb94d5aaa96f76b
F20110320_AABTJH scharlach_t_Page_157.pro
7561db816e9f11bbd9dfda387ebd8589
30da3f73f6a16b557f758937147dab0bd4f910a1
7601 F20110320_AABTIT scharlach_t_Page_178.QC.jpg
6222d66820297b1c21548bd79ad03337
534dc04543adbc9c360bdf90a72910c4ee665330
5287 F20110320_AABUMK scharlach_t_Page_063thm.jpg
a9fa8ff5e3337aaf4552de287462049e
c81b463e9ecd4c7c7de93911b11e562082be09f6
760 F20110320_AABULW scharlach_t_Page_183.txt
d9611839bfec2fb0724e8436ae0be1b0
53fb4b9d2bc2590208cc7fb19177c8355213528d
22489 F20110320_AABTJI scharlach_t_Page_143.QC.jpg
728a37154954c050234a1fdb15f2dd0b
c232476bad35ba5f7f0156168186bd0f88abe48c
F20110320_AABTIU scharlach_t_Page_013.tif
55812f18de1fdfff0d75ed010ce8591d
f08e300fdead92cbb7a7d2ca1f3d7be830a37523
22319 F20110320_AABUML scharlach_t_Page_162.QC.jpg
abd119a0e163f384d171421855c1e37a
178c45e7de1c5c2811bdebb62840ca325a23f414
834 F20110320_AABULX scharlach_t_Page_184.txt
b9f7d324f19eedcb50d8c87363aab5d4
191cbb15c0491b1af62989ab12e6f2f18b627b88
1937 F20110320_AABTJJ scharlach_t_Page_154.txt
aecb477c69bdd806a5403727df86faf3
b25d18466e7f755896f9aec6612a50e5f9c517ba
13139 F20110320_AABTIV scharlach_t_Page_189.jpg
66c97645028502a67173edafccfcf56a
02f854fd2ad0a97c3722780f7ed90a4f59d7a79b
23133 F20110320_AABUNA scharlach_t_Page_024.QC.jpg
d27b15939a9b1d62cd5e3cff196c06ef
7dbb7bacfd44c9f43cbd24b19a187bdb156c5562
5821 F20110320_AABUMM scharlach_t_Page_139thm.jpg
7c86a36350569da13ac4cf6a8ca38cbd
454ee0baa7e7529f98f3b80b8dda8c431f2ea6f1
304 F20110320_AABULY scharlach_t_Page_190.txt
67aad11a57dce1e6491bc15b81b5f190
a8ff5a4346a3d3250697531cdc43e91beb8d4e27
21630 F20110320_AABTJK scharlach_t_Page_110.QC.jpg
623f567eb5f95a0bbd7724e422be3224
7d92a06fe53faa020f22cc78429b7f94ddeb0e22
F20110320_AABTIW scharlach_t_Page_110.txt
5cff7e7ac698e62f4418c788c07ed413
dd9d8a14f68a3dedabe1abce79e5093442afccd5
22218 F20110320_AABUNB scharlach_t_Page_086.QC.jpg
f293a7c4b349c486ae808d8a64b517ef
bbd85cf7a44f25f2d062bbf1fc379c774c48c72e
5982 F20110320_AABUMN scharlach_t_Page_105thm.jpg
b144da67888c2b083945088b3cc62297
44b2f689f6c06a7598ecb6fd3f531dcc06419cf9
711 F20110320_AABULZ scharlach_t_Page_193.txt
c04f94b0d3fe98fbb07c2c3322c643fe
614dacf166588768fff6ba3042ab65884bc706b9
40976 F20110320_AABTJL scharlach_t_Page_093.pro
0fb95535412ff4f404730108ae5fc1f0
1fcf9289e883407311942aed3eeb31994173e495
F20110320_AABTIX scharlach_t_Page_102.txt
f0344dcf238573b8acb603a1f138a9e5
182fd2fd0d2fbe80b3ea7b2068d2f115987e317b
5249 F20110320_AABUNC scharlach_t_Page_175thm.jpg
c647e906757160991c2127567df27706
930693a862f3ac9bcfab320b0b2f2d80e7c10bb5
6291 F20110320_AABUMO scharlach_t_Page_029thm.jpg
a74aa4639000df3c3b2ecd7980824489
b379eed7faa5c67b6cf4477e8bf58e5064865bc6
112947 F20110320_AABTKA scharlach_t_Page_036.jp2
eb9afb3ebf68794751a06e858bf28bac
f9686d3f82342b9f58f445496972cd1fd51ec07b
4432 F20110320_AABTJM scharlach_t_Page_083thm.jpg
8a8cda5e05a4419c013ab9b9c4739290
3bbbbf13a62a1aeb77223b38bf19d0a5b0f1a894
52646 F20110320_AABTIY scharlach_t_Page_119.jpg
ffd4f406f05c4eb2324cc6d34bd9f127
e2974850f5c9732ee265799128596f818a1ef8c3
4949 F20110320_AABUND scharlach_t_Page_075thm.jpg
b8f027b113b693a4336282fd91c7866d
5a899fdc130c9d8c9552fb61d6333380a252d2bf
6310 F20110320_AABUMP scharlach_t_Page_019thm.jpg
77ea9c4b99cab1cf96941d4bc1a0feee
d78927a5326f0b640c7a197f825d2545b02a11eb
58762 F20110320_AABTKB scharlach_t_Page_092.jpg
6c30fb0388431bc927be83364a1ef09c
2f927b5770db13a810ae85b8d9d7f4d96716f55a
92435 F20110320_AABTJN scharlach_t_Page_060.jp2
d8f2b2c6c5fb79f9350fb4fde75d8036
d2a06a42086513d3ec5e9632dc97155a420321fc
40757 F20110320_AABTIZ scharlach_t_Page_145.pro
56582f51c0b4b41a6503ad52b5a8498b
49b6fdc52b37b23c172764c483b143d666002df5
6324 F20110320_AABUNE scharlach_t_Page_073thm.jpg
f724d15e4a950b476d5107a3d24dfd10
e3e303d20564c321a6739f5411387d0b79c91be1
6359 F20110320_AABUMQ scharlach_t_Page_023thm.jpg
828f6902ea7d84447a5eee35e8a69d7a
34fe64bb631fd65a57f3520496d0215688306435
5166 F20110320_AABTKC scharlach_t_Page_113thm.jpg
f788318649a5f4ed3dfe5d21a33eaaf1
1e9bcb1b5d5a27ae67b38f231c9fd1cf6a2b0321
6539 F20110320_AABTJO scharlach_t_Page_087thm.jpg
17d229acda0e3fed57af0893fb327b49
e2c3cea2c63f3b6dc95589a3784816e48584d8bb
F20110320_AABUNF scharlach_t_Page_039thm.jpg
f59f3ae82350b47b4ba34c3a7ef61766
d93a01dbd69b2ced3fd24a9b94f9f6b5f74b907f
21990 F20110320_AABUMR scharlach_t_Page_142.QC.jpg
39ddb5841e33b2e4d84c2cb4935505b2
36a14abb877c82353da4f03113b231b380cb07d7
48103 F20110320_AABTKD scharlach_t_Page_114.pro
a009eb86b1233ae710fc33ecd39f2d86
d495fbee97ef19a22e4a9bae6c6aea911706a597
51240 F20110320_AABTJP scharlach_t_Page_158.pro
5c932112b3b5503c30df19e435e5c819
1de1a8650e7ecdac8396b393a4261123d7956bc2
10945 F20110320_AABUNG scharlach_t_Page_184.QC.jpg
1dd01728a4b150e13d87011e0978fe3a
df491d7107e82dc4f1733b6cdc247a237a686a68
6247 F20110320_AABUMS scharlach_t_Page_022thm.jpg
6cc784444d3ad4b9e6f3ac6fc3fed39a
dabf7d5eca6a7a859b295f778dbf81cf12a8fb75
F20110320_AABTKE scharlach_t_Page_138.txt
ae18ab4d7ee25d79f89a732d9dd9b740
185fba3d17797a0ae76592a02dc83a6d40c22667
68960 F20110320_AABTJQ scharlach_t_Page_029.jpg
d51db29df73cd135654515be18a2e5db
a6d24f11625ed7ecf9f63100be8af9463f88aa1b
5931 F20110320_AABUNH scharlach_t_Page_066thm.jpg
b98ca81df6211aebf0bf16cf31fc4fcc
f013d86ec86c749419a7b7b3e73ea885460b1608
5519 F20110320_AABUMT scharlach_t_Page_125thm.jpg
7cc8253a874242690bf94deb823ed1cc
621f44c4ac810488f385fdf1281912ee0415afd4
54274 F20110320_AABTKF scharlach_t_Page_145.jpg
3feaf591996062be47bc9471b661d4d9
2447e6bbfcfb0c2a4fdf03757c482b5ae6f6f391
2312 F20110320_AABTJR scharlach_t_Page_099.txt
e59f63db6d3e1a8e549e6884aa26da3f
73c2348c9445bedaf8e2c747dff8c4b1b8f6e7f7
22566 F20110320_AABUNI scharlach_t_Page_101.QC.jpg
aadcdbc976e31debf36ef44a70892691
2e240f92666496ce2fa2dd6f70fb5b4b37d49543
F20110320_AABUMU scharlach_t_Page_174thm.jpg
8d80a592bca364ac484ef7fe2f7aba79
855416c463ec2b35b1dd24e0a983c9163bc7188a
F20110320_AABTKG scharlach_t_Page_137.tif
0ef393c77afcf2bf7c7e8f3cb85a6c8e
941b8dcc28189d6faff43ace73ea16c9aa8a0fd2
71777 F20110320_AABTJS scharlach_t_Page_130.jpg
4d6dd323899491389f760ee03411c7d6
6086cf094ba4c5b334f0bf1216aadfdf20c18fd9
6111 F20110320_AABUNJ scharlach_t_Page_077thm.jpg
3e0972cb00690ff3ccbac63dabe7a971
dcd5c8aa29867765a405a9d52357909b52846357
5282 F20110320_AABUMV scharlach_t_Page_092thm.jpg
74dcd972d73b407b1b372e21c11f9875
264c1695609334804267c6384d4867cee8498735
47429 F20110320_AABTKH scharlach_t_Page_107.pro
48fcad3cdb7f82ae4a4b7c2cb5f6f3e9
517799ea50a7213f41dfec4be15c5d71d4bb02fc
40440 F20110320_AABTJT scharlach_t_Page_200.jpg
bb73c373fea94983f051a1543a9dfeac
9c2e22682b26d7ff3e8aac6974d6d34b347b0487



PAGE 1

ANALYSIS OF PRESERVICE TEACHERS BELIEFS AND PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE ABOUT TEACHING STRUGGLING READERS By TABATHA DOBSON SCHARLACH A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2005

PAGE 2

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank all of my committee members for their support and guidance throughout my doctoral program and the dissertation process. Richard Allington and Anne McGill-Franzen have inspired me and encouraged me and challenged me to think in new ways. Their passion and conviction are only matched by the depth and breadth of their knowledge and expertise. Dr. Danling Fu shared her expertise and encouraged me from the beginning of my program to read widely and broaden my perspectives A special thank you goes to Holly Lane who made the current study possible. Her experience, knowledge, guidance, support and encouragement throughout the past five years have been invaluable. My committee members have been examples for me in professional commitment, passion for learning, and personal concern for students. I am fortunate to have been one of those students. I would also like to thank my family for their contribution. Throughout this long journey, my husband, Greg, and my daughter, Hannah, have been incredibly supportive, encouraging, patient, and understanding. They have sacrificed along with me in order to allow me to complete my studies. To them I am eternally grateful. Now, together with Ryan, we will all be able to enjoy our weekends again. ii

PAGE 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ..................................................................................................ii LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................vii ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................ix CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 Background of the Problem..........................................................................................1 Statement of the Problem..............................................................................................2 Significance of the Study..............................................................................................4 Purpose of the Study.....................................................................................................4 Research Questions.......................................................................................................4 Delimitations and Limitations of the Study..................................................................5 Definitions....................................................................................................................6 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE.......................................................................................8 Introduction...................................................................................................................8 Reading Instruction.......................................................................................................8 Emergent Literacy.................................................................................................9 Teaching Struggling readers..................................................................................9 Access and Exposure to Print..............................................................................12 Effective Teachers...............................................................................................13 Early Intervention................................................................................................14 Beliefs and Professional Knowledge..........................................................................18 Influences of Beliefs and Professional Knowledge on Teaching...............................20 Influence of Beliefs and Professional Knowledge on Teaching Struggling Readers.25 Summary.....................................................................................................................31 3 METHODOLOGY.....................................................................................................33 Introduction.................................................................................................................33 General Research Plan................................................................................................33 Qualitative Research...................................................................................................35 Grounded Theory........................................................................................................37 iii

PAGE 4

Research Design.........................................................................................................38 Methods and Procedures.............................................................................................38 Preservice Teacher Background Information Sheet...................................................40 Preservice Teacher Autobiography.............................................................................40 Interviews...................................................................................................................40 Observations...............................................................................................................41 Written Evaluations and Expectations........................................................................42 Data Management.......................................................................................................43 Data Analysis..............................................................................................................43 Case Descriptors.........................................................................................................44 Validity and Reliability...............................................................................................45 Internal Validity...................................................................................................45 Reliability............................................................................................................45 External Validity.................................................................................................46 Researcher Bias...................................................................................................46 Entry and Access Into the Field..................................................................................47 Investigator Bias.........................................................................................................47 Ethical Issues..............................................................................................................48 4 RESULTS...................................................................................................................50 Introduction.................................................................................................................50 Participant Identification............................................................................................51 Participants Background, Experiences, and Professional Knowledge......................51 Interviews...................................................................................................................51 Observations...............................................................................................................52 Case Studies................................................................................................................53 Case Study 1: Cindy...................................................................................................54 Beliefs and Professional Knowledge About Teaching Reading..........................54 Expectations for Struggling Readers...................................................................58 Instruction for Struggling Readers......................................................................62 Evaluation of Struggling Readers........................................................................66 Case Study 2: Erin......................................................................................................69 Beliefs and Professional Knowledge About Teaching Reading..........................70 Expectations for Struggling Readers...................................................................74 Instruction for Struggling Readers......................................................................76 Evaluation of Struggling Readers........................................................................79 Case Study 3: Nancy...................................................................................................83 Beliefs and Professional Knowledge About Teaching Reading..........................84 Expectations for Struggling Readers...................................................................88 Instruction for Struggling Readers......................................................................91 Evaluation of Struggling Readers........................................................................94 Case Study 4: Laura....................................................................................................97 Beliefs and Professional Knowledge About Teaching Reading..........................97 Expectations for Struggling Readers.................................................................100 Instruction for Struggling Readers....................................................................104 Evaluation of Struggling Readers......................................................................107 iv

PAGE 5

Case Study 5: Drew..................................................................................................109 Beliefs and Professional Knowledge About Teaching Reading........................110 Expectations for Struggling Readers.................................................................112 Instruction for Struggling Readers....................................................................116 Evaluation of Struggling Readers......................................................................119 Case Study 6: Kerry..................................................................................................121 Beliefs and Professional Knowledge About Teaching Reading........................122 Expectations for Struggling Readers.................................................................125 Instruction for Struggling Readers....................................................................128 Evaluation of Struggling Readers......................................................................130 Cross-Case Analysis.................................................................................................132 Summary...................................................................................................................145 5 DISCUSSION...........................................................................................................150 Overview of the Study..............................................................................................150 Review of Literature.................................................................................................151 Review of Methods...................................................................................................151 Findings....................................................................................................................152 Question One.....................................................................................................153 Question Two....................................................................................................154 Question Three..................................................................................................155 Question Four....................................................................................................157 Conclusions...............................................................................................................158 Implications..............................................................................................................163 Implications for Preservice Teachers and Teachers..........................................163 Implications for Teacher Educators...................................................................163 Recommendations for Further Study........................................................................165 APPENDIX A BACKGROUND INFORMATION SHEET............................................................166 B AUTOBIOGRAPHY GUIDE..................................................................................168 C INTERVIEW ONE GUIDE.....................................................................................169 D INTERVIEW TWO GUIDE.....................................................................................172 E OBSERVATION GUIDE.........................................................................................176 F WRITTEN EVALUATION AND EXPECTATION GUIDE..................................180 G CONSENT FORM FOR PARTICIPANTS..............................................................181 H CODES.....................................................................................................................183 v

PAGE 6

REFERENCES................................................................................................................184 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH...........................................................................................190 vi

PAGE 7

LIST OF TABLES Table page 3-1 Methodology Descriptions..........................................................................................34 3-2 Methodology Matrix....................................................................................................34 3-3 Timeline of Research Methodologies..........................................................................35 4-1 Participants Backgrounds...........................................................................................52 4-2 Chronological Listing of Observations........................................................................53 4-3 Cindys Beliefs and Professional Knowledge About Teaching Reading....................59 4-4 Cindys Expectations for Struggling Readers.............................................................61 4. Cindys Instruction for Struggling Readers..............................................................65 4-6 Cindys Evaluation of Struggling Readers..................................................................68 4-7 Erins Beliefs and Professional Knowledge About Teaching Reading.......................73 4-8 Erins Expectations for Struggling Readers................................................................75 4 Erins Instruction for Struggling Readers...................................................................79 4-10 Erins Evaluation of Struggling Readers...................................................................82 4-11 Nancys Beliefs and Professional Knowledge About Teaching Reading.................89 4-12 Nancys Expectations for Struggling Readers...........................................................90 4 Nancys Instruction for Struggling Readers.............................................................93 4-14 Nancys Evaluation of Struggling Readers...............................................................96 4-15 Lauras Beliefs and Professional Knowledge About Teaching Reading................101 4-16 Lauras Expectations for Struggling Readers..........................................................103 4 Lauras Instruction for Struggling Readers.............................................................106 vii

PAGE 8

4-18 Lauras Evaluation of Struggling Readers...............................................................109 4-19 Drews Beliefs and Professional Knowledge About Teaching Reading.................113 4-20 Drews Expectations for Struggling Readers..........................................................115 4-21 Drews Instruction for Struggling Readers..............................................................118 4-22 Drews Evaluation of Struggling Readers...............................................................121 4-23 Kerrys Beliefs and Professional Knowledge About Teaching Reading................126 4-24 Kerrys Expectations for Struggling Readers..........................................................127 4-25 Kerrys Instruction for Struggling Readers.............................................................129 4-26 Kerrys Evaluation of Struggling Readers...............................................................131 4-27 Preservice Teachers Beliefs and Professional Knowledge about Teaching Reading ................................................................................................................................135 4-28 Preservice Teachers Expectations for Struggling Readers.....................................136 4-29 Relationship between Preservice Teachers Beliefs and Professional Knowledge and their Expectations for Struggling Readers.............................................................139 4-30 Preservice Teachers Instruction for Struggling Readers........................................141 4-31 Relationship between Preservice Teachers Beliefs and Professional Knowledge and their Instruction for Struggling Readers.................................................................143 4-32 Relationship between Preservice Teachers Beliefs and Professional Knowledge and their Expectations, Instruction, and Evaluations of Struggling Readers................146 viii

PAGE 9

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy ANALYSIS OF PRESERVICE TEACHERS BELIEFS AND PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE ABOUT TEACHING STRUGGLING READERS By Tabatha Dobson Scharlach May 2005 Chair: Richard Allington Major Department: Teaching and Learning The purpose of this qualitative case study was to examine the beliefs and professional knowledge of preservice teachers about teaching struggling readers. These descriptions were based on the qualitative methods of questionnaires, autobiographies, interviews, observations, and document review. This qualitative study was conducted during a four-month period in 2003. The participants were six elementary education majors who were employed as tutors in Project UFLI, a federally-funded study of beginning reading intervention. The study was concerned with participants beliefs and professional knowledge in the context of tutoring struggling readers in order to discover how these beliefs and professional knowledge influenced the preservice teachers expectations, instruction, and evaluations of these learners. Separate cases were reported for each preservice teacher, patterns were identified, and cross-case analysis was utilized. This study contributed to the knowledge and understanding of preservice teachers beliefs and professional knowledge about teaching struggling readers and how these ix

PAGE 10

beliefs and knowledge influenced their teaching behaviors. Specifically, the findings from this study described how preservice teachers beliefs and professional knowledge about teaching struggling readers influenced their expectations, instruction, and evaluation of struggling readers. The findings from this multiple case study suggest that preservice teachers may not believe they are capable of or responsible for teaching all of their students to read. The preservice teacher beliefs about teacher efficacy and responsibility influenced many teaching behaviors in the current study. These findings illustrate the complex interrelationship between preservice teachers beliefs and professional knowledge, expectations, instruction, and evaluation. Several recommendations were determined from the results of the current study. Preservice and inservice teachers should explore how their beliefs and professional knowledge influence their teaching behaviors. It is important for teachers to examine their own beliefs, professional knowledge, and practice in order to make changes that lead to more effective instruction for our struggling readers. Teacher educators can utilize this information to improve teacher education programs as teacher education programs have been shown to significantly impact preservice teachers beliefs and professional knowledge. The results are important as they provide guidance to teacher educators as they teach, support and supervise preservice teachers. x

PAGE 11

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Background of the Problem Teacher educators are faced with the daunting task of preparing preservice teachers to teach an increasingly diverse student population in the new millennium. Whether the diversity is ethnicity, race, gender, economic status, or learning differences, teacher education programs must develop teachers who are able to effectively teach all children (National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education [NCATE], 2000). Reading is a lifelong skill that is crucial for success in todays world. It is widely known that children who struggle with reading acquisition perform lower in other subject areas, possess lower self-esteem, present greater discipline problems in school, and are less likely to finish high school (Shanahan & Barr, 1995). Although students in the United States read as well as or better than they ever have before in history, there is still a small population of children who struggle with reading acquisition (Klenk & Kibby, 2000). Teachers of reading must have a deep understanding of how children learn to read and be prepared to teach all children to high levels of literacy. Preparing preservice teachers for the challenges of teaching children who are struggling with reading acquisition must be a crucial priority among educators. Because preservice teachers beliefs about teaching children who are struggling with reading acquisition will influence their future teaching decisions and practices as they work with such children (Nierstheimer, Hopkins, & Schmitt, 1996), it is important that preservice teachers and teacher education programs examine these beliefs. 1

PAGE 12

2 Statement of the Problem Teachers of reading must have a deep understanding of how children learn to read and be prepared to teach all children to high levels of literacy. Teacher education programs are constantly striving to improve the preparation of preservice teachers in order to meet the high demands and expectations placed on beginning teachers. Crucial to this effort, teacher educators must explore preservice teachers beliefs about students, teaching, and learning, as teachers beliefs influence their judgments and decision-making and exert critical influence on classroom practice (Pajares, 1992). As human beings we have beliefs about everything whether they are implicit or explicit beliefs. Researchers have argued that these beliefs are the basis for all of the choices that we make as individuals (Bandura, 1986; Richardson, 1996; Rokeach, 1968). Preservice teachers often have an unrealistic optimism and become disillusioned when teaching children who are struggling with reading acquisition (Nierstheimer et al., 1996). This unrealistic optimism may be the result of preservice teachers relying on their own experiences as literacy learners to inform their beliefs about how all children learn (Kagan, 1992). Because preservice teachers may believe that their students will be much like themselves, it may be necessary for them to confront their beliefs about students who are different from themselves. If preservice teachers do not reexamine their beliefs and, therefore, their instruction for struggling readers, the result might be that the struggling reader is viewed as the problem instead of the instruction being viewed as the problem. It may also mean that the preservice teachers may not provide the most appropriate learning experiences for the children that they are teaching and may even be biased toward the students based upon their beliefs.

PAGE 13

3 An area that is important for professors and teacher education programs to consider is preservice teachers beliefs and professional knowledge and the manners in which these beliefs and professional knowledge influence their teaching behaviors. If preservice teachers beliefs and professional knowledge influence their teaching behaviors, it would seem essential for those teaching, supporting, and supervising preservice teachers to be aware of these beliefs and knowledge and the manners in which these beliefs and knowledge influence teaching behaviors. Deeper understanding of these beliefs and professional knowledge may be important to assist teacher educators in preparing preservice teachers to teach all children to read proficiently. These understandings may be useful in the design and implementation of teacher education programs for teachers of reading. Researchers have reported that teachers do make decisions based upon their beliefs (Fang, 1996; Kagan & Smith, 1988; Lonberger, 1992; Richardson, 1996; Solomon, Battistich, & Hom, 1996; Soodak & Podell, 1994; Stuart & Thurlow, 2000; Winfield, 1986). These decisions and actions have significant impact upon the learning experiences provided for students. Teachers actions are influenced by their attitudes and beliefs, which then influence student learning and student behaviors (Soodak & Podell, 1994; Wiest, 1998). Preservice teachers beliefs and professional knowledge about teaching struggling readers are important to study as these beliefs and knowledge influence the preservice teachers expectations, instruction, and evaluation of struggling readers. As researchers and educators attempt to prepare teachers who are able to teach all children to read, it is

PAGE 14

4 important to understand how preservice teachers beliefs and professional knowledge about struggling readers influence their teaching behaviors. Significance of the Study This research benefited the research community, preservice teachers, teachers, and teacher educators. This study extended and refined the understandings regarding preservice teachers beliefs and professional knowledge and the manner in which these impact preservice teachers behaviors. This study may impact the design and implementation of teacher education programs. As researchers uncover more insights into preservice teachers beliefs and professional knowledge, teacher educators will have more information with which to design appropriate preservice and inservice teacher education programs. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this qualitative study is to examine the beliefs and professional knowledge of preservice teachers about teaching struggling readers. Specifically, this study was an exploration of the participants beliefs and professional knowledge in the context of tutoring struggling readers in order to discover how these beliefs and professional knowledge influenced the preservice teachers expectations, instruction, and evaluations of these learners. Research Questions Specifically, this study addressed the following questions: 1. What are preservice teachers beliefs and professional knowledge about teaching reading in general and teaching struggling readers in particular? 2. How do preservice teachers beliefs and professional knowledge influence their expectations for struggling readers?

PAGE 15

5 3. How do preservice teachers beliefs and professional knowledge influence their instruction, for struggling readers? 4. How do preservice teachers beliefs and professional knowledge influence their evaluation of struggling readers? Delimitations and Limitations of the Study This research was limited to six preservice teachers at one university in Northern Florida. The small number of participants provided the opportunity to deeply probe the research questions being studied. The power of the study relied on the rich descriptions and patterns that described the participants experiences. Multiple data sources strengthened the power of the data through triangulation. Descriptions of the participants were sufficiently detailed to allow transferability to other settings. However, generalizations are modest as the researcher sought to understand individuals in a specific context. The researcher had some previous knowledge of the participants and worked with the participants in a supervisory capacity. This may have limited the participants abilities to be completely forthcoming with responses. The researchers biases could not be separated from the data. These biases included those as a former classroom teacher, reading resource teacher, graduate student of reading, preservice teacher educator, and researcher of a reading intervention program. These biases also included those of a white, middle-class female. While attempting to describe, analyze, and report the beliefs, professional knowledge, and actions of these preservice teachers, the researchers identity provided the lens through which all the information was processed.

PAGE 16

6 Definitions Beliefs and professional knowledge are the attitudes, values, beliefs, and knowledge about teaching, students, content and the education process that students bring to teacher education (Kagan, 1990; Pajares, 1993). Blending refers to combining the sounds represented by letters to pronounce a word; to sound out (Harris & Hodges, 1995). Decoding refers to the process of translating printed words into an oral representation using knowledge of letter-sound relationships and word structure (National Reading Panel, 2000). Elkonin boxes refers to a method in which squares are drawn to represent the number of discrete sounds in a word. The student segments the phonemes in the word and determines and writes the letter in the box to represent each of these phonemes. Encoding refers to changing a message into symbols as in encoding oral language into writing. Fluency refers to the ability to read text quickly, accurately, and with proper expression (National Reading Panel, 2000). Frustration reading level refers to the level at which a reader can read text at less than 90% success rate. The readability of material is too difficult to be read successfully by student even with instruction and support (Harris & Hodges, 1995). Genre refers to different kinds of literary texts, such as informational, instructional, mystery, realistic fiction, historical fiction, biography, fantasy, traditional folk and fairy tales, science fiction, etc. (Fountas & Pinell, 1996). Independent reading level refers to the level at which a reader can read text at a 95% or higher success rate (National Reading Panel, 2000).

PAGE 17

7 Instructional reading level refers to the level at which a reader can read text between a 90% and 94% success rate. The material is challenging but not frustrating for students to read successfully with instruction and support (Harris & Hodges, 1995). Miscue refers to an oral reading response that differs from the expected response to written text (Harris & Hodges, 1995). Modeling refers to the act of serving as an example of behavior and or technique (Harris & Hodges, 1995). Oral cloze refers to the procedure of restoring omitted portions of an oral message from its remaining context (Harris & Hodges, 1995). Reading disability refers to reading achievement that is significantly below expectancy for both an individuals reading potential and for chronological age or grade level (Harris & Hodges, 1995). Reading Recovery leveled text refers to reading materials that have been leveled by Reading Recovery based on a gradient of difficulty in order for teachers to make decisions about materials to select for children to read (Clay, 1991). Running record refers to the cumulative account of selected behavior, as of that of a student reading as noted by a teacher over time (Harris & Hodges, 1995). Self-correction refers to the use of knowledge of language and context to correct errors in reading (Harris & Hodges, 1995). Self-efficacy refers to the belief in ones capabilities to organize and execute the sources of action required to manage prospective situations (Bandura, 1986).

PAGE 18

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE Introduction This review begins with what researchers have reported about effectively teaching struggling readers. Next is a review of the literature on beliefs and professional knowledge and preand inservice teachers beliefs and professional knowledge. Next in the review is research that has been conducted on the influence preand inservice teachers beliefs and professional knowledge have on their teaching behaviors. The final section is a review of the limited research that has been conducted related to the influence that preand inservice teachers beliefs and professional knowledge have on teaching struggling readers is presented. Reading Instruction Effective teacher education facilitates preservice teachers in their development of content area expertise, research-based knowledge about teaching and learning, and pedagogical skills that will enable them to teach effectively to a diverse population of learners (NCATE, 2000; Ross, Lane, & McCallum, in preparation; Zeichner & Hoeft, 1996). This focus on rigorous content, theory, and pedagogy will prepare exemplary teachers with expectations for all children to develop high levels of thoughtful literacy skills, critical thinking skills, active learning skills, content knowledge application, and problem solving abilities. 8

PAGE 19

9 Emergent Literacy Most literacy researchers and educators agree that learning to read and write is a developmental process that begins long before the commencement of formal schooling (Adams, 1990; Clay, 1991; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998; Spear-Swerling & Sternberg, 1998; Whitehurst & Lonigan, 2001). This theory of emergent literacy supplanted the previous reading readiness approach in which there was a perceived boundary between what constituted pretend reading prior to formal literacy instruction and real reading after formal literacy instruction when students were ready to read (Whitehurst & Lonigan, 2001). The emergent literacy perspective validated the importance of literacy activities such as storybook reading, chanting, singing, print awareness, and word-play activities that occur in homes and preschool settings prior to formal schooling. Young children who experienced more of these kinds of literate activities would benefit more from formal reading instruction and learn to read sooner and more skillfully than children who lacked these types of informal learning experiences (Whitehurst & Lonigan, 2001). For these children, reading acquisition had begun well before the onset of formal instruction (Spear-Swerling & Sternberg, 1998). Many children, however, have had limited or have had no experiences with these types of literacy activities prior to formal schooling. For these children, reading acquisition may be slower and more difficult. Teaching Struggling readers There are many factors that can influence whether a child will have difficulty learning to read including but not limited to instructional influences, socioeconomic status, speaking a non-standard variety of English, having limited proficiency in English, biological deficits, and cultural differences (Snow et al., 1998). The majority of children

PAGE 20

10 who are struggling with reading acquisition at the completion of first grade will continue to struggle with reading acquisition throughout their school careers (Juel, 1988). Literacy researchers and educators are continually searching for effective strategies to ensure that all children will become literate. There is nothing so complicated about learning to read that would keep any child who is not mentally retarded from being able to learn to read near, on, or above grade level, provided this child is given enough instruction and instruction of sufficient quality (Klenk & Kibby, 2000, p. 684-685). In the first half of the twentieth century, the medical model was used to attempt to determine the cause(s) of reading difficulties by studying variables such as visual acuity, auditory acuity, general physical status, neurological factors, emotional/psychiatric factors, and intelligence (Klenk & Kibby, 2000). The belief was that there must be something inherently wrong with a child who was struggling with reading acquisition. This deficit hypotheses argued that the deficit was within the child and caused by environment, experience, or heredity (Johnston & Allington, 1991). Researchers now believe that students who are struggling with reading acquisition do not require qualitatively different instruction than children who are not struggling with reading acquisition (Snow et al., 1998). Instead, children who are struggling with reading acquisition require extra time in quality reading instruction, extensive opportunities to read high-success materials, and specific strategy instruction (Allington, 2001; Strickland, 2000).Therefore, children who are struggling with reading acquisition need more quality reading instruction beginning early in their school careers (Pikulski, 1998). Snow, Burns, and Griffin (1998), in a review of literature for the National Research Council, argued for integrating attention to the alphabetic principle with attention to the construction of meaning and opportunities to develop fluency. The researchers found

PAGE 21

11 that most reading difficulties could be prevented with effective instruction. Their conclusions for effective reading instruction included children reading to obtain meaning from print; frequent opportunities to read; exposure to frequent, regular spelling-sound relationships; instruction on the alphabetic principle; and instruction on the structure of spoken words. Snow et al. concluded that progressing beyond the beginning reading level required an understanding of the alphabetic principle, reading practice, sufficient background knowledge and vocabulary to derive meaning from the text, monitoring strategies, and interest and motivation to read for a variety of purposes. Though criticized for its narrow focus on few topics and for limiting its review to experimental and quasi-experimental evidence (Pressley, 2001), the National Reading Panels Report (2000) outlined evidence for teaching beginning reading skills in their review of research. The conclusions of the panel were that phonemic awareness instruction was effective in promoting early reading and spelling skills; systematic phonics instruction improved reading, spelling, and comprehension skills; guided oral reading and repeated reading of texts increased reading fluency; a variety of methods of vocabulary instruction should be implemented; comprehension strategies instruction improves comprehension; professional development can influence teachers instruction in reading; greater community resources can promote literacy; when children have access to books, children are more likely to engage in literate activities which result in enhanced language and literacy skills; whole language interventions at school may promote some general, beginning understandings about reading and writing; literature-driven instruction increased childrens autonomous reading; instruction with strong connections between literature and concept learning increased interest and engagement and comprehension

PAGE 22

12 strategies; experiences with literature increased understanding of story structures; comprehension of texts increased when children engage in conversations about literature with peers and teachers; and exposure to a second language can have positive implications for literacy development. In his criticism, Pressley (2001) advised that the conclusions reached by the Panel are not enough. Pressley argued that the Panels emphases on discrete skills at specific development levels did not take into account that effective reading instruction occurs over a number of years and changes with the childs development. He contended that effective literacy instruction is a balance and blend of skills teaching and holistic literature and writing experiences (p. 4). Access and Exposure to Print To become a proficient reader one needs the opportunity to read (Allington, 1977). Allington (1980) observed reading group instruction in twenty-four first and second grade classrooms. He discovered that good readers read an average of 539 words during a reading lesson but poor readers read only an average of 237 words during a reading lesson. Allington argued that poor readers needed to read larger quantities of reading material of they were ever going to become good readers. In addition, Allington explained this reading material must be at the childs instructional level and must be contextual reading as opposed to other reading instruction activities. After tracking the effects of print exposure in fourth, fifth, and sixth grade students, Cunningham and Stanovich (1991) found that print exposure is a significant unique predictor of spelling, vocabulary, verbal fluency, word knowledge, and general information even after controlling for differences in general ability and phonological

PAGE 23

13 coding ability. These researchers argued that even the child with limited reading skills would build vocabulary and knowledge structures through reading. Stanovichs (1986) theory of Matthew Effects in reading explained that children who experience early success in reading are likely to read more and become even better readers. Conversely, children who struggle with reading acquisition are likely to spend less time reading and achieve even less progress, falling farther and farther behind their peers. Stanovich suggested, If the development of vocabulary knowledge substantially facilitates reading comprehension, and if reading itself is a major mechanism leading to vocabulary growth which in turn will enable more efficient reading then we truly have a reciprocal relationship that should continue to drive further growth in reading throughout a persons development (p. 380). His theory of Matthew Effects in reading further supports the position that the volume of reading done by students directly affects reading achievement. Stanovich theorizes that the very children who are reading well and who have good vocabularies will read more, learn more word meanings, and read even better while children with inadequate vocabularies who read slowly and without enjoyment read less, and as a result have slower development of vocabulary knowledge, which inhibits further growth in reading. Effective Teachers In a review of research examining students passive failure in reading, Johnston and Winograd (1985) contended that teachers treat less successful students differently than more successful students. These differences in teacher actions for less successful students include giving these children answers, allowing less wait time, interrupting reading more frequently, having lower expectations, paying less attention, and praising less frequently. Johnston and Winograd argued that these differences in teacher actions allow less

PAGE 24

14 successful students to attribute their failure to low ability which, in turn, leads to passive failure in reading. The authors concluded that research and teaching activities should focus on children learning to read rather than the teaching of reading in order to prevent passive failure in reading. Allington (2002) argued that what really matters in reading instruction is effective teachers. While studying exemplary teachers through research at the National Research Center on English Learning and Achievement, Allington found that the most important aspects of effective instruction were time spent in actual reading and writing activities; quality and quantity of easily read materials; active instruction that modeled and demonstrated reading and writing strategies; conversational talk; substantive, challenging tasks; and assessment based on effort and improvement. This type of instruction can only occur with effective, knowledgeable teachers. Allingtons (2002) focus on the teacher and instruction is supported by Darling-Hammonds (1999) review of policy evidence in regard to teacher quality and student achievement. Darling-Hammond found that well-prepared teachers can have strong effects on student achievement ameliorating the impact of student poverty level, language background, or minority status. She also concluded that teacher quality variables were more strongly related to student achievement than class size, overall spending levels or teacher salaries. Early Intervention Educators have increasingly turned to early intervention in order to help accelerate literacy learning of students who are struggling with reading acquisition (Strickland, 2001). While it is crucial that the classroom teacher provide exemplary instruction and take responsibility for all students in the classroom (Walmsley & Allington, 1995), rising

PAGE 25

15 expectations for young literacy learners has shifted the focus to intensive early intervention along with exemplary teaching practices (Strickland, 2001). These short-term, intensive programs of intervention aimed at accelerating literacy development are becoming preferable to extended remediation efforts such as Title I pull-out programs (Strickland, 2001). Fortunately, the majority of children struggling with reading acquisition can become readers if they are provided early and intensive intervention (Vellutino & Scanlon, 2001). Providing this early intervention to children struggling with reading acquisition is a crucial priority among educators. Research has shown many forms of tutoring to be effective with struggling readers (Shanahan, 1998). Reading Recovery is a one-to-one tutorial intervention provided by specially trained teachers developed specifically for children struggling with reading acquisition in the first years of formal schooling (Pinnell, Lyons, DeFord, Bryk, & Seltzer, 1994). Reading Recovery was developed by Marie Clay, a developmental psychologist and teacher of special education in New Zealand, and her colleagues in 1976 in an effort to develop an intervention that would accelerate the reading development of the lowest achieving children up to the reading development of the average achieving children in the classroom. The lesson framework includes reading and rereading familiar texts; analysis of student reading through running record techniques; composing, writing, and reading messages; and reading new and more challenging texts with teacher support. In a study conducted by Pinell et al. (1994) children who received Reading Recovery as an intervention performed significantly higher than other treatment groups and the control group. In an independent analysis of the effectiveness of Reading Recovery, Shanahan and Barr (1995) found Reading Recovery to be less effective and more costly than had

PAGE 26

16 been claimed. Despite these findings, the researchers recommended the continued support of Reading Recovery as a successful intervention strategy. Many researchers have reported that the majority of children struggling with reading acquisition can become readers if they are provided individualized, early and intensive literacy intervention (Hayes, Lane, & Pullen, 1999; Juel, 1991; Pinnell et al., 1994; Vellutino & Scanlon, 2001). These researchers have reported that some students would require longer periods of effective, intensive remediation but that many students could actually be remediated with less intensive and shorter interventions if that intervention was provided early in the childs reading development. Vellutino and Scanlon (2001) concluded that reading difficulties in the majority of children struggling with reading acquisition were caused by experiential and instructional deficits rather than cognitive deficits. Other tutorial intervention strategies that have utilized volunteers or college students have also proven to be effective in helping children who are struggling with reading acquisition (Baker, Gersten, & Keating, 2000; Elbaum, Vaughn, Hughes, & Moody, 2000; Fitzgerald, 2001; Hayes et al., 1999; Invernizzi, 2001; Invernizzi, Juel, & Rosemary, 1998; Juel, 1996). Many of these literacy interventions were based upon the design of the Reading Recovery (Pinnell et al., 1994) framework including rereading familiar texts, word study, writing, and reading an unfamiliar book with the assistance of a tutor who is providing specific strategy instruction. The tutoring models that utilized volunteers or college students offered an affordable form of early intervention that was proven to be successful in raising literacy levels. These studies confirmed that well-designed, reliably implemented interventions could improve the literacy development for

PAGE 27

17 students struggling with reading acquisition. The crucial factor in successful volunteer efforts appeared to be the training and mentoring provided to tutors (Invernizzi, 2001). Elbaum et al. (2000) cautioned that the instruction provided by volunteers or college students was intended to supplement, not replace, the classroom reading instruction. Research consistently supports the effectiveness of tutoring (Shanahan, 1998). However, tutoring is not a perfect solution and does have some potential drawbacks. One criticism of pull-out programs in general is that students who are receiving interventions during the school day lose ten to fifteen minutes of instructional time just traveling between the classroom and the intervention (Cunningham & Allington, 1994). These researchers suggested that it may be difficult or impossible to make up for this lost time regardless of the effectiveness of the intervention. In order to control for these factors, attention must be focused on limiting the loss of instructional time through transitions as well as careful attention to the decision about which classroom activities will be lost during the intervention. Many schools have chosen to add these intervention programs on to their school day either before or after school in order to address these issues and provided extended learning for struggling children. Shanahan (1998) warned that if the person providing the tutoring is ineffective, the intervention will be ineffective. Of course, if the intervention is inappropriate or ineffective, trading exemplary classroom instruction for this instruction would be detrimental to student achievement (Shanahan, 1998). Providing extra time in quality reading instruction, extensive opportunities to read high-success materials, and specific strategy instruction (Strickland, 2000) as previously suggested is appropriate and effective intervention.

PAGE 28

18 The researchers included in this review have reported that there are common elements of effective literacy instruction for all readers in general and struggling readers in particular. These common elements include extra quality reading instruction, extensive opportunities to read high-success texts and useful, specific strategy instruction with an effective teacher. In addition to the described reading instruction occurring within the regular classroom, more intensive, short-term intervention programs may also be implemented to accelerate the learning of some struggling readers. While occurring in a smaller group and a more intensive manner, this intervention instruction should not be qualitatively different than the instruction provided to those children who are not struggling with reading acquisition. Beliefs and Professional Knowledge As human beings we have beliefs about everything whether they are implicit or explicit beliefs. Researchers have argued that these beliefs are the basis for all of the choices that we make as individuals (Bandura, 1986; Richardson, 1996; Rokeach, 1968). Researchers have reported that teachers, like all human beings, make decisions based upon their beliefs (Bandura, 1986; Fang, 1996; Kagan & Smith, 1988; Lonberger, 1992; Richardson, 1996; Rokeach, 1968; Solomon et al., 1996; Stuart & Thurlow, 2000; Winfield, 1986). These decisions and actions have significant impact upon the learning experiences provided for students. Teachers actions are influenced by their attitudes and beliefs, which then influence student learning and student behaviors (Wiest, 1998). Rokeach (1968) theorized that the decisions that people make throughout their lives are based upon their beliefs. His research and theories about beliefs, attitudes and values are often-cited and studied. Rokeach (1968) defined beliefs as any simple proposition, conscious or unconscious, inferred from what a person says or does, capable

PAGE 29

19 of being preceded by the phrase I believe that (p. 113). Rokeach was interested in the structure of belief systems and conducted a quantitative study on 29 subjects belief systems using hypnotic procedures. He concluded that some beliefs are more central than other beliefs and that the more central the belief, the more it will be resistant to change. He also concluded that knowledge is a component of belief. Rokeach warned that beliefs should not necessarily be verbal reports taken at face value, but rather inferences made by an observer about the underlying states based on all the things the believer is doing and saying. Bandura (1986), agreed with Rokeach that beliefs are the best indicator of an individuals decision-making. Beliefs are the basis upon which individuals plan, interpret, and make decisions. Bandura argued that beliefs must be studied in context specific situations in order to be useful, as human beings have beliefs about everything. He also argued that some beliefs are more resistant to change than others and that teacher efficacy beliefs are the strongest predictors of motivation and actions. Pajares (1993) defined preservice teachers beliefs as: the attitudes and values about teaching, students, and the education process that students bring to teacher education attitudes and values that can be inferred by teacher educators not only from what preservice teachers say but from what they do (p. 46). Because of the subjective nature of teaching, Kagan (1990) used beliefs and knowledge interchangeably. Kagan defined teachers cognitions as any of the following: preor inservice teachers self-reflections; beliefs and knowledge about teaching, students, and content; and awareness of problem-solving strategies endemic to classroom teaching (p. 421).

PAGE 30

20 For the purposes of this study, these two definitions will be combined. Preservice teachers beliefs and professional knowledge will be defined as: The attitudes, values, beliefs, and knowledge about teaching, students, content and the education process that students bring to teacher education. Additionally, Pajares (1993) advice that preservice teachers attitudes and values should be inferred not only from what preservice teachers say but also from what they do will be heeded. Because human beings have beliefs about everything and these beliefs are the basis for decision-making and actions (Bandura, 1986; Rokeach, 1968), belief research is an important field of study. Based upon the theory that beliefs are central to human beings everyday decisions and actions (Bandura, 1986; Rokeach, 1968) and that there need not be any truth or evidence required for a belief (Richardson, 1996), it seems logical that teacher beliefs are central to their classroom decisions and actions. Understanding teachers beliefs is important for understanding teachers actions. Influences of Beliefs and Professional Knowledge on Teaching Researchers have discovered that teachers make decisions based upon their beliefs. These decisions and actions have significant impact upon the learning experiences provided for their students. This section will describe research that has been conducted on the influence of teachers beliefs and professional knowledge on teaching behaviors. In a study of teachers beliefs about self-efficacy, Ashton and Webb (1986) used the quantitative and qualitative methods of questionnaires, interviews, classroom observations, and student records to determine if there was a relationship between teachers self-efficacy and student achievement. Forty-eight high school teachers were included in the study. These researchers found that the teachers self-efficacy was associated with student achievement in both reading and math. Additionally, these

PAGE 31

21 researchers determined that teachers self-efficacy influenced teaching behaviors such as their use of praise and whether or not they were task-oriented. It is an important finding that there is a relationship between teachers self-efficacy beliefs and their teaching behaviors as well as between teachers self-efficacy beliefs and student achievement. Kagan and Smith (1988) examined the relationship between kindergarten teachers self-reported beliefs and their classroom practice. Fifty-one kindergarten teachers completed self-report instruments that assessed cognitive style, teaching ideology, classroom behavior, and occupational stress. They were later observed for two hours teaching their kindergarten students. The researchers were specifically interested in whether the teachers believed in a more child-centered or a more teacher-centered kindergarten classroom. Kagan and Smith found the teachers self-reported beliefs were strongly consistent with the researcher observations and that their beliefs were evident in their classroom practice and classroom environment. The researchers described how the teachers beliefs were reflected in their teaching behaviors. These behaviors included the teachers verbal behavior, teachers position in the room, and students positions and groupings in the room. Kagan and Smith concluded that teachers with a more child-centered approach to teaching kindergarten held a consistent set of beliefs and behaviors. This study is significant in that it reports how teachers beliefs and professional knowledge are reflected in teaching behaviors. Richardson, Anders, Tidwell, and Loyd (1991) studied the relationship between teachers beliefs about teaching reading comprehension and their classroom practices. In the study, thirty-nine intermediate elementary teachers, including 30 females and 9 males, were interviewed to determine their beliefs about reading comprehension and how

PAGE 32

22 children learn to read. These teachers were then observed twice while teaching reading comprehension to determine if their beliefs were consistent with their classroom practices. The researchers concluded that the beliefs of the teachers in the study reflected their classroom practices in the teaching of reading comprehension. In a quantitative study of the relationship between belief systems and the instructional choices of preservice teachers, Lonberger (1992) assessed the beliefs of 37 elementary and special education students enrolled in an introductory reading methods course. The students beliefs about reading, how children read, and teaching a child to read were assessed through informal questions. Responses were classified by philosophy and frequencies of response by belief system were tabulated. Students later designed, implemented, and were observed teaching a lesson for teaching word recognition. The lessons were then judged to be congruent or incongruent with the preservice teachers philosophies. Lonberger reported that 84% of the students made instructional choices that were congruent with their beliefs and theoretical orientations to reading and that these orientations evolved during the reading methods course. These conclusions are important in understanding the nature of preservice teacher beliefs and the manners in which these beliefs influence teaching behaviors. In a quantitative study, Solomon, Battistich, and Hom (1996) assessed the attitudes, beliefs, perceptions and classroom practices of 476 teachers in 24 urban and suburban elementary schools through the use of teacher questionnaires and classroom observations during the course of a school year. The researchers reported that teachers beliefs were consistent with their teaching practices after statistically controlling for school poverty level and students achievement. Among the findings from the data, Solomon et al. found

PAGE 33

23 that teachers in economically disadvantaged schools emphasized teacher authority and control rather than student autonomy and constructivist approaches. They found that teachers in the poor communities provided less engaging activities and saw themselves as having less influence than teachers in more affluent communities. These findings, that teachers interact with students differently based on their beliefs about students, underscore the need for understanding how teachers beliefs influence their teaching behaviors. Stuart and Thurlow (2000) analyzed the beliefs of preservice teachers enrolled in a mathematics and science methods course. Twenty-six students were asked to examine their beliefs and the impact these beliefs had on classroom practice. The researchers included interviews and written responses to journal prompts, mathematics autobiographies, final examination questions, field observations, and semi-structured interviews in their data collection. Stuart and Thurlow challenged the preservice teachers to confront their beliefs through reflection and discussion. They reported that the preservice teachers beliefs about teaching were heavily influenced by their childhood experiences. Stuart and Thurlow concluded that the preservice teachers gained a better understanding of the impact their beliefs would have on classroom practice and how that classroom practice would impact student learning. Stuart and Thurlow described how the preservice teachers thought their beliefs would influence classroom practice. However, they did not describe how preservice teachers beliefs actually did influence their classroom practice. In her review of research on attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach, Richardson (1996) concluded that in an interactive relationship, teachers decisions and actions are

PAGE 34

24 based upon their beliefs. She reported that preservice teachers beliefs about teaching result from personal experience, schooling and instruction, and formal knowledge. However, she concluded that these beliefs could be changed or added to because of experience and reflection upon that experience. She found in her review of research that preservice teachers beliefs are strong and highly resistant to change. Richardson argued that teacher education programs must facilitate the self-identification and self-assessment of preservice teachers beliefs relative to their classroom actions in order to help facilitate positive change in preservice teachers beliefs. In his review of the relationship between teacher beliefs and practices, Fang (1996) reported that teachers theories and beliefs are an important part of their general knowledge. These beliefs can influence teachers expectations of student performance as well as teachers theories about teaching and learning. These, in turn, can have significant impact on academic performance and student learning. Fang called for further research on teacher beliefs that addresses the personal experiences of teachers and their influence on shaping their beliefs. Researchers have reported that inservice and preservice teachers beliefs influence their teaching behaviors (Ashton & Webb, 1986; Fang, 1996; Kagan & Smith, 1988; Lonberger, 1992; Richardson, 1996; Richardson et al., 1991; Solomon et al., 1996; Stuart & Thurlow, 2000; Winfield, 1986). These beliefs and professional knowledge include beliefs about teacher efficacy, responsibility for teaching, pedagogical methods, and issues of authority and autonomy. The researchers have also reported that teachers beliefs are congruent with their teaching behaviors and influence teachers expectations as well as student achievement. Obviously, the decisions and actions that are made by

PAGE 35

25 teachers in the classroom have significant impact upon the learning experiences provided for students. It is, therefore, important to more fully understand preservice teachers beliefs and professional knowledge and the manner in which these beliefs and knowledge influence their teaching behaviors. Influence of Beliefs and Professional Knowledge on Teaching Struggling Readers As researchers and educators attempt to prepare teachers who are able to teach all children to read, it is be important to understand how preservice teachers beliefs and professional knowledge about teaching struggling readers influence their teaching behaviors. This section will describe research that has been conducted on the relationship between teachers and preservice teachers beliefs and professional knowledge about teaching struggling readers in particular and the influence these beliefs and knowledge have on their teaching behaviors. Winfield (1986) studied inservice teachers beliefs about academically at risk students in inner city schools. Winfield studied five inner-urban schools which served predominately minority and low income students. Forty teachers were interviewed for the study, which utilized a case study methodology to examine the schools over a one-year period. Winfield categorized the teachers beliefs based on whether teachers believed some type of instructional assistance could improve the students achievement and whether teachers assumed responsibility for improving instruction or shifted responsibility to someone else. By using a cross-classification, Winfield categorized teachers as either: 1) tutors who believed they were responsible for and provided the necessary instruction to the lowest readers; 2) general contractors who believed the students needed remedial instruction but that it was not their job to provide that instruction; 3) custodians who believed that little or nothing could be done to improve

PAGE 36

26 the students achievement; and 4) referral agents who believed students could not learn in the classroom or remedial program and should be referred for psychological testing or special education. Winfield concluded that teachers beliefs influenced their expectations as well as their instruction for at risk students. This is an important contribution to the study of how teachers beliefs influence expectations, instruction, and assessment. McGill-Franzen (1994) reported on earlier research (Allington & Li, 1990; McGill-Franzen & James, 1990) that investigated the relationship between institutional practices and teachers beliefs about children and their ability to learn to read. Thirty-nine elementary classroom teachers, compensatory education teachers, and special education teachers in six school districts were interviewed about the struggling readers in their classes. The researchers found that special education teachers believed that their students could not perform on grade level and that they could only make six months progress for each year of school. This was reflected in the special education teachers behaviors, which included a slower pace of instruction, easier materials, repetition, and retention of students. McGill-Franzen reported that teachers held different beliefs about remedial students as opposed to special education students. The teachers believed that remedial students would eventually be able to perform on grade level and that they expected these remedial students to make at least one years progress for each year in school. This translated to teaching behaviors that included actual opportunities for reading and writing as the basis for literacy instruction. McGill-Franzen called for challenging the beliefs, expectations and instruction of teachers who work with at-risk children. This is an important study of the influence of teachers beliefs and professional knowledge about teaching struggling readers on teaching behaviors.

PAGE 37

27 Soodak and Podell (1994) investigated teachers decision-making with regard to students experiencing difficulty in reading. The researchers were interested in teachers causal beliefs and sense of efficacy. The researchers distributed questionnaires to 110 participants that included a case study of a third grade student from a divorced family experiencing difficulty in reading with occasional problems with self-control that disrupted the class. Participants were to list possible ways to address the situation, including which they believed would be most effective and what they believed was the cause of the situation. Teachers also completed a teacher efficacy scale. The researchers found that teachers offer a wide variety of suggestions for addressing a students problems and a wide variety of causes for the students difficulties. The teachers did not, however, believe that their efforts would be successful with the student. Additionally, the teachers frequently believed that someone outside of the classroom would be needed to effect change in the situation. The researchers also reported that when teachers believed the home was the cause of the students problems, they sought parental involvement. When the teachers believed the school was the cause of the students problems, they sought outside interventions. Finally, the researchers reported that teachers personal efficacy beliefs influenced their decisions regarding instruction for difficult-to-teach students. This study is an important study that describes the influence of teachers beliefs about efficacy and responsibility on their teaching decisions. Maxson (1996) reported that there is an intricate, interactive relationship between what teachers believe and teachers actions such as curriculum decision-making, planning, and experiences that teachers provide for students. Maxson (1996) used a multiple case study design to explore the influence of teachers beliefs on literacy

PAGE 38

28 instruction for at-risk first graders. The sample included five white, female teachers teaching at different high-risk schools within the same school district. Maxson collected data from interviews, observations, questionnaires, and teacher reflections throughout a school year and made conclusions based upon the constant comparative method. Maxson concluded that there was a direct relationship between the teachers beliefs and their practices and that the teachers held definite beliefs about teaching at-risk students. Maxson found that the teachers functioned within an instructional paradigm that was directly influenced by their individual belief systems. She reported that many external factors such as content and population of students influenced the teachers beliefs. Maxson did not report the teachers beliefs, only that they were related to practice. Nierstheimer, Hopkins, and Schmitt (1996), conducted a study examining preservice teachers beliefs about teaching students who are struggling with reading acquisition. The preservice teachers included 60 female and 7 male participants. These preservice teachers were enrolled in a corrective reading methods course with a tutoring practicum. Features of the Reading Recovery professional development model were incorporated into the program. Data sources included questionnaires, videotapes, interviews, small-group discussions, observations, lesson plans and portfolios. The researchers conducted withinand cross-case analyses to analyze the data. The researchers reported that the preservice teachers assigned responsibility for the cause of reading problems to someone else and assigned the responsibility for teaching struggling readers to read to someone else. The preservice teachers believed it was not the classroom teachers responsibility to teach struggling readers. The preservice teachers included in the study believed that the parents and home environment or the children

PAGE 39

29 themselves were responsible for the reading difficulties. Additionally, the preservice teachers believed it was the responsibility of a resource teacher or parents to teach these struggling readers. This study is important in describing the relationship between preservice teachers beliefs and their sense of responsibility for teaching struggling readers. In a study examining preservice teachers shifting beliefs about struggling literacy learners, Nierstheimer et al. (2000), utilized qualitative methods to re-examine the previously reported (Nierstheimer et al., 1996) study of 67 preservice teachers. The researchers found that after participating in the course, the preservice teachers beliefs shifted toward assuming responsibility for helping children with reading problems rather than assigning responsibility to someone else as they had when the course began (p.1). The researchers concluded that carefully guided tutoring experiences are crucial in preparing effective literacy teachers. Mallette, Readence, McKinney, and Smith (2000) critically analyzed the written work of two preservice teachers who had been tutoring struggling readers. The researchers analyzed the preservice teachers field notes, case studies, reflective writings, and group lesson plans by coding and exploring the relationships in the various sources. Mallette et al. was interested in exploring how the ideologies of the preservice teachers effected the preservice teachers development of knowledge about teaching struggling readers. The researchers defined ideologies as beliefs embedded in hegemonic relations. They discovered that the preservice teachers expectations about reading acquisition, success, parental support, reading difficulties, attitude toward reading, assessment, teaching, and education were based upon their white, middle-class, female identities.

PAGE 40

30 These preservice teachers believed their students would be similar to themselves and struggled with these ideologies when the students were not like them. Mallette et al. concluded that it is important for teacher educators to help preservice teachers understand how their knowledge about education is centered in ideologies that are based on their raced, classed, and gendered identities. The researchers called for an exploration of beliefs of preservice teachers at a deeper level to examine how they reflect ideologies. Researchers have concluded that teachers beliefs about teaching struggling readers influence their teaching behaviors (Mallette et al., 2000; Maxson, 1996; McGill-Franzen, 1994; Soodak & Podell, 1994; Winfield, 1986). Researchers have described how these beliefs and professional knowledge have translated into different expectations and instruction for struggling readers (McGill-Franzen, 1994; Winfield, 1986). These beliefs and professional knowledge also influence teachers sense of responsibility for teaching struggling readers (Nierstheimer et al., 1996; Soodak & Podell, 1994; Winfield, 1986). The Winfield (1986) study is an important contribution to the study of how teachers beliefs about at-risk students influenced their expectations, instruction, and assessment of these students. McGill-Franzen (1994) offered specific details about teachers beliefs and how these beliefs influenced teaching behaviors. Her research was limited to teachers beliefs about special education students as opposed to remedial education students. Soodack and Podells (1994) research described the influence of teachers beliefs about efficacy and responsibility on their teaching decisions. However, the researchers did not observe actual teaching behaviors to determine how these beliefs influenced actual classroom practice. Maxson (1996) concluded that there was a relationship between teachers beliefs and teaching behaviors, however, she did not

PAGE 41

31 provide specific details about this relationship. Nierstheimer et al. (1996) found that teachers beliefs influenced their sense of responsibility for teaching struggling readers, however, they did not explore how this translated into teaching behaviors. Finally, Mallette et al. (2000) were interested in hegemonic relations and the manner in which these influenced preservice teachers beliefs about teaching struggling readers. Again, this research did not attempt to explore the manner in which these beliefs influenced teaching behaviors. Summary Researchers included in this review have demonstrated that teachers beliefs and professional knowledge influence their teaching behaviors in general and their teaching behaviors for struggling readers in particular. However, the research on the relationship between teachers beliefs and professional knowledge about teaching struggling readers is limited. More research is needed in order to more fully understand preservice teachers beliefs and professional knowledge about teaching struggling readers and how these beliefs and knowledge influence their teaching behaviors. Specifically, more research is needed to explore the relationship between preservice teachers beliefs and professional knowledge about teaching struggling readers and their expectations, instruction, and evaluation of struggling readers. The current research study attempted to fill this gap in the research. This study of preservice teachers beliefs about teaching struggling readers and their influence on their teaching behaviors should help researchers explore areas for potential preservice teacher program improvement. Researchers in this review reported that teacher education programs could have a significant impact upon preservice teachers beliefs and professional knowledge. It is, therefore, a challenge for preservice

PAGE 42

32 teacher educators and researchers to identify the beliefs and professional knowledge of preservice teachers and discover the impact of these beliefs on the teaching of struggling readers in order to identify directions for improvement in teacher education. If preservice teachers beliefs and professional knowledge influence their teaching behaviors, it would seem essential for those teaching, supporting, and supervising preservice teachers to be aware of these beliefs and knowledge and the manners in which these beliefs and knowledge influence teaching behaviors.

PAGE 43

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Introduction The purpose of this qualitative study was to examine the beliefs and professional knowledge of preservice teachers about teaching struggling readers. The study was an exploration of the participants beliefs and professional knowledge in the context of tutoring struggling readers in order to discover how these beliefs and professional knowledge influenced the preservice teachers expectations, instruction, and evaluations of these learners. General Research Plan The research plan was to identify six elementary education majors who would be employed as tutors in Project UFLI, a federally funded study of beginning reading intervention, and describe how their beliefs and professional knowledge about teaching struggling readers influenced their teaching behaviors. These descriptions were based on data collected over a four-month period (February 2003 May 2003). Included in the data collection procedures were five sources of data: preservice teachers background information sheets, preservice teachers autobiographies, interviews with preservice teachers, observations of preservice teachers while teaching struggling readers, and preservice teachers written expectations and evaluations of struggling readers (Table 3-1). This methodology was implemented in order to provide multiple data sources for attempting to answer the research questions. These questionnaires, autobiographies, interviews, observations, written expectations and evaluations allowed for triangulation 33

PAGE 44

34 of the data (Table 3-2). The researcher developed a timeline in order to ensure that all methods were applied over a four-month period (Table 3-3). Table 3-1 Methodology Descriptions Methods Source Data Background Information Sheets Preservice Teachers Establish pertinent demographic and background information. Identify preservice teachers educational background and teaching experiences. Help to refine the interview and observation guide. Autobiographies Preservice Teachers Identify preservice teachers beliefs about themselves, family, their own literacy experiences and reading habits. Identify preservice teachers beliefs and professional knowledge about good readers, how children learn to read, and their beliefs and professional knowledge about why children have difficulty learning to read. Help to refine the interview and observation guide. Interviews Preservice Teachers Explore research questions in depth and corroborate background information, autobiography, and observational data. Observations Researcher Explore research questions firsthand and gain contextual information. Expectations and Evaluations Preservice Teachers Identify preservice teachers expectations and evaluations of struggling readers. Table 3-2 Methodology Matrix Research Methods Beliefs and professional knowledge about teaching reading How beliefs and professional knowledge influence expectations How beliefs and professional knowledge influence instruction How beliefs and professional knowledge influence evaluation Background Information Sheets + Autobiographies + Interviews + + + + Observations + Expectations and Evaluations + +

PAGE 45

35 Table 3-3 Timeline of Research Methodologies Date(s) Instrument February 2003 Autobiography February 2003 Background Information Sheet February 2003 Expectations and Evaluations of Tutored Students February 2003 Observation One February/March 2003 Observation Two March 2003 Interview One March/April 2003 Expectations and Evaluations of Tutored Students March/April 2003 Observation Three April/May 2003 Expectations and Evaluations of Tutored Students April/May 2003 Interview Two A case study approach was utilized with the descriptive data sources from this research. A cross-case analysis was then employed to search for patterns across cases. The researcher generated categories, themes, and patterns and tested emergent understandings while searching for alternative explanations (Marshall & Rossman, 1999). The data collection questions were intended to probe the relationship between preservice teachers beliefs and professional about teaching struggling readers and their teaching behaviors. The following questions guided data collection in this research: 1. What are preservice teachers beliefs and professional knowledge about teaching reading in general and teaching struggling readers in particular? 2. How do preservice teachers beliefs and professional knowledge influence their expectations for struggling readers? 3. How do preservice teachers beliefs and professional knowledge influence their instruction, for struggling readers?

PAGE 46

36 4. How do preservice teachers beliefs and professional knowledge influence their evaluation of struggling readers? Qualitative Research Patton (1990) described necessary assumptions of qualitative research: 1) A holistic approach that seeks to understand in entirety in order to develop a complete understanding of the person or situation rather than experimental research which seeks to isolate and measure narrowly defined variables with prediction and control, 2) begins with specific observations and moves toward the development of patterns that emerge from the cases under study rather than defining variables and hypotheses prior to data collection, 3) seeks to discover and understand in naturally occurring states rather than under controlled conditions with a limited amount of outcome variables. Miles and Huberman (1994a) included the following in their defense of qualitative methods: Data can be collected in close proximity to a specific situation rather than through mail or over phone; the emphasis can be on specific cases in context; there is the possibility for understanding latent, underlying or non-obvious issues; there is potential for richness, holism, and revealing complexity; data collected over a sustained period makes them more powerful; possibility for locating meanings and for connecting these meanings to the social world. Most of the current research on teacher beliefs has shifted to a qualitative research design (Richardson, 1996). Interviews and observations are the most widely used data collection in research on teacher beliefs (Richardson, 1996). Case studies involve multiple methods such as interviews, observations, and document analysis. The goal of these types of designs is not to predict, but to understand the nature of teachers beliefs.

PAGE 47

37 In the hermeneutic nature of many of the teacher belief studies, researchers were concerned with obtaining rich understandings through an openly dialogic process of repeatedly returning to the text to gain increased understanding and a more compete interpretation (Smith, 1993). There is a relationship between the researcher and the subject matter and the researcher is involved in the explanatory process, which intrudes into the context of the data. According to Richardson (1996), an important trend in these hermeneutic studies of teachers beliefs is that the data collection is used for purposes of teacher change as well as research. For example, the coursework, autobiographies, reflections, and cultural analysis in the qualitative studies above may serve not only for the researchers to understand the preservice teachers beliefs, but also for the preservice teachers to change their beliefs based upon their participation in the activities. Qualitative methods were useful for an in-depth exploration of how beliefs and professional knowledge influenced preservice teachers expectations, instruction, and evaluation in order to fully understand the impact of preservice teachers beliefs on children who are struggling with reading acquisition. Grounded Theory Sociologists Glaser and Strauss introduced the research methodology of grounded theory to researchers in their book, The Discovery of Grounded Theory (1967). In grounded theory the researcher is the primary instrument of data collection and analysis. As such, the researcher takes an inductive stance and strives to derive meaning from the data (Merriam, 1998). The result of this research is the emergence of a theory that is grounded in the data. The theory that emerges is usually substantive theory that is useful to practice (Merriam, 1998).

PAGE 48

38 Research Design The research design is the logic that makes the connections between the collected data and the initial study questions (Yin, 2003). (Table 3-1, Table 3-2). The conceptual framework was designed to answer the question, how do preservice teachers beliefs and professional knowledge about teaching struggling readers influence their teaching behaviors? The research design for the current study was based on a case study approach. A case study has a distinct advantage when a how or why question is being asked about a contemporary set of events, over which the investigator has little or no control (Yin, 2003) (Yin, 2003, p. 9). Advantages of case study research include providing a means of investigating complex social units consisting of multiple variables; studies are conducted in real world situations; the rich and holistic descriptions offer insight and illuminate meanings; and the case study can advance a fields knowledge base (Merriam, 1998). Case studies can be single or multiple cases. A multiple case study approach may be preferred in order to substantiate conclusions, allow for replication, and expand the external generalizability of the findings (Yin, 2003). The current study employed a multiple case study design and was explanatory, descriptive, and exploratory in nature. Methods and Procedures In this multiple-case study design, data were collected from six participants. These participants were elementary education majors at the University of Florida who were employed as tutors in Project UFLI, a federally funded study of beginning reading intervention. The University of Florida Literacy Initiative is a tutorial intervention designed to improve the literacy development of children struggling with literacy acquisition (Hayes

PAGE 49

39 et al., 1999). This intervention is a comprehensive literacy intervention that combines effective practices from other programs in order to address the needs of children struggling with reading acquisition. The framework of the lesson includes: 1) Gaining fluency through reading high-success familiar texts, 2) measuring progress through running record techniques, 3) writing for reading with an emphasis on analyzing words and constructing their spellings, 4) reading unfamiliar and increasingly challenging text with appropriate instructional coaching from the tutor and, 5) extending literacy with an emphasis on exploring a wide variety of genres. This intervention program trains university students, primarily from the College of Education, to implement the tutoring program. These tutors are trained by university personnel, continuously supervised, and provided with ongoing support through weekly meetings with the authors of the program. Lane and Pullen, the developers of the program at the University of Florida, have conducted internal research on the effectiveness of the program in both one-to-one and small group settings. Based upon their internal research, this intervention program has proven to be consistently effective in improving the literacy development of children struggling with reading acquisition. Data were collected over a four-month period (February 2003 May 2003). Included in the data collection procedures were preservice teachers background information sheets, preservice teachers autobiographies, interviews with preservice teachers, observations of preservice teachers while teaching struggling readers, and preservice teachers written expectations and evaluations of struggling readers. Interviews allow preservice teachers to reflect upon recent behavior as well as beliefs and biases.

PAGE 50

40 Preservice Teacher Background Information Sheet The preservice teacher background information sheet (Appendix A) was designed by the researcher. This questionnaire was designed to provide data describing the preservice teachers educational backgrounds and teaching experiences. This type of document is a stable source that can be reviewed repeatedly and provides background information and details of experiences that may have shaped preservice teachers professional knowledge and beliefs about teaching and learning. Preservice Teacher Autobiography The preservice teacher autobiography sheet (Appendix B) was designed by the researcher. The preservice teachers were asked to identify their beliefs and professional knowledge about themselves, their families, their own literacy experiences and their own reading habits. The preservice teachers were also asked to identify their beliefs and professional knowledge about good readers, how children learn to read, and their beliefs and professional knowledge about why children have difficulty learning to read. This type of document is a stable source that can be reviewed repeatedly and provides background information and details of experiences that may have shaped preservice teachers professional knowledge and beliefs about teaching and learning. Interviews Interviews allow participants to reflect upon recent behavior as well as beliefs and professional knowledge. Interviews also allow the researcher to discuss behaviors, beliefs, and professional knowledge in detail. Multiple in-depth interviews with multiple preservice teachers over time allows triangulation of the data across sources and tests issues of reliability and validity (Dilley, 2000). The data collection can be sufficiently in depth to foster thick description of preservice teachers beliefs and professional

PAGE 51

41 knowledge. Interviews can be useful in order to obtain large amounts of data quickly and allow for immediate follow-up and clarification. Interviews, however, are open to different interpretations, difficult to replicate, dependent on the participants being forthcoming and honest, and highly dependent upon the researcher to be resourceful, systematic, and honest (Marshall & Rossman, 1999, p. 135). Two semi-structured interviews were conducted with each individual participant. The questions for the interviews were generated from the preservice teachers background information sheets, autobiographies, written evaluations of struggling readers and observations of the preservice teachers working with struggling readers (Appendixes C and D). To better understand the beliefs, professional knowledge and understandings of the participants, the questions were designed to be open-ended and focused on the research questions in Chapter 2. The researcher conducted each of the teacher interviews at the University of Florida Literacy Initiative Office or at the elementary school site where the preservice teacher was tutoring struggling readers at a time chosen by the preservice teacher. With the permission of the participants (Appendix G), each interview was audio-taped, transcribed, coded, and critically analyzed. Observations When combined with interviews, observation allows the researcher to understand the meanings that people hold. Observation allows data to be collected in a natural setting and is useful for describing complex social interactions (Marshall & Rossman, 1999). Observation can be useful in obtaining data on nonverbal behavior and communication, providing contextual information, and for obtaining large amounts of data quickly. Observations, however, are open to multiple interpretations, are difficult to replicate,

PAGE 52

42 subject to observer effects, and also dependent upon the researcher to be resourceful, systematic, and honest (Marshall & Rossman, 1999, p. 135). Preservice teachers were observed in the context of tutoring struggling readers. Participants were each observed a minimum of three times while tutoring struggling readers. These observations ranged from 30 to 60 minutes. Field notes were collected during and after the observations using the observation guide (Appendix E). Following each observation, participants were debriefed about the observation. During the debriefing the preservice teachers were asked to clarify their rationale for instructional decisions to determine how their beliefs about teaching struggling readers influenced their teaching behaviors. Each debriefing was audio taped. The audiotapes were transcribed, coded, and critically analyzed. Written Evaluations and Expectations Observations and interviews were supplemented with analysis of documents constructed specifically for this research. These documents include the preservice teachers written evaluations and expectations of struggling readers. These documents provided contextual information and facilitated analysis and triangulation (Marshall & Rossman, 1999). This type of data is easy to manage, administer, and categorize for analysis. Despite these strengths, document analysis can also be open to multiple interpretations and is dependent upon the researcher to be resourceful, systematic, and honest (Marshall & Rossman, 1999, p. 135). Participants wrote three narrative evaluations of the struggling readers they were tutoring (Appendix F). These evaluations included the preservice teachers expectations for student progress. These documents were analyzed to identify preservice teachers expectations and evaluations of struggling readers.These evaluations were written

PAGE 53

43 approximately after the third, seventh, and tenth week of tutoring. These evaluations were coded and analyzed. Data Management The researcher developed a system of data management for the case study early in the data collection process. The researcher transcribed interviews, typed notes, and filed documents into computer folders. The researcher created a data base that allows access of the data by other researchers. The data for this investigation included background information sheet data, autobiography data, transcripts from interviews, observational field notes, transcripts from debriefings, written evaluations and expectations, and researcher comments. Data Analysis Data analysis focused on the research questions to: (a) describe the beliefs and professional knowledge of each preservice teacher; and (b) discover how these beliefs and professional knowledge influenced their teaching behaviors. Data analysis involves organizing what you have seen, heard, and read so that you can make sense of what you have learned (Glesne, 1999). The researcher began with reading and rereading the data sources for each preservice teacher and coding for emerging themes. Coding is analyzing (Miles & Huberman, 1994b) and searching for patterns in the data (Shank, 2002). Each preservice teachers data analysis involved sorting, classifying, and labeling as well as clustering and organizing these emerging classifications. The codes needed to have conceptual and structural order that allowed them to be integrated into a governing structure (Miles & Huberman, 1994b). Open coding was used rather than a predetermined framework in order to ensure themes were not artificially forced onto the data. After initial coding, the data were reviewed again to

PAGE 54

44 search for categories neglected in the initial identification. This process was repeated for each individual participant. These coding structures were compared in order to support the coding system. Each participants data was reviewed again as new codes and themes emerged. Next, the researcher combined the original themes from each case study to search for overarching themes. In making connections across the individual preservice teachers, the researcher was careful not to lose the meaning of any individual participant (Miles & Huberman, 1994b). The next step in data analysis was to extend the description in a systematic manner through identifying, describing and illustrating the themes that emerged (Glesne, 1999). Case Descriptors The cases were arranged around the categories of: (a) preservice teachers beliefs and professional knowledge about teaching reading, (b) preservice teachers expectations for struggling readers, (c) preservice teachers instruction for struggling readers, and (d) preservice teachers evaluation of struggling readers. In the category of preservice teachers beliefs and professional knowledge about teaching reading, nine codes were identified: 1) parental involvement, 2) motivation, 3) readiness, 4) access and exposure to print, 5) socioeconomic status, 6) behavior, 7) reading disability, 8) teacher efficacy, and 9) responsibility. In the category of preservice teachers expectations for struggling readers, five codes were developed: 1) text level, 2) grade level, 3) reading strategies, 4) reading disability, and 5) behavior. In the category of preservice teachers instruction for struggling readers, five categories emerged: 1) modeling, 2) wait time, 3) prompting, 4) providing answers, and 5) text. In the category of preservice teachers evaluation of struggling readers, five codes were identified: 1) text level, 2) grade level, 3) reading

PAGE 55

45 strategies, 4) reading disability, and 5) behavior. The grounded theory developed in the current study was data driven and emerged from the exhaustive data analysis. The identification of themes allowed for cross-case analysis. The researcher used the results from the cross-case analysis to identify conclusions and develop recommendations. Validity and Reliability Internal Validity In order to establish construct validity the researcher needs to use multiple sources of evidence (Yin, 2003). In the current study, the triangulation of data was implemented for construct validity by collecting data through multiple sources: preservice teachers background information sheets, preservice teachers autobiographies, interviews with preservice teachers, observations of preservice teachers while teaching struggling readers, and preservice teachers written expectations and evaluations of struggling readers. Findings in a case study that are based upon multiple sources of information that lead to converging lines of inquiry are considered to be more convincing and accurate in case study research (Yin, 2003). The researcher spent four months collecting data through written documents, observations, and interviews. This prolonged engagement adds to the validity of the current study. Reliability Reliability refers to the extent that the research results could be replicated if the study was repeated (Merriam, 1998). The objective of reliability is to minimize the errors and biases in a study (Yin, 2003). Lincoln and Guba (1985) suggested that in qualitative research reliability should be thought about in terms of dependability and consistency. This means that the findings based on the data collected make sense and are consistent and dependable. The researcher in the current study developed a database that

PAGE 56

46 can be the subject of a separate, secondary analysis or inspection of the raw data that led to the study conclusions in order to strengthen the reliability of the study. This database includes all of the collected data, case study notes, narratives, and case study documents. External Validity External validity is concerned with the extent to which the findings can be generalized to other situations (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The researcher chose a multiple case study approach in order to strengthen the conclusions from the study and expand the external generalizability of the findings. The current study includes six case studies. According to case study method (Yin, 2003), each case study was conducted and analyzed individually and each case report was written individually. Subsequently, cross-case conclusions were drawn and the cross-case report was written. The researcher also included rich, thick descriptions in order to help the reader determine transferability of the findings to another situation (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Researcher Bias Qualitative research and data analysis are highly time consuming and filled with researcher bias and judgment (Marshall & Rossman, 1999). Interviews do involve personal interaction so cooperation is essential. Interviews require good listening skills, questioning techniques, and probing ability. Interviews also require high participation from the participants in the research. The interviewees may be uncomfortable or unwilling to share all that the interviewer hopes to explore. The researcher may not ask questions that evoke long narratives from participants and at times interviewees have good reasons not to be truthful. Self-report data such as reflections, semantic maps, narratives, and autobiographies may be flawed due to participants responding in a manner they believe desirable by the

PAGE 57

47 researcher. Researchers conducting qualitative research have challenges such as developing a thorough, concise conceptual framework; planning a flexible, yet systematic and manageable design (Marshall & Rossman, 1999). Additionally, the researcher may impose her values through the phrasing of questions or interpretation of data. Studies should triangulate interview data with other data gathered though other methods. Qualitative researchers believe and accept that the investigator can not be separate from what is being studied (Miles & Huberman, 1994a). In fact, in qualitative designs, the researchers presence in the lives of the participants is fundamental to the qualitative paradigm (Marshall & Rossman, 1999). Simply by being present, the researcher is involved in the study. The emphasis is on the socially constructed nature of reality, a close relationship between the researcher and the object of study, and the context that influences the inquiry (MIles & Huberman, 1994). Entry and Access Into the Field The researcher was study coordinator for the University of Florida Literacy Initiative. The researchers position as coordinator made access and entry to the participant preservice teachers and study sites possible. The researcher worked in a supervisory capacity with the study participants. The preservice teacher participants gave their consent to participate in this research study before the researcher began data collection (Appendix G). Investigator Bias The researcher had some previous knowledge of the participants and worked with the participants in a supervisory capacity. This may have limited the participants abilities to be completely forthcoming with responses. The researchers biases could not be separated from the data. These biases included those as a former classroom teacher,

PAGE 58

48 reading resource teacher, graduate student of reading, preservice teacher educator, and researcher of a reading intervention program. These biases also included those of a white, middle-class female. While attempting to describe, analyze, and report the beliefs, professional knowledge, and actions of these preservice teachers, the researchers identity provided the lens through which all the information was processed. Ethical Issues The researcher was responsible for designing and conducting the study and writing the results in an ethical manner. Wellington (2000) has established a set of eight guidelines that were maintained by the researcher for this study. 1) No parties should be involved without their prior knowledge or permission and informed consent. 2) No attempts should be made to force people to do anything unsafe, or do something unwillingly. 3) Relevant information about the nature and purpose of the research should always be given. 4) No attempts should be made to deceive the participants. 5) Avoid invading participants privacy or taking too much of their time. 6) Benefits should not be withheld from some participants or disadvantages imposed upon others. 7) All participants should be treated fairly, with consideration, with respect and with honesty. 8) Confidentiality and anonymity should be maintained at every stage, especially in publication. In this study, participants names and the schools and students names have remained anonymous. The researcher assigned pseudonyms to participants to report study results. All participants signed an informed consent prior to the data collection (Appendix G) which was approved by the University of Floridas Institutional Review Board as required for research projects that involve human subjects. The researcher did not allow bias to interfere with the honest reporting of the results. The researcher believes that the

PAGE 59

49 findings illuminate that beliefs and professional knowledge can impact teaching behaviors.

PAGE 60

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Introduction The purpose of this qualitative case study was to examine the beliefs and professional knowledge of preservice teachers about teaching struggling readers. The findings presented in this chapter were based on the following data sources: (a) questionnaires, (b) autobiographies of the participants, (c) interviews with the participants, (d) observations of the participants, and (e) participants written evaluations and expectations of struggling readers. Specifically, this study addressed the following questions: 1. What are preservice teachers beliefs and professional knowledge about teaching reading in general and teaching struggling readers in particular? 2. How do preservice teachers beliefs and professional knowledge influence their expectations for struggling readers? 3. How do preservice teachers beliefs and professional knowledge influence their instruction, for struggling readers? 4. How do preservice teachers beliefs and professional knowledge influence their evaluation of struggling readers? This chapter contains four sections. The first section reports the identification of participants for this case study. The second section describes the participants backgrounds, experiences, and professional knowledge as it relates to reading in general and teaching struggling readers in particular. Section three provides thick descriptions of the interviews, observations, evaluations, and expectations of the participants in a case study format. Section four is the cross-case analysis and a summary of the research. 50

PAGE 61

51 Participant Identification The six participants consisted of University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI) tutors working in the spring semester of 2003. Announcements were made at tutor meetings about the opportunity to participate in this project. All announcements made clear the strictly voluntary nature of participation in this project. All participants were female graduate students in education and were at least 21 years of age. Each participant was compensated $50 for their participation. Each of the participants signed the University of Florida IRB Informed Consent statement (Appendix G) and complied with all IRB and University of Florida guidelines. Participants Background, Experiences, and Professional Knowledge All of the participants were female graduate students in the college of education at the University of Florida. Four of the subjects identified themselves as Caucasian, one as black, and one as white/Hispanic. All of the participants were unmarried and ranged in age from 20 to 24. All of the preservice teachers had completed a pre-internship. Table 4-1 provides a summary of the background information for each of the preservice teachers included in this study. Descriptive information specific to each participant follows in their individual case studies. Pseudonyms are employed to protect the anonymity of the participants. Interviews The preservice teacher participants were interviewed twice at the University of Florida Literacy Initiative office on the University of Florida campus or at the elementary school site based upon the convenience of the preservice teacher. The interviews were conducted in the middle of the study and then again at the end of the study.

PAGE 62

52 Table 4-1 Participants Backgrounds Preservice Teachers Pseudonym Gender Age Race Graduate specialization Semester Hours of Reading Student teaching grade level Other teaching experiences Cindy female 22 white literacy 21 5 pre-internship Erin female 23 white Interdisciplinary (math/science/ reading/social studies) 12 4 pre-internship Nancy female 23 white math/science 6 4 pre-internship Laura female 20 black literacy 6 2 pre-internship Drew female 23 white/ Hispanic math/science 6 1 pre-internship/ private tutor Kerry female 24 white childrens literature 6 4 pre-internship Observations Table 4-2 provides a chronological listing of the observations of preservice teachers made over a period of three months. An observation guide was made based upon the structure of the tutoring program the preservice teachers were implementing. The researcher focused on the research questions during the observations. Preservice teachers were debriefed following the observation to gain more insight into their beliefs and professional knowledge and their teaching behaviors. The researcher took anecdotal notes during each observation. The observations ranged in time from 40 to 45 minutes based upon the tutoring session. The researcher observed each participant at least two times while tutoring struggling readers.

PAGE 63

53 Case Studies The case study method was utilized in order to explore the professional knowledge and beliefs of preservice teachers and how that professional knowledge and beliefs influence their teaching behaviors. Case studies of six preservice teachers were prepared. Table 4-2 Chronological Listing of Observations Date Tutor Length of Time 2/21/03 Erin 40 minutes 2/21/03 Nancy 40 minutes 2/24/03 Drew 40 minutes 2/24/03 Cindy 40 minutes 2/24/03 Erin 40 minutes 2/28/03 Drew 45 minutes 2/28/03 Kerry 40 minutes 2/28/03 Nancy 40 minutes 2/28/03 Laura 40 minutes 3/3/03 Nancy 40 minutes 3/3/03 Cindy 40 minutes 3/7/03 Laura 45 minutes 3/7/03 Laura 40 minutes 3/17/03 Drew 40 minutes 3/17/03 Nancy 40 minutes 3/24/03 Kerry 40 minutes 3/24/03 Cindy 40 minutes 3/24/03 Erin 40 minutes These six case studies were designed to generate knowledge relevant to the research questions with respect to: (a) preservice teachers beliefs and professional knowledge about teaching reading, (b) preservice teachers expectations for struggling readers, (c) preservice teachers instruction for struggling readers, and (d) preservice teachers evaluation of struggling readers. Each of the case studies was organized around these four categories. The cases were written based on data reduction from the background information sheets of the participants, autobiographies of the participants, interviews with the participants, observations of the participants, and the participants written evaluations and expectations of struggling readers.

PAGE 64

54 These categories of preservice teachers beliefs and professional knowledge, expectations, instruction, and evaluation of struggling readers assisted the researcher in sorting through the data and were useful in developing the description of each case. For the purpose of this study, preservice teachers beliefs and professional knowledge are defined as the attitudes, values, beliefs, and knowledge about teaching, students, content and the education process that students bring to teacher education. The individual cases describe each of these categories and the patterns for each preservice teacher. Case Study 1: Cindy Cindy was a twenty-two year old white female in graduate school at the University of Florida in Gainesville, Florida, specializing in literacy education. She had completed twenty-one semester hours related to the teaching of reading including Language Arts for Diverse Learners, Emergent Literacy, Assessment in Literacy, Childrens Literature, Literacy Seminar, and Classroom Reading 2. Cindy had completed field experiences in first, third, and fifth grades. Cindy completed her student teaching in fifth grade. Cindy planned on teaching in grades three to five when she graduated. Beliefs and Professional Knowledge About Teaching Reading Cindys beliefs and professional knowledge were compiled from her autobiography, background information sheet, interviews, observations, written expectations and written evaluations. Parental involvement Cindy believed that parental involvement is important for reading acquisition. She believed that some children struggle with reading acquisition due to a lack of parental involvement. In her autobiography, Cindy recalled that her mother spent a lot of time with her reading, telling stories and doing role-play activities. She credited this involvement with her reading success. In her evaluations of struggling

PAGE 65

55 readers, Cindy often mentioned the family of her students and whether or not they were involved in the academic achievement of her students. She also acknowledged that many parents may be working a great deal and not available to assist their students. Cindy believed that parental involvement makes a huge difference in students reading success. Motivation Cindy believed that children learn to read if they are motivated to read. She wrote that learning to read will be easier for students who are excited about learning to read. She believed her motivation and desire to read were partly responsible for her success in school. Cindy described two of her students as motivated and hard working. Cindy described her other students as having a poor attitude towards reading, feeling unsuccessful about reading, lacking confidence and avoiding reading. Readiness. Cindy believed that children will learn to read when they are developmentally ready. Cindy recalled that she learned to read without formal instruction. She believed that learning to read came easily to her because she was ready to read. She recalled that there was little reading instruction in her kindergarten class. However, because of her readiness to read and her mothers influence at home, she learned to read without instruction. Cindy described some of her students as not being ready for intensive reading instruction due to their lack of prior reading experiences. Access and exposure to print. Cindy believed that children learn to read by being given access and exposure to print. Cindy remembered having many books and literacy toys as a child. She remembered her favorite book as a young child was a book of farm poems that her mother had given her as a gift. She wrote about this belief in her autobiography.

PAGE 66

56 Through my experiences, I feel that children learn to read when they are surrounded by an environment rich in text. In her evaluations of struggling readers, Cindy wrote that many of her students do not have access to books and do not read outside of school. In her autobiography, Cindy wrote about her belief that lack of access to books and reading outside of school are the reasons some children have difficulty learning to read and why she believes they will continue to struggle throughout their lives. When kids dont have many experiences with text they are automatically going to be behind the student who has been read to every night or looks at picture books on a daily basis. It seems sad to think that the kids whose parents or teachers dont provide opportunity for textual experiences are in for a lifelong struggle. Socioeconomic status. Cindy believed that some students struggle with reading acquisition because of the influence of their socioeconomic status. Cindy wrote about her belief in her autobiography. Even more evident are the difficulties experienced by children in poverty. How can kids learn to read when they are busy thinking about survival and where they are going to get their next meal. When asked to describe a student that she found it difficult to teach, Cindy described a child who wasnt encouraged at home either by parents or environment. In an interview, Cindy discussed the reasons that a childs background is important for their reading success. I think that a student who comes from a fairly literate family, you know, who keeps books around, who is doing okay as far as economically, socioeconomics, I think that that student is going to have a much easier time applying what they know and the way that they know how to learn to read. And I think a child who doesnt come from that type of background, who might be poor or might not have access to any kind of text, is going to have a much harder time learning how to read.

PAGE 67

57 Behavior. Cindy believed that another reason students struggle with reading acquisition is because of poor behavior. In her evaluations of struggling readers, Cindy often wrote about behavior. He has issues. I dont know exactly what is going on there except he has some emotional problems. He needs a lot of attention and without it he tends to shut down. This doesnt help his progress in literacy. He gets off task really easy. Im constantly having to redirect him to what hes doing. Cindy believed that a teacher would not be able to teach a student to read until someone was able get his behavior under control. Reading disability Cindy believed that students who continue to struggle with reading acquisition may have a reading disability that prevents them from making progress. Cindy believed these students required additional instruction beyond what she could provide. Cindy did not believe that she could teach a student to read if that student had a reading disability. Teacher Efficacy Cindy did not believe that she was capable of teaching all of her students to read. She wrote about one student, He needs much more help that I am able to provide. In an interview conducted upon completion of the tutoring, Cindy responded that she did not believe that she would be able to teach all of the students in her classroom to read when she became a classroom teacher. I think that Ill be able to teach the majority how to read based on what Ive been taught here and with UFLI and other things. Theres always going to be one student that, you know, Im maybe not going to know how.

PAGE 68

58 As reported previously, Cindy did not believe that she could teach a student to read if that student had a reading disability. Cindy believed these students required instruction beyond what she could provide. Responsibility Cindy believed that it was the responsibility of the resource teachers and the school to teach the struggling students to read. She believed the classroom teacher alone could not teach all of the children in the class to read. Its the responsibility of the resource teachers and also, the responsibility of, you know, the school to make sure that theyre getting the other help that they need like pullouts and things like that. I think the school needs to provide someone who can work one-on-one with him every day whether it be special education or something like that. Table 4-3 summarizes Cindys beliefs and professional knowledge about teaching reading. Expectations for Struggling Readers Cindy submitted three written expectations for the struggling readers she was tutoring. Cindys expectations were low for all of her struggling readers. She expected each of them to make little progress because they had too many obstacles to overcome before becoming a good reader. Text level Cindy did not expect any of her struggling students to improve significantly in their reading text level. She expected them to improve only one to three Reading Recovery reading levels. She expected one of her students to achieve only a Reading Recovery level six. Her highest expectation was for some of her struggling readers to improve from a Reading Recovery level eleven to a thirteen. Grade level Cindy expected all of her struggling readers to remain reading below grade level at the end of the tutoring. Cindy expected her most struggling student to read text at a Reading Recovery level six and her least struggling reader to read text at a

PAGE 69

59 Table 4-3 Cindys Beliefs and Professional Knowledge About Teaching Reading Theme Belief Parental involvement Parental involvement is important for reading acquisition. Children struggle with reading acquisition because of lack of parental involvement. Motivation Children learn to read if they are motivated to read. Children struggle with reading acquisition because they lack motivation to read. Readiness Children learn to read when they are developmentally ready to read. Access and exposure to print Children learn to read through access and exposure to print. Children struggle with reading acquisition if they are not provided access and experience with print. Socioeconomic status Children struggle with reading acquisition because of their socioeconomic status. Behavior Children struggle with reading acquisition because of poor behavior. Reading disability Some children struggle with reading acquisition because they have a reading disability. Teacher efficacy Can not personally teach a student with a reading disability to read. Will not be able to teach every child to read proficiently. Responsibility It is the responsibility of the resource teachers and the school to teach struggling students to read.

PAGE 70

60 Reading Recovery level thirteen by the end of the year. According to Reading Recovery, a first grader would need to read level seventeen to be reading on grade level at the end of the school year (Reading Recovery Council of North America, 2004). Reading strategies Cindy expected all of her students to need additional strategy instruction and practice. She was not specific regarding the type of strategy instruction and practice. She expected that her students would require individualized instruction from a resource teacher in the future in order to make progress. She also did not expect her struggling readers to learn in a group setting. She expected that these students would need individual instruction in order to make progress. Therefore she expected little or no progress from these students. Reading disability Cindy suspected that two of her struggling readers had reading disabilities although they had not been tested for reading disabilities. Cindy expected that these students would require instruction beyond what she could provide. She did not expect these students to make progress with her instruction. She expected these two students to qualify for exceptional education. Behavior Cindy expected the behavior of her struggling readers to interfere with their progress. Cindy described every one of her students as easily frustrated. One student she described as needs a lot of attention, which she expected to interfere with his progress. She described one of her students as having emotional problems that would require much more help that I am unable to provide. She described one students shyness as an obstacle to her progress. Cindy described two of her students as motivated and hard working. Cindy described her other students as having a poor attitude towards reading, feeling unsuccessful about reading, lacking confidence and avoiding reading.

PAGE 71

61 Table 4-4 summarizes Cindys expectations for struggling readers. Table 4-4 Cindys Expectations for Struggling Readers Category Expectations Text Level Students will improve one to three Reading Recovery reading levels. Grade Level Students will remain below grade level. Reading Strategies Students require additional individualized instruction based on student need. Reading Disability Two students will qualify for exceptional education. Make little or no progress. Behavior Students poor behavior will interfere with progress. Influence of beliefs on expectations The influence of Cindys beliefs and professional knowledge on her expectations was evident in her written expectations of struggling readers, her descriptions of her students achievement of her expectations during an interview, and in the debriefing sessions after the observations. Cindys beliefs and professional knowledge influenced both her expectations for struggling readers and her explanations for her students successful or unsuccessful achievement of those expectations. Cindy did not believe she, as a future classroom teacher, was capable of teaching all of her struggling readers to read and that it was the responsibility of resource teachers and the school to assist struggling readers with their reading acquisition. She did not believe she could teach a child with a reading disability to read. Cindys expectations for her struggling readers were directly aligned with these beliefs about teaching struggling readers. She had low expectations for her struggling readers. She expected them to make

PAGE 72

62 small text level reading gains and remain reading below grade level. She expected one student would be diagnosed with a reading disability and would make little or no progress. Cindys beliefs about `socioeconomic status, readiness, reading disability, motivation and poor behavior were also directly aligned with her expectations for her struggling readers. During the first interview, Cindy reported that one student was meeting her expectations. Cindy described the students motivation as the reason for her progress. Cindy also reported that some of her students were not meeting her expectations. Cindy described the possible reasons for their lack of success as low socioeconomic status, lack of developmental readiness, possible reading disability, lack of motivation, and poor behavior. Instruction for Struggling Readers Modeling The researcher observed Cindy modeling throughout the observed tutoring sessions. Cindy modeled fluent reading, using picture clues, decoding, blending, encoding, and rereading strategies. Cindy used the whiteboard, magnetic letters, and Elkonin boxes to model these strategies. Wait time The researcher observed throughout the observed tutoring sessions that when a student miscued, Cindy would immediately interrupt the students reading and prompt the student to figure out the word. Then, before the student could respond, Cindy would immediately interrupt again and decode the word for the student. Cindy did not provide any wait time after a miscue to allow for self-correction during the observed tutoring sessions. She also did not allow wait time after a strategy prompt for the student to apply the strategy.

PAGE 73

63 Prompting The researcher observed that Cindy often prompted students to apply a reading strategy. However, she applied the strategy herself instead of the student. For example, the researcher observed in one tutoring session that a student hesitated on an unknown word and looked at Cindy. Cindy prompted the student, What can we do to figure that word out? Before the student could respond, Cindy again prompted, What if we covered that part up? Before the student could respond, Cindy gave him the correct word. The student repeated the word and Cindy praised him, Good job. The researcher observed Cindy prompt students by rereading the sentence as an oral cloze so the student could guess the word based on context. The students often were able to guess the word with this method. The researcher observed Cindy prompt a student to look at the pictures and pointed to the picture. However, before the student could respond, Cindy supplied the word. Cindy repeated this pattern of instruction throughout the observed tutoring sessions. Providing Answers The researcher observed that Cindy repeatedly supplied the answers to students rather than let the students apply the strategies and skills. While the students read the text, Cindy pointed to the words instead of instructing the child to point to the words. She did not allow the students to figure out unknown words on their own. After prompting a student to decode a word, Cindy would decode the word for him or often just provide the word. In the observed tutoring sessions, Cindy did nearly all of the work for the students For example, in one tutoring session Cindy asked the student to sound out the word make. Before the student could reply, Cindy made the sounds, m k, mmmmm k. After Cindy decoded the sounds and blended it together in

PAGE 74

64 this manner, she then said the word. Cindy then praised the child, Good, very good! even though the child had not responded. When the same student made another miscue, Cindy immediately interrupted, No, what is this word? The student guessed incorrectly. Cindy then sounded the letters out and blended them together. The student did not respond. Cindy gave him the word. During writing or word work, the researcher observed Cindy prompt students to use letter-sound correspondences with Elkonin boxes. However, just as in the reading of text, Cindy did all of the work for the student. She figured out how many sounds there were in the words and what the sounds and letters were for the Elkonin boxes. Each time Cindy asked the student to count the sounds in the word with her, the student held up an incorrect number of fingers. Cindy did not acknowledge the error or help the student practice counting the sounds. Cindy simply did all of the work herself and did not help the student understand how to do it. During one tutoring session, Cindy showed the student a story book for the extending literacy step of the UFLI program. Cindy read the book to the student. Two times during the reading, Cindy prompted the student to make a prediction. However, she did not allow the student time to respond and kept on reading. Text The researcher noted repeatedly in the observed tutoring sessions that Cindy had the student reading text at his or her frustration level rather than instructional level. In one observation, the researcher noted that the student struggled with every two or three words. He did not make it through any sentence without having to work on a word. When the student finished the book, he threw it across the room. Cindy ignored the behavior. In the observation conference after the session, Cindy recalled the students reading.

PAGE 75

65 He did pretty well. And he read the new book without getting frustrated which is a big battle for us. Cindy did not seem to realize the level of frustration the student was experiencing. However, in her final evaluations, Cindy did note that she thought she had all of her students reading text that she estimated to be at least two levels higher than their instructional reading level. Table 4-5 summarizes Cindys instruction for struggling readers. Table 4. Cindys Instruction for Struggling Readers Category Instruction Modeling Fluent reading. Using picture clues. Decoding. Blending. Encoding. Rereading. Materials: whiteboard, magnetic letters, Elkonin boxes, various texts. Wait Time No wait time after miscue. No wait time after questions or prompts. Prompting Prompted strategy use. Providing Answers Supplied the answers to students rather than let the students apply the strategies and skills. Text Provided frustration level text for students. Influence of Beliefs on Instruction The influence of Cindys beliefs and professional knowledge on her instruction while she was teaching children who were struggling with reading acquisition was evident during the observed tutoring sessions. Cindys beliefs about struggling readers were directly aligned with her instruction for struggling readers.

PAGE 76

66 Cindy did not believe that she, as a future classroom teacher, was personally capable of or responsible for teaching all of her struggling readers to read due to the students lack of parental involvement, lack of motivation, lack of developmental readiness, lack of exposure to print, low socioeconomic status, possible reading disability, and poor behavior. These beliefs were directly aligned with her instruction. Cindy did not allow wait time after miscues or strategy prompts and supplied the answers to students rather than allowing the students to apply the strategies and skills. This type of instruction reflects the belief that the students are not capable of achieving reading proficiency due to all of the previous factors. These factors would also prevent her from being capable of or responsible for teaching them to read. Evaluation of Struggling Readers Cindy submitted three written evaluations of the struggling readers she was tutoring. Her evaluations included the strengths and weaknesses of each student. Text level In her final evaluations, Cindy wrote that her most struggling reader was reading at a Reading Recovery text level six. However, she wrote that he should be on a lower level. Although he made it to this level honestly he should actually be on a lower level. The rest of her struggling students were in a group that she had reading text at a Reading Recovery level fourteen. However, she wrote that her students reading levels were probably actually lower than the level on which she had them reading. I would estimate the actual reading ability to be a couple levels lower. Grade level Based on Cindys final evaluations, all of her struggling readers remained reading below grade level at the end of the tutoring. Although Cindys group finished on a level fourteen, she estimated their actual reading achievement was a couple

PAGE 77

67 of levels lower so they would have been reading well below grade level. Cindys other student was significantly below grade level at a Reading Recovery text level six. Reading strategies Cindy described the strengths and weaknesses of each her students reading strategies. Strengths included use of picture clues and storytelling ability. Cindy reported that some of her students had difficulty with the letter-sound relationships, lacked reading strategies, had difficulty recognizing letters, and made careless mistakes. She described some of her students reading strategies as low and slowly progressing. Reading disability Cindy suspected that two of her students had reading disabilities. Neither student had been evaluated for a reading disability. Cindy speculated about possible reading disabilities in her evaluations of struggling readers. One of Cindys evaluations included that the student read or wrote words backwards or out-of-order, was a bit confused most of the time, and spelled a word backwards. Cindy concluded, I think shes dyslexic. I know she hasnt been tested for it. Behavior. Behaviors that Cindy mentioned in her evaluations of her struggling students were distracted, frustrated, hyper, needs a lot of attention, temperamental attitude, and poor attitude. Cindy wrote in her evaluations that all of her students were easily frustrated. This frustration would lead them to become distracted. Cindy described several students as needing a lot of attention. Cindy described one of her students behavior. He needs a lot of attention and without attention he tends to shut down. He has issues. I dont exactly know what is going on there except that he has some emotional problems. His weakness would definitely be his temperamental attitude. He is very hyper.

PAGE 78

68 Cindy concluded that her most struggling reader was frustrated very easily because of the tutoring program. He gets frustrated fairly easily, more so now than when we started tutoring. I attribute this to all of the extra reading instruction he has been given since we began our sessions. He doesnt feel successful in reading and avoids it like the plague. I have to bribe him into reading a book. Table 4-6 summarizes Cindys evaluations of struggling readers. Table 4-6 Cindys Evaluation of Struggling Readers Category Evaluation Text level Students improved one to three Reading Recovery reading levels. Students actual reading level lower than current level. Grade level Students remained below grade level. Reading Strategies Student uses picture clues. Student good at storytelling. Student lacks reading strategies. Student has difficulty recognizing letters. Reading Disability Student reads or writes words backwards or out-of-order. Student might have dyslexia. Student easily confused. Student probably has a reading disability. Behavior Student has emotional problems. Student needs a lot of attention. Student is shy. Student is easily distracted. Student is easily frustrated. Student is hyperactive. Student will not participate. Influence of Beliefs on Evaluations The influence of Cindys beliefs and professional knowledge on her evaluations of struggling readers was discovered in her

PAGE 79

69 written evaluations. Cindys beliefs about teaching struggling readers were directly aligned with her evaluations of struggling readers. Cindy believed that children struggle with reading acquisition because they have a reading disability. This belief is evident in her evaluations of her struggling readers. Cindy included in her evaluations of her two most struggling readers that they probably had a reading disability that interfered with their ability to make progress even though they had not been tested or diagnosed with any type of reading disability. Cindy also believed that she, as a future classroom teacher, was not capable of teaching a child with a reading disability to read. Her evaluation reflected this belief as Cindy believed that the children who were still struggling the most with reading acquisition after her tutoring must have a reading disability and that would explain her inability to teach them to read. Cindy also believed that children struggle with reading acquisition because they lack motivation to read and because of poor behavior. These beliefs about motivation and behavior were directly aligned with her evaluations of her struggling readers. Cindy reported behaviors and motivation factors that interfered with her students reading progress such as having emotional problems, needing a lot of attention, easily distracted, easily frustrated, hyperactive, and not willing to participate. Case Study 2: Erin Erin was a twenty-three year old white female in graduate school at the University of Florida in Gainesville, Florida, with an interdisciplinary specialization including math, science, reading, and social studies. She had completed twelve semester hours related to the teaching of reading including Childrens Literature, Emergent Literacy, Language

PAGE 80

70 Arts Methods, and Classroom Reading 2. Erin completed her student teaching in fourth grade. Erin planned on teaching in grades one to three when she graduated. Beliefs and Professional Knowledge About Teaching Reading Erins beliefs and professional knowledge were compiled from her autobiography, background information sheet, interviews, observations, written expectations and written evaluations. Parental Involvement. Erin believed that parental involvement is important for reading acquisition. She believed that children struggle with reading acquisition because of lack of parental involvement. Erin reported in her autobiography that her mother and grandmother spent a lot of time reading to her and she also attempted to read to them. Erin talked about the influence that the parents had on the students that she tutored during an interview. You can tell that the parents of the kids from the better educated homes read to them. You can tell that they do. Whereas, the other kids dont have that benefit because maybe their moms and dads have to work until way past their bedtime or something. You never know. She believed parents should meet with their childs teacher at least once a month to talk about the different ways you can help your child at home to enhance their school learning. Motivation Erin believed that students who are motivated to read will be good readers. She described the ideal student she hoped to teach as one that is very eager to learn and be successful. She also believed that exposing children to various types of reading material and genres will pique their interest in reading and, therefore, motivate them to become good readers. She recalled that when she learned to read it gave her a

PAGE 81

71 sense of power and confidence in herself which motivated her to become an even better reader. Erin believed that the students she was tutoring were motivated. They get real excited once were into the actual session. I think its mainly that they enjoy feeling like theyre doing something when they read a sentence that they didnt think that they could read. I think thats probably it. Readiness Erin believed that children will learn to read when they are developmentally read. Erin recalled that she learned to read before she began kindergarten. She believed she was ready to read and learned to read without formal instruction because she had been immersed in a print rich environment and was read to on a regular basis. Access and exposure to print Erin believed that children learn to read through access and exposure to print. She believed that children should be exposed to all types of genres and reading materials in order to get them interested in reading. In my opinion, its very important that they are surrounded by a print rich environment all the time because it makes them more comfortable in reading. Socioeconomic status Erin believed that children struggle with reading acquisition because of the influence of their socioeconomic status. She reported that it was obvious which students came from no-so-good homes by the way the recognize letters and their sounds. She believed that students from a low socioeconomic background would not have had prior experience with books and a print-rich environment. Behavior Erin believed that children struggle with reading acquisition because of poor behavior. She reported that two of the students in her group were often off task which affected not only their own achievement, but that of the group. She reported that she had to spend more of her instructional time on their behavior in order to ensure they were on track.

PAGE 82

72 I feel like my teaching is not as good because Im constantly trying to get one kid sit down or stop making noises and faces. And thats a little frustrating. And I feel like I neglect two of the other kids because Im always reprimanding the other two. Reading Disability Erin believed that some children struggle with reading acquisition because they have a reading disability. She believed these students needed more individual instruction. Erin described a child who was difficult for her to teach during her student teaching experience. One student who was classified ESE and reads at a first grade level (in the fourth grade), was difficult to teach because he was very unsure about his abilities and he needed more one-on-one help. When asked why she thought one of her students was struggling so much with reading acquisition, she reported, I think that he has dyslexia. I havent been able to think of any other reason. She believed these students needed more instructional time, not significantly different instruction. Teacher Efficacy Erin believed that she could teach every child to read proficiently. She confidently reported, I think every child can learn to read. She believed she was ready to start teaching and believed the UFLI tutoring model really helped my ability to teach reading a lot. Erin believed that with a combination of ongoing progress monitoring and specific strategy instruction she would be able to teach all of her students to read. Responsibility. Erin believed that it is the responsibility of the classroom teacher to teach struggling readers. She reported that she would like to use the exceptional education teacher as a resource to seek coaching on strategies to help her teach her struggling readers.

PAGE 83

73 Table 4-7 summarizes Erins beliefs and professional knowledge about teaching reading. Table 4-7 Erins Beliefs and Professional Knowledge About Teaching Reading Theme Belief Parental involvement Parental involvement is important for reading acquisition. Children struggle with reading acquisition because of lack of parental involvement. Motivation Children who are motivated to read will be good readers. Children struggle with reading acquisition because they lack motivation to read. Readiness Children learn to read when they are developmentally ready to read. Access and exposure to print Children learn to read through access and exposure to print. Children struggle with reading acquisition if they are not provided access and experience with books. Socioeconomic status Children struggle with reading acquisition because of their socioeconomic status. Behavior Children struggle with reading acquisition because of poor behavior. Reading disability Some children struggle with reading acquisition because they have a reading disability. Teacher efficacy Can teach every child to read proficiently. Responsibility Responsibility of the classroom teacher to teach struggling students to read.

PAGE 84

74 Expectations for Struggling Readers Erin submitted three written expectations for the struggling readers that she was tutoring. Erin included expectations specific to her students reading development. Her expectations were high for all of her struggling readers. Text level Erin expected all of her students to be reading on a Reading Recovery level 14 by the end of the tutoring. However, Erin confirmed in her interview that she believed level fourteen was considered on-grade-level for the end of first grade. Grade level Erin expected all of her struggling readers be reading on grade level at the end of the tutoring. As previously reported, Erin expected all of her students to be reading on a Reading Recovery level 14 by the end of the tutoring. Although this is lower than grade level, Erin believed this to be grade level reading. Therefore, Erin had high expectations that all of her tutored students would be reading on grade level by the end of the tutoring. Reading strategies Erin was very specific in her reading strategy expectations. She expected her students to improve their fluency and decoding. She expected her students to improve their ability to independently identify unknown words. Erin expected her students to increase the number of sight words they were able to quickly and accurately identify. Reading disability. Erin suspected that one of her struggling readers had a reading disability although he had not been tested for reading disabilities. As with all of her tutored students, Erin expected this student to be reading on a Reading Recovery level 14 by the end of the tutoring program. She also expected him to improve his decoding and fluency skills.

PAGE 85

75 Behavior Erin expected her students to become more confident and motivated. She expected all of her students to enjoy reading and participate. Erin expected her students off task behavior to affect their achievement as well as the other students in the tutoring group as her attention was often on behavior rather than instruction. Table 4-8 summarizes Erins expectations for struggling readers. Table 4-8 Erins Expectations for Struggling Readers Category Expectations Text Level All students will read at Reading Recovery level fourteen. Grade Level All students will read on grade level. Reading Strategies All students will improve fluency, decoding, sight words. Reading Disability One student will be labeled dyslexic. Student will make same progress as other students. Behavior Students will become motivated, confident, participate, and enjoy reading. Students off task behavior will affect groups achievement. Influence of beliefs on expectations The influence of Erins beliefs and professional knowledge on her expectations was evident in her written expectations of struggling readers, her descriptions of her students achievement of her expectations during an interview, and in the debriefing sessions after the observations. Erins beliefs and professional knowledge influenced both her expectations for struggling readers and her explanations for her students successful or unsuccessful achievement of those expectations.

PAGE 86

76 Erin believed that she, as a future classroom teacher, was personally capable of teaching all of her struggling readers to read and that she was responsible for teaching them to read. Erins expectations for her struggling readers were directly aligned with these beliefs about teaching struggling readers. She had high expectations for all of her struggling readers and expected all of her students to be reading on grade level and improve their reading strategies. Erins belief that students who continue to struggle with reading acquisition may have a reading disability was reflected in her expectations. Erin expected one of her students to be diagnosed with a reading disability. However, her high teacher efficacy belief influenced her expectation for him as she expected him to be reading on grade level at the end of the tutoring sessions. During the first interview, Erin reported that all of her students except one were meeting her expectations. Erin described several elements of the tutoring instruction and specific strategy instruction as the reasons these students were making progress. Erin also reported that one of her students was not meeting her expectations. Erin described the possible reasons for his lack of success as a possible reading disability and the need for more tutoring instruction. Instruction for Struggling Readers Modeling. The researcher observed Erin modeling throughout the observed tutoring sessions. Erin modeled fluent reading, using picture clues, decoding, blending, encoding, and rereading strategies. Erin used the whiteboard, magnetic letters, and Elkonin boxes to model these strategies. Wait time. The researcher observed throughout the observed tutoring sessions that when a student miscued, Erin would immediately interrupt the students reading and

PAGE 87

77 prompt the student to figure out the word. However, after pointing to the miscue, Erin would allow the student to attempt again or give the student a strategy prompt and wait for the student to attempt the unknown word. Erin usually did not provide any wait time after a miscue to allow for self-correction during the observed tutoring sessions. Erin did always allow wait time after a strategy prompt for the students to apply the strategy. Prompting. The researcher observed that Erin often prompted students to apply a reading strategy. She prompted students to reread, decode, look for little words within the word, look at the pictures, and segment sounds. She prompted students to think about whether a miscue made sense or sounded correct in the sentence. Providing answers. The researcher observed in a later tutoring session, that Erin sometimes supplied the answers to students. During the earlier observed tutoring sessions, Erin coached the students and challenged the students to do the work on their own. During these observations, the students were reading text at an appropriate level for instruction. However, in a later tutoring session, the researcher noted that the text was too difficult for the students, which required Erin to provide extensive assistance. Erin provided more coaching and prompting when a student was not successful right away. She attempted to have the students do the work with multiple prompts. However, when the text was too difficult for the students, Erin had to provide many of the answers. The researcher noted that Erins students still did all of the writing work themselves. Erin let the students apply the strategies and skills during writing. She had the students segment the sounds and write the words on their own. The researcher observed that the students were more successful with this encoding during writing than they were with decoding during reading.

PAGE 88

78 Erin was aware at times that she was providing answers to students rather than allowing the students to apply their knowledge and skills. During one observed tutoring session, after the students read the new book Erin used the whiteboard for decoding practice. Her students were unable to decode the words that she chose. Erin described her frustration after this tutoring session. Sometimes I get a little frustrated because I dont feel like Im able to really help him sound the words out better without giving him the word. Thats something Im really struggling with. Text The researcher noted that during the beginning tutoring sessions, Erins students were reading text at their instructional level. Since the text was as their instructional level, Erin did not have to provide extensive support so that students were able to read the text. The researcher observed Erin coaching the students and providing support so that the students were able to apply the strategies and skills. However, later in the tutoring sessions, the researcher observed students reading books at their frustration level rather than their instructional level. Because the text was too difficult, Erin had to provide extensive support for the students to get through the text. Erin seemed to get frustrated when this would happen as reflected in her words to the student. You should know these words. We read this book yesterday. You should be able to read this. You know that word. During one observed tutoring session the text was so difficult for the student that he was struggling with nearly every word. During the running record the tutor is to simply record the childs reading verbatim with no encouragement, prompting, or input in any way in order to determine if the text is on the students independent reading level, instructional reading level, or frustration reading level. The researcher observed that when Erin took the running record she provided strategy prompts, praised for correct

PAGE 89

79 reading, nodded her head with each correct word, and pointed out miscues. The researcher noted that Erins prompting allowed the student to score instructional level on the assessment rather than frustration level. Erin was not aware that her prompting was allowing the students to perform higher on the running record than their actual reading level. Erin described the students performance in an interview after the tutoring session. He got a 94% on his running record. Overall I think he did fine. Hes usually pretty good. You know, hes a good reader. Table 4-9 summarizes Erins instruction for struggling readers. Table 4 Erins Instruction for Struggling Readers Category Instruction Modeling Fluent reading. Using picture clues. Decoding. Blending. Encoding. Rereading. Materials: whiteboard, magnetic letters, Elkonin boxes, various texts. Wait Time No wait time after miscue. Wait time after questions or prompts. Prompting Prompted strategy use. Providing Answers Allowed students to apply the strategies and skills. Supplied the answers to students when text was too difficult. Text Provided instructional level text for students. Provided frustration level text for students. Influence of Beliefs on Instruction The influence of Erins beliefs and professional knowledge on her instruction while she was teaching children who were struggling with

PAGE 90

80 reading acquisition was evident during the observed tutoring sessions. Erins beliefs about teaching struggling readers were directly aligned with her instruction for struggling readers. Erin believed that she, as a future classroom teacher, was personally capable of and responsible for teaching all of her struggling readers to read. Her belief and professional knowledge that she was capable of teaching all students to read is evident in the type of instruction she provided to her students. Erin allowed time after prompts, allowed students to apply the strategies and skills themselves, and provided instructional level text most of the time. This type of instruction was reflective of her high teacher efficacy and responsibility. She believed that she was capable of teaching her students and, therefore, they would be able to apply the strategies and skills that she taught them. Evaluation of Struggling Readers Erin submitted three written evaluations of the struggling readers she was tutoring. Her evaluations included the strengths and weaknesses of each student. Text level In her final evaluations, Erin reported that her students were reading at Reading Recovery levels 11, 12, 13, and 14. She wrote that one of her students might actually be able to read higher than a level fourteen if he had been tutored individually. Erin believed that one student that she reported at a level fourteen was actually only reading on a level twelve. Grade level In her final interview, Erin reported that maybe two of her students were reading on grade level. She believed this was because they slowed down a lot rather than just kind of guessing on a word just by looking at the first letter. Erin reported that her most struggling reader might be dyslexic and was still below grade level.

PAGE 91

81 Reading strategies Erin described the strengths and weaknesses of each of her students reading strategies. Strengths included decoding strategies, phonemic awareness, increasing sight word vocabulary, using picture clues, and using anchor words. Erin reported that some of her students had difficulty using context clues and often guess at words without closely looking at the word when reading a sentence. She described some students lack of fluency, which prevent them from having good comprehension of the story. She reported that some of her students have a difficult time blending the sounds together to make the whole word. Reading disability Erin suspected that her student who was struggling the most with reading acquisition have a reading disability. She wrote that her most struggling reader might be dyslexic and was still below grade level. Erin speculated in an interview that dyslexia was the reason he was not reading on grade level. So I think he does have dyslexia that would definitely be what is hindering it. I mean I havent been able to think of any other reason why. Behavior. Erin reported that her students off task behavior affected their achievement as well as the other students in her tutoring group. Positive behaviors that Erin reported in her evaluations included having a good attitude, enjoying reading, getting excited about accomplishments, and participating. Negative behaviors that Erin reported included giving up easily, being talkative, goofing off quite a bit, and having a lot of energy. Table 4-10 summarizes Erins evaluations of struggling readers.

PAGE 92

82 Table 4-10 Erins Evaluation of Struggling Readers Category Evaluation Text level Students reading Reading Recovery level 11, 12, 13, 14. Students actual reading levels higher or lower than current level. Grade level Two students reading on grade level. Other students reading below grade level. Reading Strategies Student uses decoding strategies. Student uses phonemic awareness skills. Student increased sight word vocabulary. Student uses picture clues. Student uses anchor words. Student has difficulty using context clues. Student guesses without strategy use. Student lacks fluency. Student has difficulty blending. Reading Disability Student has dyslexia. Behavior Student has a good attitude. Student enjoys reading. Student excited about accomplishments. Student gives up easily. Student off task. Student energetic. Influence of Beliefs on Evaluations The influence of Erins beliefs and professional knowledge on her evaluations of struggling readers was discovered in her written evaluations. Erins beliefs about teaching struggling readers were directly aligned with her evaluations of struggling readers. Erin believed that children struggle with reading acquisition because they have a reading disability. This belief was evident in her evaluations of her struggling readers. Erin included in her evaluations of her most struggling reader that he probably had a reading disability that interfered with his ability to make progress even though he had not

PAGE 93

83 been tested or diagnosed with any type of reading disability. Erins belief that she was capable of and responsible for teaching a child with a reading disability to read was reflected in her evaluation as she wrote that this student needed more time for instruction in order to make progress. Erin also believed that children struggle with reading acquisition because they lack motivation to read and because of poor behavior. These beliefs about motivation and behavior were directly aligned with her evaluations of her struggling readers. Erin reported behaviors and motivation factors that interfered with her students reading progress such as being off task, giving up easily, and being energetic. Erin reported positive behaviors such as having a good attitude and enjoying reading that also reflect her belief that children learn to read if they are motivated. Erins teacher efficacy belief was strong than these beliefs as she believed that she could teach all of her students to read. Case Study 3: Nancy Nancy was a twenty-three year old white female in graduate school at the University of Florida in Gainesville, Florida, specializing in math and science education. She had completed six semester hours related to the teaching of reading including Childrens Literature and Emergent Literacy. Nancy completed her student teaching in fourth grade. Nancy completed field experiences in fifth grade, kindergarten, and sixth through eighth grade ESOL. Nancy planned on teaching middle school or fourth or fifth grades when she graduated.

PAGE 94

84 Beliefs and Professional Knowledge About Teaching Reading Nancys beliefs and professional knowledge were compiled from her autobiography, background information sheet, interviews, observations, written expectations and written evaluations. Parental involvement Nancy believed that parental involvement is critical for reading acquisition. She believed that some children struggle with reading acquisition due to a lack of parental involvement. Her parents believed that school was very important and provided an environment for learning. Nancy believed parents should spend time with their children teaching them to read. Parents should try to spend as much time as possible working with their children to develop the skills that they need to be good readers. Unfortunately, not all students get this kind of help and attention at home. Nancy did not believe that her tutored students parents were involved in their education. I know theyre not getting much encouragement at home. They dont talk about reading with their parents or anything like that. That leads me to believe that they dont really to that very often. It doesnt seem like they are very involved. Motivation Nancy believed that students learn to read if they are motivated to read. In her background information sheet, Nancy described the ideal student. The ideal student would have a hunger for learning. He would be motivated to look beyond what is being taught to him in the classroom and look for other ways to extend his knowledge. This student would be so motivated to learn that there would be no difficulties in getting the child to know that information that I am presenting. Nancy believed that students can improve their reading skills with increased effort. With practice and hard work, students can improve their reading skills. Nancy described this lack of motivation as the reason one student in her internship was difficult to teach.

PAGE 95

85 During instruction, she would not pay attention, then when it came time to do assignments she would raise her hand and ask for help. In the beginning I would help her, but then I realized that I was not helping other students because I was re-teaching the lesson to her. I told her that if she wanted my help, she needed to pay attention while I was teaching the lesson the first time, because I was not going to teach it a second time for her. Sometimes she would follow along with the lessons, while other times she would not. She had no desire to receive good grades and it was hard to find something to motivate her to do her work. Nancy believed that her most struggling reader was not motivated. I pull out a book and he starts moaning. So I say, Too bad, youre going to have to read it. Readiness Nancy believed that children will learn to read when they are developmentally ready to learn. She believed that she learned to read before she entered school with no instruction because she was ready to read. My mom told me that I picked up a book one day and began reading it to her. She thought that I had memorized the book from having it read to me, so she took me to the library. She said that I could read all of the books that she gave me, including books that I had never seen before. Access and exposure to print. Nancy believed that children learn to read by being given access and exposure to print. She recalled having many books in the home and participating in many literacy related activities. I think that to be a good reader you have to be exposed to reading and books at an early age. This exposure should be regular and meaningful. Nancy believed that lack of parental support and lack of exposure to books may be the reasons students struggle with reading acquisition. Students that are poor readers are definitely missing something that does not allow them to read as well as other students in their classes. This reason could be that they do not have the support at home to help them. It could also be that they do not get enough exposure to books.

PAGE 96

86 Socioeconomic status Nancy believed that some students struggle with reading acquisition because of the influence of their socioeconomic status. She described a student she found it difficult to teach during her student teaching experience. This was a fourth grade student who was 12 years old, three years older than most of the other students. She came from a low-income home, in which she lived with her grandmother and four or five other children. After many attempts to contact her grandmother, we realized that she was not getting the support she needed at home. Nancys belief that students from low-income homes would automatically be lower achieving was evident in her background information sheet. Teachers need to be aware of the discrepancy between home environments and try to close the gap between the low and high readers in their class. Behavior Nancy believed that students struggle with reading acquisition because of poor behavior. She described one student as temperamental and giving up too easily. His misbehavior prevents him from doing what he is supposed to do and learning what he should be learning. She believed another students was only pretending not to be able to read in order to get attention. Reading disability Nancy believed that some students who continue to struggle with reading acquisition may have a reading disability. Nancy did not believe that she could teach a student with a reading disability to read. She also did not believe that the classroom teacher could teach a child with a reading disability to read. She believed that one of her students might have a reading disability. She believed that something within the child was preventing the child from reading. The other little girl thats in his class is pretty good at reading so you know its obviously not something the teachers doing. Its just something within him.

PAGE 97

87 Teacher efficacy Nancy did not believe that she was capable of teaching all of her students to read. She repeatedly wrote that her struggling students needed special help. Nancy wrote about her inability to teach one student. I think that he needs a lot of outside help. This special help is not something that I can spend as much time as he needs. Responsibility Nancy believed it was the responsibility of the resource teachers and parents to teach struggling children to read. In an interview Nancy described what she would do if she had a struggling reader in her classroom that was not responding to her instruction. If Ive already tried, maybe hed go to the reading resource teacher or some other resource teacher. And, like, definitely talk to the parents and say, look this is very important for your child to be able to do and try to get that parent interaction so that theyre getting the help they need at home. I would talk to the parents and say, Look, its going to be really helpful for your child if you read with them at home. And just hope that they realize that its a really big deal. In her description of the ideal student she hoped to teach, Nancy placed responsibility for student success onto parental support. He would come from a home in which his parents, or other caretaker, would provide the support that he needs to excel in school and other areas. This parental responsibility for school success was also contained in an evaluation of a tutored student. I think that with continued help from home, she would be caught up to her fellow classmates. And in her autobiography Nancy wrote, Parents should spend as much time as possible working with their children to develop the skills that they need to be good readers. Nancy also believed it was the responsibility of the student to learn to read. She repeatedly mentioned that if the students would only work harder they would learn to read. In her evaluations of tutored students, Nancy repeatedly wrote that if the children would really try to read, they could do it.

PAGE 98

88 As long as she concentrates and really tries to read, she can do very well. She is excited to learn so Im sure that shell catch up. I think he has a lot of promise if he would just concentrate and try to read. Table 4-11 summarizes Nancys beliefs and professional knowledge about teaching reading. Expectations for Struggling Readers Nancy submitted three written expectations for the struggling readers she was tutoring. Nancys expectations were low for all of her struggling readers. Text level Nancy did not expect any of her struggling students to improve significantly in their reading text level. She expected them only to improve a few Reading Recovery text levels. She was not specific with the text levels. Grade level Nancy expected all of her tutored students to remain reading below grade level at the end of the tutoring. She did not expect significant improvement. Reading strategies Nancy expected all of her students to need additional strategy instruction and practice. She expected some of her students to need more instruction on learning the sounds of letters and letter combinations. She was not specific regarding any other type of strategy instruction and practice. However, she described it as being specialized instruction. Reading disability Nancy expected one of her students to be diagnosed with a reading disability. He was in the process of being screened for a reading disability. She expected that this student would require some kind of specialized instruction that neither she nor the classroom teacher could provide. Behavior Nancy expected the behavior of some of her struggling readers to interfere with the reading progress. Nancy described the behavior of two of hers students

PAGE 99

89 Table 4-11 Nancys Beliefs and Professional Knowledge About Teaching Reading Theme Belief Parental involvement Parental involvement is critical for reading acquisition. Children struggle with reading acquisition because of lack of parental involvement. Motivation Children learn to read if they are motivated to read. Children struggle with reading acquisition because they lack motivation to read. Readiness Children learn to read when they are developmentally ready to read. Access and exposure to print Children learn to read through access and exposure to print. Children struggle with reading acquisition if they are not provided access and experience with print. Socioeconomic status Children struggle with reading acquisition because of their socioeconomic status. Behavior Children struggle with reading acquisition because of poor behavior. Reading disability Some children struggle with reading acquisition because they have a reading disability. Teacher efficacy Can not personally teach a student with a reading disability to read. Will not be able to teach every child to read proficiently. Responsibility Responsibility of the resource teachers and parents to teach struggling students to read. Responsibility of struggling reader to learn to read.

PAGE 100

90 as a major problem that holds back progress. She expected these students to make little or no progress until their behavior was kept under control. Table 4-12 summarizes Nancys expectations for struggling readers. Table 4-12 Nancys Expectations for Struggling Readers Category Expectations Text Level Students will improve a few Reading Recovery text levels. Grade level Students will remain reading below grade level. Reading strategies Students will require additional specialized instruction. Reading disability Students will qualify for exceptional education. Students will make little or no progress. Behavior Students poor behavior will interfere with progress. Influence of beliefs on expectations The influence of Nancys beliefs and professional knowledge on her expectations was evident in her written expectations of struggling readers, her descriptions of her students achievement of her expectations during an interview, and in the debriefing sessions after the observations. Nancys beliefs and professional knowledge influenced both her expectations for struggling readers and her explanations for her students successful or unsuccessful achievement of those expectations. Nancy did not believe she, as a future classroom teacher, was capable of teaching all of her struggling readers to read and that it was the responsibility of resource teachers and the parents to assist struggling readers with their reading acquisition. She did not believe she could teach a child with a reading disability to read. Nancys expectations for

PAGE 101

91 her struggling readers were directly aligned with these beliefs about teaching struggling readers. She had low expectations for her struggling readers. She expected them to make small text level reading gains and remain reading below grade level. She expected one student would be diagnosed with a reading disability and would make little or no progress. Nancys beliefs about motivation and poor behavior were also directly aligned with her expectations for her struggling readers. During the first interview, Nancy reported that some of her students were meeting her expectations. Nancy described the students motivation and memory as the reasons for their progress. Nancy also reported that some of her students were not meeting her expectations. Nancy described the possible reasons for their lack of progress as the students lack of motivation, poor behavior, and possible reading disability. Instruction for Struggling Readers Modeling The researcher observed Nancy modeling throughout the observed tutoring sessions. Nancy modeled fluent reading, using picture clues, decoding, blending, encoding, and rereading strategies. Nancy used the whiteboard, magnetic letters, and Elkonin boxes to model these strategies. Wait time Throughout the observed tutoring sessions when a student miscued, Nancy would immediately interrupt the students reading and prompt the student to figure out the word. Then, before the student could respond, Nancy would immediately interrupt again and decode the word for the student. Nancy did not allow any wait time after a miscue to allow for self-correction during the observed tutoring sessions. She also did not allow wait time after a strategy prompt for the student to apply the strategy.

PAGE 102

92 Prompting The researcher observed that Nancy often prompted the student to decode words. This is the only strategy that the researcher observed Nancy prompt students to use. However, after prompting students to decode the word, Nancy would either immediately individual, one-on-one the word or sound the word out for he student and then the student would say the word. Providing answers The researcher observed Nancy repeatedly providing the answers to students rather than allowing students to apply the strategies and skills. While students read text, Nancy did not allow them to figure out unknown words on their own. She would either provide the word immediately for the student or make the sounds in the word for the student and have the student guess the word. In one observed lesson a student was writing on the whiteboard and made a mistake. Nancy took the board, erased the letter and wrote the correct letter herself. During writing work Nancy would segment the words into sounds and make all of the sounds for students. Nancy repeated this pattern of supplying answers through all observed lessons. Text. The researcher noted during every observed lesson, Nancy had the students reading text at their frustration level rather than instructional level. In one observation, the researcher noted that the student struggled with nearly every word in the text. Nancy had to supply the words or make the sounds in the word and blend them together for the student. During this same observed session, the running record book had a pattern that the student had memorized. She was able to read this portion of the book, but not the rest of the text. She made up the words that were not part of the pattern. Nancy recorded this book at her instructional level although the researcher noted it was frustration level. Nancy recalled the students reading of this text after the tutoring session.

PAGE 103

93 She did a pretty good job. Shes really good at remembering words. Shes really good. Nancy did not seem to realize that the text was too difficult for the student. Table 4-13 summarizes Nancys instruction for struggling readers. Table 4 Nancys Instruction for Struggling Readers Category Instruction Modeling Fluent reading. Using picture clues. Decoding. Blending. Encoding. Rereading. Materials: whiteboard, magnetic letters, Elkonin boxes, various texts. Wait Time No wait time after miscue. No wait time after questions or prompts. Prompting Prompted students to decode. Providing Answers Supplied the answers to students rather than let the students apply the strategies and skills. Text Provided frustration level text for students. Influence of beliefs on instruction The influence of Nancys beliefs and professional knowledge on her instruction while she was teaching children who were struggling with reading acquisition was evident during the observed tutoring sessions. Nancys beliefs about struggling readers were directly aligned with her instruction for struggling readers. Nancy did not believe that she, as a future classroom teacher, was personally capable of or responsible for teaching all of her struggling readers to read due to the students lack of parental involvement, lack of motivation, lack of developmental readiness, lack of exposure to print, low socioeconomic status, possible reading

PAGE 104

94 disability, and poor behavior. These beliefs were directly aligned with her instruction. Nancy did not allow wait time after miscues or strategy prompts and supplied the answers to students rather than allowing the students to apply the strategies and skills. This type of instruction reflects the belief that the students are not capable of achieving reading proficiency due to all of the previous factors. These factors would also prevent her from being capable of or responsible for teaching them to read. Evaluation of Struggling Readers Nancy submitted three written evaluations of the struggling readers she was tutoring. Her evaluations included the strengths and weaknesses of each student. Text level At the end of the tutoring sessions, Nancys students were reading on a Reading Recovery text level four through eleven. In her final evaluations, Nancy wrote that her most struggling reader was reading at a Reading Recovery text level four. However, she wrote that he should be on a lower level. He has progressed to the 4 th reading level, however he seems very frustrated when reading books on this level for the first time. He may have to be moved back down to the 3 rd level again. Grade level All of Nancys students completed the tutoring sessions reading below grade level. All of Nancys students were reading level eleven and below. Reading strategies Nancy described the strengths and weaknesses of each of hers students reading strategies. Strengths for some students included using picture clues, decoding, and encoding. Nancy reported that some of her students had difficulty with letter-sound correspondences, sight words, and blending sounds together to form words. Reading disability Nancy suspected that one of her students had a reading disability. He was being evaluated for a reading disability. Nancy described him as

PAGE 105

95 having a lot of troubles with reading and with all the extra help that he gets it seems that he should be progressing more than he is. Behavior Behaviors that Nancy mentioned in her evaluation of struggling readers were energetic, uncooperative, temperamental, unwilling to try, dancing around the table, staring into space, not paying attention, loses interest, gives up easily, shuts down, inattentive, discouraged, and frustrated. Nancy wrote in her evaluations that each of her students became easily frustrated and would stop participating in the lessons. Table 4-14 summarizes Nancys evaluations of struggling readers. Influence of Beliefs on Evaluations The influence of Nancys beliefs and professional knowledge on her evaluations of struggling readers was discovered in her written evaluations. Nancys beliefs about teaching struggling readers were directly aligned with her evaluations of struggling readers. Nancy believed that children struggle with reading acquisition because they have a reading disability. This belief is evident in her evaluations of her struggling readers. Nancy included in her evaluations of her most struggling readers that he probably had a reading disability that interfered with his ability to make progress even though he had not been tested or diagnosed with any type of reading disability. Nancy also believed that she, as a future classroom teacher, was not capable of teaching a child with a reading disability to read. Her evaluation reflected this belief as Nancy believed that the child who was still struggling the most with reading acquisition after her tutoring must have a reading disability and that would explain her inability to teach him to read.

PAGE 106

96 Table 4-14 Nancys Evaluation of Struggling Readers Category Evaluation Text level Students are reading on Reading Recovery text levels four through eleven. Students actual reading level lower than current level. Grade level Students reading below grade level. Reading Strategies Students use picture clues. Student uses decoding skills. Student uses encoding skills. Student has difficulty with letter-sound correspondences. Student has difficulty with sight words. Student has difficulty blending sounds. Reading Disability Student struggles with reading. Student may have a reading disability. Behavior Student is energetic. Student is uncooperative. Student is temperamental. Student is unwilling to try. Student not interested. Student gives up easily. Student shuts down. Student inattentive. Student discouraged. Student frustrated. Nancy also believed that children struggle with reading acquisition because they lack motivation to read and because of poor behavior. These beliefs about motivation and behavior were directly aligned with her evaluations of her struggling readers. Nancy reported behaviors and motivation factors that interfered with her students reading progress such as being energetic, uncooperative, temperamental, unwilling to try, uninterested, inattentive, discouraged, frustrated, and unwilling to put forth effort.

PAGE 107

97 Case Study 4: Laura Laura was a twenty year old black female in undergraduate school at the University of Florida in Gainesville, Florida, specializing in literacy education. She had completed six semester hours related to the teaching of reading including Childrens Literature and Emergent Literature. Laura completed Project Book Talk, a field experience reading to small groups of preschool children. She had completed no other field experiences or student teaching. However, she was currently in a student teaching experience in second grade. Laura planned on teaching second or third grade when she graduated. Beliefs and Professional Knowledge About Teaching Reading Lauras beliefs and professional knowledge were compiled from her autobiography, background information sheet, interviews, observations, written expectations and written evaluations. Parental involvement Laura believed that parental involvement is important for reading acquisition. She believed that children struggle with reading acquisition due to a lack of parental involvement. Laura recalled in her autobiography that her family emphasized the need for education, especially reading. Laura recounted that her mother always encouraged her to learn new things. Lauras father is an avid reader, often reading two to three books simultaneously throughout the week. Laura believed it was important to educate parents about the importance of reading to their children. If the family believes that education is very important and that you cant really go anywhere in life without education, then I think that the parents will strive to read to their child. Motivation Laura believed that children learn to read if they are motivated to read. She believed that good readers are interested in books.

PAGE 108

98 I believe that good readers are curious about books before they read them. They try to find out about some background information about the book, by reading the back or doing some other brief research. Laura also believed that motivation could help a child overcome difficulties with reading acquisition. Its all about motivation. If they want to read, then theyre going to do well. Laura described motivation as the reason one of her tutored students was reading on grade level at the end of the tutoring sessions. I think that she just really enjoys reading. Shes excited about books. She tries to see the positive things. I think that helps. Laura described motivation as the reason one of her tutored students was not reading on grade level at the end of the tutoring sessions. She has problems because she doesnt want to make the effort to try. She just doesnt care about reading so she doesnt get any better. Laura believed that the reading specialists role is to give struggling readers a lot of encouragement and high motivation. Readiness. Laura believed that children will learn to read when they are developmentally ready to read. She believed that she learned to read before she entered school with no formal instruction because she was ready to read. My parents started reading to me soon after I was born. When I began school I already had a good understanding of letters, words, sentences, and the general rules of reading. I remember wanting to read all kinds of books. Access and exposure to print Laura believed that children learn to read by being given access and exposure to print. She recalled that her parents began reading to her as soon as she was born and credits this with her ease of reading acquisition and love of reading. Laura described why she believes some children have difficulty with reading acquisition.

PAGE 109

99 If children are not read to consistently at a young age they may have difficulties understanding the rules of reading: where to begin reading, when to pause and stop, what words need capital letters, etc. Socioeconomic status Laura believed that children struggle with reading acquisition because of the influence of their socioeconomic status. In an interview she described the differences between her students that she considered lower middle class and her students that she considered middle class. I think that background makes a huge difference because the lower middle class dont read as much at home and they want to do something else. And the higher middle class read more and have more and their parents try to help them become more excited about learning. Whereas, the lower middle class have to concentrate on the more practical things and dont worry about learning. They just do what they have to do so they can get on with life. So, I think it makes a huge difference. Behavior. Laura believed that children struggle with reading acquisition because of poor behavior. She believed that the poor behavior of one person in a group setting influenced the others in the group as well. I think behavior makes a huge difference, huge difference. I think they play off of each other a lot too because when one is having a bad day then it affects their motivation to learn and then the others they just get discouraged too. Reading disability Laura believed that some students who continue to struggle with reading acquisition may have a reading disability that prevents them from making progress. Laura did not know what type of instruction these students would require. She did not believe that she could teach a child to read if that student had a reading disability. Teacher efficacy Laura stated in an interview that she believed that she could teach every child to read proficiently. She hesitantly described her ability to teach all of her students to read. I think so. I think that, yeah. I think it would be easier to work with them in smaller groups. Im not sure if Id be able to figure out how to work with struggling readers in a whole class instruction or something like that. But I think Id be able to help them.

PAGE 110

100 Laura stated later in the interview that she did not believe that she could teach a child to read if that child had a reading disability. Responsibility. Laura believed that it was the responsibility of the reading resource teacher to teach struggling readers because the classroom teacher wouldnt have time for that. In an interview, she described the classroom teachers responsibility for struggling readers. They need to make sure there is no public humiliation because that is the biggest problem. They should model the habit of independent reading time and reading with a partner. Laura believed that struggling readers need help with the specific areas that theyre struggling in and that as a classroom teacher she wont have time to help them each with their individual problems. Laura also believed it was the responsibility of the struggling reader to learn to read. She believed that students often just werent trying. She has problems because she doesnt want to make the effort to try. She just doesnt care about reading so she doesnt get any better. Table 4-15 summarizes Lauras beliefs and professional knowledge about teaching reading. Expectations for Struggling Readers Laura submitted three written expectations for the struggling readers that she was tutoring. Laura had high expectations for the student she was tutoring individually and low expectations for the students she was tutoring in a small group. Text level Laura expected one of her students to be reading on grade level by the end of the tutoring session although she was not aware which text level was considered to be first grade level text by the end of the school year. She did not expect the students in her group to make significant progress in text level during the tutoring sessions.

PAGE 111

101 Table 4-15 Lauras Beliefs and Professional Knowledge About Teaching Reading Theme Belief Parental involvement Parental involvement is important for reading acquisition. Children struggle with reading acquisition because of lack of parental involvement. Motivation Children learn to read if they are motivated to read. Motivation is the most important fact in reading acquisition. Children struggle with reading acquisition because they lack motivation to read. Readiness Children learn to read when they are developmentally ready to read. Access and exposure to print Children learn to read through access and exposure to print. Children struggle with reading acquisition if they are not provided access and experience with print. Socioeconomic status Children struggle with reading acquisition because of their socioeconomic status. Behavior Children struggle with reading acquisition because of poor behavior. Reading disability Some children struggle with reading acquisition because they have a reading disability. Teacher efficacy Will not be able to teach every future student to read proficiently. Will not be able to teach a child with a reading disability to read. Responsibility Responsibility of the reading resource teacher to teach struggling readers to read.

PAGE 112

102 Theme Belief Responsibility of the struggling reader to learn to read. Grade level Laura expected one of her students to be reading on grade level by the end of the tutoring session. She did not expect the students in her group to be reading on grade level by the end of the tutoring sessions. Reading strategies Laura expected her students to improve in their use of strategies, self-correction, and reading rate. She expected her students to improve their sight word vocabulary, comprehension, and decoding skills. She expected her most struggling reader to be able to recognize letters and be able to blend the sounds. Reading disability Laura did not expect any of her students to be diagnosed with a reading disability. Behavior Laura expected her students poor behavior to interfere with their individual progress as well as the progress of the group. Laura expected her students to be more interested, put forth more effort and develop a better attitude toward reading Table 4-16 summarizes Lauras expectations for struggling readers. Influence of beliefs on expectations The influence of Lauras beliefs and professional knowledge on her expectations was evident in her written expectations of struggling readers, her descriptions of her students achievement of her expectations during an interview, and in the debriefing sessions after the observations. Lauras beliefs and professional knowledge influenced both her expectations for struggling readers and her explanations for her students successful or unsuccessful achievement of those expectations.

PAGE 113

103 Table 4-16 Lauras Expectations for Struggling Readers Category Expectations Text Level One student will read at least a Reading Recovery reading level seventeen. Other students will make limited progress in reading text levels. Grade Level One student will read at grade level. Other students will remain below grade level. Reading Strategies Students will improve use of strategies. Students will improve self-correction. Students will improve reading rate. Students will improve sight word vocabulary. Students will improve comprehension. Students will improve decoding skills. Most struggling student will be able to recognize letters and blend sounds. Reading Disability Students do not have a reading disability. Behavior Students poor behavior will interfere with individual progress as well as the progress of the group. Students will be more interested. Students will put forth more effort. Students will develop a better attitude toward reading. Laura did not believe she, as a future classroom teacher, was capable of teaching all of her struggling readers to read and that it was the responsibility of resource teachers to assist struggling readers with their reading acquisition. Lauras expectations for her struggling readers were directly aligned with these beliefs about teaching struggling readers. She had low expectations for all except one of her struggling readers. She expected them to make small text level reading gains and remain reading below grade level.

PAGE 114

104 Lauras beliefs about motivation and poor behavior were also directly aligned with her expectations for her struggling readers. During the first interview, Laura reported that some of her students were meeting her expectations. Laura described the students motivation as the reason for their progress. Laura also reported that some of her students were not meeting her expectations. Laura described the possible reasons for their lack of progress as the students lack of motivation and poor behavior. Instruction for Struggling Readers Modeling. The researcher observed Laura modeling throughout the observed tutoring sessions. Laura modeled fluent reading, using picture clues, decoding, blending, encoding, and rereading strategies. Laura used the whiteboard, magnetic letters, and Elkonin boxes to model these strategies. Wait time The researcher observed throughout the observed tutoring sessions that when a student miscued, Laura would immediately interrupt the students reading and prompt the student to figure out the new word. She did not allow any wait time for the student to self-correct. Lauras prompt was always, whats that word? Laura sometimes would pause for the student to respond after the prompt. Other times she would simply provide the word immediately after the prompt. Prompting The researcher observed that when a student miscued, Laura would prompt the student to look at the word again by saying, Whats that word? If the student did not respond or responded incorrectly, Laura would supply the word. If a student hesitated on a word, Laura would prompt the student, You know that word. She did not model, explicitly teach, or prompt the student for other strategies to identify the unknown word. The researcher observed Laura prompting students to encode words

PAGE 115

105 during writing word work. However, each of these times, Laura sounded out the words herself. Providing answers The researcher observed Laura repeatedly providing the answers to the students rather than allowing students to apply strategies and skills. When students hesitated during reading, Laura would say, You know that word. If the student did still did not correctly identify the word, Laura would provide the word. If a student miscued during reading, Laura would say, Whats that word? Again, if the student did not correctly identify the word, Laura would supply the word. During writing, Laura would provide the correct number of sounds and the sounds in each word and the student would simply write the letters. The student only had to know the letter-sound correspondences and did not have to segment the words into sounds. Text. The researcher noted during every observed lesson, Laura had the students reading text at their frustration level rather than instructional level. Because the text was too difficult, Laura had to provide extensive support for the students to read the text. Laura blamed the students lack of ability to read the text on their motivation. During one observed tutoring session a student struggled on every couple of words. Laura explained that the student wasnt even trying and wanted me to give her all of the answers. Laura expressed her frustration at a students lack of ability to read a text. She just doesnt want to make the effort to try. She just gets frustrated and wants to give up instead of trying to work through it. During the running record the tutor is to simply record the childs reading verbatim with no encouragement, prompting, or input in any way in order to determine if the text is on the childs independent reading level, instructional reading level, or frustration reading level. The researcher observed that when Laura took running records, she provided

PAGE 116

106 prompts, praised for correct reading, nodded her head, pointed out miscues, and said yes when words were read correctly. The researcher noted that Lauras prompting allowed the student to score instructional level on the assessment rather than frustration level. Table 4-17 summarizes Lauras instruction for struggling readers. Table 4 Lauras Instruction for Struggling Readers Category Instruction Modeling Fluent reading. Using picture clues. Decoding. Blending. Encoding. Rereading. Materials: whiteboard, magnetic letters, Elkonin boxes, various texts. Wait Time No wait time after miscue. No wait time after questions or prompts. Prompting Prompted strategy use. Providing Answers Supplied the answers to students rather than let the students apply the strategies and skills. Text Provided frustration level text for students. Influence of Beliefs on Instruction The influence of Lauras beliefs and professional knowledge on her instruction while she was teaching children who were struggling with reading acquisition was evident during the observed tutoring sessions. Lauras beliefs about struggling readers were directly aligned with her instruction for struggling readers. Laura did not believe that she, as a future classroom teacher, was personally capable of or responsible for teaching all of her struggling readers to read due to the

PAGE 117

107 students lack of parental involvement, lack of motivation, lack of developmental readiness, lack of exposure to print, low socioeconomic status, possible reading disability, and poor behavior. These beliefs were directly aligned with her instruction. Laura did not allow wait time after miscues or strategy prompts and supplied the answers to students rather than allowing the students to apply the strategies and skills. This type of instruction reflects the belief that the students are not capable of achieving reading proficiency due to all of the previous factors. These factors would also prevent her from being capable of or responsible for teaching them to read. Evaluation of Struggling Readers Laura submitted three evaluations of the struggling readers that she was tutoring. Her evaluations included the strengths and weaknesses of each student. Her final evaluations were also discussed in the final interview. Text level In her final evaluation, Laura reported that one of her students was reading at a Reading Recovery level 20. She did not report the specific text level of the students in her group. She did say in her final interview that the group was at a much lower level than her individual student. Grade level In her final interview, Laura reported that one of her students was reading on grade level. All of the students in Lauras group were reading below grade level. Reading strategies Laura described the strengths and weaknesses of each of her students reading strategies. Strengths included fluent reading, decoding, sight word vocabulary, taking risks, and good comprehension. Weaknesses included not using strategies, guessing, skipping, no sight word vocabulary, no comprehension, and lacks letter recognition.

PAGE 118

108 Reading disability Laura reported that, to her knowledge, none of her tutored students had been diagnosed with a reading disability. Behavior. Laura reported that her students behavior affected their achievement as well as the other students in her tutoring group. Positive behaviors that Laura reported included enjoying reading new books and being excited about getting to read. Negative behaviors that Laura reported included not being focused, not concentrating, fidgeting, getting off topic, does not enjoy reading, gives up easily, gets upset, distracted, ignores instructions, and disrupts the group. Table 4-18 summarizes Lauras evaluations of struggling readers. Influence of Beliefs on Evaluations The influence of Lauras beliefs and professional knowledge on her evaluations of struggling readers was discovered in her written evaluations. Lauras beliefs about teaching struggling readers were directly aligned with her evaluations of struggling readers. Laura believed that children struggle with reading acquisition because they lack motivation to read and because of poor behavior. These beliefs about motivation and behavior were directly aligned with her evaluations of her struggling readers. Laura reported behaviors and motivation factors that interfered with her students reading progress such as not being focused, not concentrating, fidgeting, getting off topic, does not enjoy reading, gives up easily, distracted, and disruptive. Laura reported positive behaviors such as enjoying reading a new book and being excited about reading that also reflect her belief that motivation is the most important factor in reading acquisition.

PAGE 119

109 Table 4-18 Lauras Evaluation of Struggling Readers Category Evaluation Text level One student is reading on Reading Recovery text level twenty. Other students reading non-specific text level significantly lower than twenty. Grade level One student reading on grade level. Other students reading below grade level. Reading Strategies Student reads fluently. Student decodes. Student improved sight word vocabulary. Student takes risks. Student has good comprehension. Student does not use strategies. Student guesses. Student skips words. Student has no sight word vocabulary. Student has no comprehension. Student lacks letter recognition. Reading Disability Students do not have reading disability. Behavior Student is excited about reading. Student not focused. Student not concentrating. Student fidgeting. Student off topic. Student does not enjoy reading. Student gives up easily. Student gets upset. Student is distracted. Student ignores instructions. Student disrupts the group. Case Study 5: Drew Drew was a twenty-three year old white/Hispanic female graduate student at the University of Florida in Gainesville, Florida, specializing in math and science. She had completed six hours related to the teaching of reading including Childrens Literature and

PAGE 120

110 Emergent Literacy. Drew had tutored a middle school student in reading privately for two years. She completed field experiences in first and second grades. She completed her student teaching in first grade. Drew planned on teaching in grades kindergarten through grade three upon graduation. Beliefs and Professional Knowledge About Teaching Reading Drews beliefs and professional knowledge were compiled from her autobiography, background information sheet, interviews, observations, written expectations, and written evaluations. Parental involvement Drew believed that parental involvement is important for reading acquisition. She believed that children struggle with reading acquisition due to a lack of parental involvement. Drew recalled in her autobiography that the closeness and stability of my family are factors that affected my education. Drew credits her parents as the most important part of my literacy experiences. Motivation Drew believed that children learn to read if they are motivated to read. She recalled her own enthusiasm for reading and writing in elementary school. She believes students will be motivated if they have authentic purposes for reading and writing. She recalled that school assignments took the joy out of reading for me. Drews belief in the power of motivation is evident in her description of the ideal student. The ideal student would want to learn. This student would participate in group discussions and have enthusiasm for class activities. The student would be helpful to their classmates and not be physically or verbally abusive to others. This is all I could ask of a student, that they are eager to learn and are respectful of others. Readiness. Drew believed that children will learn to read when they are developmentally ready to read. Drew described that she learned to read without formal

PAGE 121

111 instruction. She wrote that I feel like learning to read was something that just happened because I was developmentally ready. She also believed that children need to have an authentic purpose for reading. I believe that children learn to read when they are developmentally ready to and when they have a need for it. If a child is developmentally ready to read, but has to reason no read why would they have an interest in it. I believe that a purpose and developmental readiness are the underlying reasons children learn to read. Many children exhibiting reading difficulties at an early age may not be developmentally ready to read. When asked why they need to be able to read many children have no other answer than for school purposes, so they see no authentic purpose for reading. Access and exposure to print Drew believed that children learn to read by being given access and exposure to print. She believed that children will struggle with reading acquisition if they are not provided access and experience with books. She recalled that her parents surrounded her with books, tapes, writing materials, and literacy experiences. She credits this with her readiness to read. Socioeconomic status Drew believed that children struggle with reading acquisition because of the influence of their socioeconomic status. She described her belief about the influence of socioeconomic status in an interview. I think its real important. If theyre at home and theres always noise and something going on. Theyre always moving. Theyre always going somewhere. I dont think they have time to sit down and read. I dont think they see anyone else sitting down and reading. They dont realize how important it is. Behavior Drew believed that children struggle with reading acquisition because of poor behavior. She believed that the poor behavior of one student in a group could affect the achievement of the other students. She described her students frustration, reluctance to participate, attitude, and inattentiveness as barriers to their success. Reading disability Drew believed that some students have difficulties with reading acquisition because they have a reading disability.

PAGE 122

112 There are other students that have difficulties reading, because they have learning disabilities that affect their information processing. These students may be developmentally ready and have a purpose for reading, so their difficulties in processing would be very frustrating. She believed that her students who were not reading on grade level by the end of the tutoring sessions should be referred for testing for a reading disability. Teacher efficacy Drew did not believe that she was capable of teaching all of her students to read. She described the reasons that she would not be able to teach all of her students to read in an interview. I think that theres always going to be a few students that I may not get to the level that I want to get them to. I mean it may be for various reasons. They may not be developmentally ready or may have a learning disability that hasnt been identified. Responsibility. Drew believed it is the responsibility of the reading specialist and the special education teachers to teach struggling readers to read. She described her belief about the responsibility of the classroom teacher for teaching struggling readers in an interview. They need to be understanding. They need to modify objectives from them. They need to know that singling them out or having them read alone or aloud or anything like that is going to make them feel embarrassed. Table 4-19 summarizes Drews beliefs and professional knowledge about teaching reading. Expectations for Struggling Readers Drew submitted three written expectations for the struggling readers she was tutoring. Drews expectations were low for all of her struggling readers. Text level Drew expected her struggling readers to make slow progress in the level of text they were able to read. She was not specific with text levels. She expected

PAGE 123

113 Table 4-19 Drews Beliefs and Professional Knowledge About Teaching Reading Theme Belief Parental involvement Parental involvement is important for reading acquisition. Children struggle with reading acquisition because of lack of parental involvement. Motivation Children learn to read if they are motivated to read. Children struggle with reading acquisition because they lack motivation to read. Readiness Children learn to read when they are developmentally ready to read. Access and exposure to print Children learn to read through access and exposure to literature. Children struggle with reading acquisition if they are not provided access and experience with books. Socioeconomic status Children struggle with reading acquisition because of their socioeconomic status. Behavior Children struggle with reading acquisition because of poor behavior. Reading disability Some children struggle with reading acquisition because they have a reading disability. Teacher efficacy Will not be able to teach every child to read proficiently. Will not be able to teach a child with a reading disability to read. Responsibility Responsibility of reading specialist and special education teacher to teach struggling readers to read.

PAGE 124

114 one student in the group would not ever be able to pass a running record even on a familiar book. Grade level Drew expected her struggling readers to be continue to be reading below grade level at the end of the tutoring sessions. Reading strategies. Drew expected her students to continue to struggle with the use of reading strategies. She was not specific except in regard to one students trouble remembering sight words. He will continue to have trouble reading as long as his memory continues to be as episodic as it is now. He often forgets sight words from one page to the next, and looks back onto a page with the word to remember the situation in which he read it earlier. Reading disability Drew expected one of her students to be diagnosed with a reading disability. She expected that he needed individual instruction by the special education teacher in order to make progress in reading. Behavior. Drew expected the behavior of some of her struggling readers to interfere with their reading progress. This negative behavior included temper tantrums, inattentiveness, unwillingness to participate, and lack of confidence. Table 4-20 summarizes Drews expectations for struggling readers. Influence of beliefs on expectations The influence of Drews beliefs and professional knowledge on her expectations was evident in her written expectations of struggling readers, her descriptions of her students achievement of her expectations during an interview, and in the debriefing sessions after the observations. Drews beliefs and professional knowledge influenced both her expectations for struggling readers and

PAGE 125

115 her explanations for her students successful or unsuccessful achievement of those expectations. Table 4-20 Drews Expectations for Struggling Readers Category Expectations Text level Students will make slow progress in the level of text. Grade level All students will be reading below grade level. Reading strategies All students will continue to struggle with use of strategies. Reading disability One student will be diagnosed with a reading disability. Student will require individual instruction by the special education teacher. Behavior Students poor behavior will interfere with reading progress. Drew did not believe she, as a future classroom teacher, was capable of teaching all of her struggling readers to read and that it was the responsibility of resource teachers to assist struggling readers with their reading acquisition. She did not believe she could teach a child with a reading disability to read. Drews expectations for her struggling readers were directly aligned with these beliefs about teaching struggling readers. She had low expectations for her struggling readers. She expected them to make slow progress in their text level reading gains and remain reading below grade level. She expected one student would be diagnosed with a reading disability and would make little or no progress. Drews beliefs about readiness, poor behavior, and reading disability were also directly aligned with her expectations for her struggling readers. During the first

PAGE 126

116 interview, Drew reported that some of her students were meeting her expectations. Drew described the students readiness as the reason for their progress. Drew also reported that some of her students were not meeting her expectations. Drew described the possible reasons for their lack of progress as the students poor memory, poor behavior, and possible reading disability. Instruction for Struggling Readers Modeling The researcher observed Drew modeling throughout the observed tutoring sessions. Drew modeled fluent reading, using picture clues, decoding, blending, encoding, and rereading strategies. Drew used the whiteboard, magnetic letters, and Elkonin boxes to model these strategies. Wait time The researcher observed throughout the observed tutoring sessions that when a student miscued, Drew would immediately interrupt the students reading and prompt the student to figure out the unknown word. She did not allow wait time for the student to self-correct. The researcher observed that Drew also did not allow wait time after strategy prompts and questions. She would provide the answer or prompt again or ask another question. If the student did not respond immediately, Drew would supply the answer or prompt again or ask another question. Prompting The researcher observed Drew prompting students for strategy use. She prompted students to decode, look at the pictures, use the context, break the word into parts, and reread. The researcher also observed Drew prompt students by rereading the sentence as an oral cloze so that the students could guess the word based on context. Providing answers The researcher observed that Drew usually supplied the answers to students rather than allowing students to apply the strategies and skills. The researcher observed that if the student did not respond right away, Drew would supply

PAGE 127

117 the answer herself or sound out the word for the student. The researcher noted that Drew supplied more answers for the students at the lower text levels than the students at higher text levels. During one observed lesson, the researcher observed Drew helping a student read a new book. The student was struggling on nearly every word. After a miscue Drew did not allow any time for self-correction. She immediately pointed to the word and began to sound it out. There was no wait time in between her prompts or questions. Look at that word. Thats a b sound. That says b an-d. So what is the word? What is the word? The word is band. The researcher noted that the student was not even looking at the text during this interaction. Text The researcher noted that Drews students were reading text at their frustration level. During the running record, the researcher observed that Drew recorded the childs reading verbatim with no encouragement, prompting, or input in any way. The student did not pass the running record. However, later in the lesson the researcher observed the child reading in a text so difficult for him that in one eight word sentence he only knew two of the words. Drew had to provide extensive assistance in order to finish the text. The child was clearly frustrated smashing his hands into his face, pulling his hair, and sucking his fingers. Drew did not seem to realize that the book was too difficult for the child. After the session she explained why she thought the student would pass the running record on this book the next day. I chose it because I knew he wasnt going to pass the running record today at a level seven. This book had fewer words and it seemed to be a lot easier level seven than the one he was reading for the running record today. So hopefully hell be able to pass this running record tomorrow. He struggled with a lot less words than he did the other one.

PAGE 128

118 Table 4-21 summarizes Drews instruction for struggling readers. Table 4-21 Drews Instruction for Struggling Readers Category Instruction Modeling Fluent reading. Using picture clues. Decoding. Blending. Encoding. Rereading. Materials: whiteboard, magnetic letters, Elkonin boxes, various texts. Wait Time No wait time after miscue. No wait time after questions or prompts. Prompting Prompted strategy use. Providing Answers Supplied the answers to students rather than let the students apply the strategies and skills. Text Provided frustration level text for students. Influence of Beliefs on Instruction The influence of Drews beliefs and professional knowledge on her instruction while she was teaching children who were struggling with reading acquisition was evident during the observed tutoring sessions. Drews beliefs about struggling readers were directly aligned with her instruction for struggling readers. Drew did not believe that she, as a future classroom teacher, was personally capable of or responsible for teaching all of her struggling readers to read due to the students lack of parental involvement, lack of motivation, lack of developmental readiness, lack of exposure to print, low socioeconomic status, possible reading disability, and poor behavior. These beliefs were directly aligned with her instruction. Drew did not allow wait time after miscues or strategy prompts and supplied the answers

PAGE 129

119 to students rather than allowing the students to apply the strategies and skills. This type of instruction reflects the belief that the students are not capable of achieving reading proficiency due to all of the previous factors. These factors would also prevent her from being capable of or responsible for teaching them to read. Evaluation of Struggling Readers Drew submitted three written evaluations of the struggling readers she was tutoring. Her evaluations included the strengths and weaknesses of each student. Text level In her final evaluations, Drew reported that one of her students was reading a Reading Recovery text level 12, one student a level 19, and the four students in her small group a level 9. Drew reported that two of the students in the small group were actually reading below level 9 if they were not in the group. Grade level Drew reported that one of her struggling readers was reading on grade level. The four students in Drews small tutoring group were all reading well below grade level at a level 9 or below and one student was near grade level at a level 12. Reading strategies Drew described the strengths and weaknesses of each of her students reading strategies. Strengths included using picture clues and decoding. Weaknesses included phonemic awareness, semantics, memory, self confidence, letter-sound correspondences, blending, self-correcting, sight word vocabulary, and fluency. Reading disability Drew suspected that her student who was struggling the most with reading acquisition had a reading disability. She wrote about her future expectations for him in her final evaluation. I expect that he will stay below grade level in reading and will be placed in a class where he will receive more individual attention.

PAGE 130

120 In the final interview Drew talked about the kind of instruction this student will need. I think hes going to need some further help. He probably needs pretty intensive or small group help. He may end up being in special education for a learning disability or maybe even emotional because I think he might need some emotional help. Behavior Drew reported that her students behavior affected their progress in reading. Positive behaviors that Drew reported included that her students enjoyed reading and had a good attitude when they were successful. Negative behaviors that Drew reported included getting frustrated and discouraged easily during reading, inattentiveness, refusing to participate, lack of self-confidence, attitude, temper tantrums, and throwing books. Table 4-22 summarizes Drews evaluations of struggling readers. Influence of Beliefs on Evaluations The influence of Drews beliefs and professional knowledge on her evaluations of struggling readers was discovered in her written evaluations. Drews beliefs about teaching struggling readers were directly aligned with her evaluations of struggling readers. Drew believed that children struggle with reading acquisition because they have a reading disability. This belief is evident in her evaluations of her struggling readers. Drew included in her evaluations of her most struggling reader that he probably had a reading disability that interfered with his ability to make progress even though he had not been tested or diagnosed with any type of reading disability. Drew also believed that she, as a future classroom teacher, was not capable of teaching a child with a reading disability to read. Her evaluation reflected this belief as Drew believed that the child who was still struggling the most with reading acquisition after her tutoring must have a reading disability and that would explain her inability to teach him to read.

PAGE 131

121 Table 4-22 Drews Evaluation of Struggling Readers Category Evaluation Text level Reading Recovery levels 19, 12, and 9. Two may be reading lower than current group level of 9. Grade level One student reading on grade level. Five students reading below grade level. Reading Strategies Student uses picture clues. Student decodes. Student lacks phonemic awareness. Student does not use semantics. Student has poor memory. Student lacks letter-sound correspondences. Student can not blend. Student does not self-correct. Student has small sight word vocabulary. Student lacks fluency. Reading Disability Student probably has reading disability. Student will qualify for special education. Behavior Student has enjoys reading. Student has a good attitude. Student gets frustrated. Student gets discouraged. Student is inattentive. Student refuses to participate. Student lacks confidence. Student has a bad attitude. Student has temper tantrums Student throws books. Drew also believed that children struggle with reading acquisition because they lack motivation to read and because of poor behavior. These beliefs about motivation and behavior were directly aligned with her evaluations of her struggling readers. Drew reported behaviors and motivation factors that interfered with her students reading progress such as being frustrated, discouraged, inattentive, lacks confidence, bad attitude, and refusal to participate. Drew reported positive behaviors such as enjoying reading and

PAGE 132

122 having a good attitude that also reflects her belief that children learn to read if they are motivated. Case Study 6: Kerry Kerry was a twenty-four year old white female graduate student at the University of Florida in Gainesville, Florida, specializing in childrens literature. She had completed six semester hours related to the teaching of reading including Emergent Literacy and Language Arts for Diverse Learning. Kerry completed her student teaching in fourth grade. She completed field experiences in first, second, and fifth grades. Kerry planned on teaching in first grade upon graduation. Beliefs and Professional Knowledge About Teaching Reading Kerrys beliefs and professional knowledge were compiled from her autobiography, background information sheet, interviews, observations, written expectations, and evaluations. Parental involvement Kerry believed that parental involvement is important for reading acquisition. Kerry believed that good readers begin with parent involvement before formal schooling begins. As the youngest member of the family, Kerry remembered that her mother was able to spend a lot of time with her during the days before she went to school. Reading was always valued in Kerrys house. She credited this parental involvement with the ease of her reading acquisition. She believed that some children struggle with reading acquisition due to a lack of parental involvement. She believed that both of her tutored students parents were involved in their childrens education. I know that one student takes all of his stuff home with him and he works on stuff at home. He told me that he practices with his mom and stuff like that. I think the

PAGE 133

123 other student gets practice reading at home. I know his parents are involved in his education. Motivation Kerry believed that children learn to read if they are motivated to read. Kerry recalled that reading came very easily to her and that she has always enjoyed reading. She believed this was probably because she never had to struggle with reading. Kerry believed that children need to have positive experiences with reading and books so that they will be motivated. I also think that to be a good reader, you have to have positive experiences with books and reading. Children who are forced to read or who are reading things that they are not interested in will not make as much progress. Kerry believed that both of the students she was tutoring were motivated to learn. I would say I have one that is very motivated and one I think is motivated. One student is very self-motivated. He enjoys what hes doing and he loves the extending literacy when we bring in all kinds of things. And the other its kind of hard to tell because he kind of holds back a lot. But I think he is motivated also. Readiness Kerry believed that children will learn to read when they are developmentally ready. She recalled that as she first began reading, she was actually reciting books she had memorized. She does not remember when she actually connected the words on the page with what she was saying, but was able to read on her own by the time she was four without formal instruction. She believes this is because she was developmentally ready to read. Access and exposure to print Kerry believed that children learn to read by being given access and exposure to print. Kerry strongly believed that reading to children will help them to become better and avid readers. She recalled everyone in her family reading to her before she learned to read. I believe that a good reader first begins in the home. Children who are read to, sung to, and talked to as much as possible will have it much easier when it comes to learning to read.

PAGE 134

124 Kerry believed that children will struggle with reading acquisition if they are not provided access and experience with books. Many children have not been exposed to books and texts before. These early experiences (or lack of) keep snowballing until the child is virtually unable to pass due to a lack of reading skills. Socioeconomic status Kerry believed that children struggle with reading acquisition because of the influence of their socioeconomic status. She believed that parents of low-income students would not be able to assist their children. I see kids that come in and they dont know how to look through a book or how to find things in a book. And the parents are not educated enough to help. Behavior. Kerry believed that children struggle with reading acquisition because of poor behavior. She believed that lack of attention and problems staying focused would limit reading achievement. Reading disability Kerry believed that some students who continue to struggle with reading acquisition may have a reading disability that prevents them from making progress. Kerry believed these students needed practice and someone to listen to them read. She believed that she could teach a child to read if that student had a reading disability. Teacher efficacy Kerry believed that she would be able to teach all of her future students to read proficiently. I think with a combination of reading instruction and then being able to work with small groups and use these strategies that will be helpful for struggling readers in my classroom so that they can catch up. I feel that many children have problems with reading because most classrooms teachers teach one way of reading and if that way doesnt work, too bad. It is important that students are taught a variety of steps and strategies they can use to get through words and books.

PAGE 135

125 Responsibility. Kerry believed that it is the responsibility of the parents and the classroom teacher to teach struggling readers to read. Im a big believer that it starts at home. If kids dont have exposure to songs and nursery rhymes and books at home, its going to be a lot harder for them when they get to school. And I dont think it necessary should be all the classroom teachers responsibility. I think parents need to step up and help too. Table 4-23 summarizes Kerrys beliefs and professional knowledge about teaching reading. Expectations for Struggling Readers Kerry submitted three written expectations for the two struggling readers that she was tutoring. Kerrys expectations were high for both students. Text level Kerry expected her students to be able to read grade level text by the end of the tutoring sessions. She expected their progress in text levels to slow as they texts became longer and more difficult. Grade level. Kerry expected both of her students to be reading on grade level by the end of the tutoring sessions. Reading strategies Kerry expected her students to improve their reading strategies as they began to pay better attention. She also expected their sight word vocabulary to improve with more reading practice. Reading disability Kerry did not expect any of her students to be diagnosed with a reading disability. Behavior Kerry expected her students to remain easily distracted and need to be reminded to stay focused. She expected her students to become more confident.

PAGE 136

126 Table 4-23 Kerrys Beliefs and Professional Knowledge About Teaching Reading Theme Belief Parental involvement Parental involvement is important for reading acquisition. Children struggle with reading acquisition because of lack of parental involvement. Motivation Children learn to read if they are motivated to read. Children struggle with reading acquisition because they lack motivation to read. Readiness Children learn to read when they are developmentally ready to read. Access and exposure to print Children learn to read through access and exposure to print. Children struggle with reading acquisition if they are not provided access and experience with print. Socioeconomic status Children struggle with reading acquisition because of their socioeconomic status. Behavior Children struggle with reading acquisition because of poor behavior. Reading disability Some children struggle with reading acquisition because they have a reading disability. Teacher efficacy Will be able to teach every student to read proficiently. Responsibility Responsibility of parents and classroom teacher to teach struggling readers. Table 4-24 summarizes Kerrys expectations for struggling readers. Influence of beliefs on expectations The influence of Kerrys beliefs and professional knowledge on her expectations was evident in her written expectations of struggling readers, her descriptions of her students achievement of her expectations

PAGE 137

127 during an interview, and in the debriefing sessions after the observations. Kerrys beliefs and professional knowledge influenced both her expectations for struggling readers and her explanations for her students successful or unsuccessful achievement of those expectations. Table 4-24 Kerrys Expectations for Struggling Readers Category Expectations Text level Students will read grade level text. Progress in text levels will slow as text becomes longer and more difficult. Grade level Students will read on grade level. Reading strategies Students will improve their use of strategies. Sight word vocabulary will improve. Reading disability Students do not have a reading disability. Behavior Students will remain easily distracted. Students will become more confident. Kerry believed that she, as a future classroom teacher, was personally capable of teaching her struggling readers to read and that she was responsible for teaching them to read. Kerrys expectations for her struggling readers were directly aligned with these beliefs about teaching struggling readers. She had high expectations for both of her struggling readers and expected both of her students to be reading on grade level and improve their reading strategies. During the first interview, Kerry reported that both of her students were meeting her expectations. Kerry described the tutoring as the reason for their progress. This expectation illustrates the influence of her teacher efficacy belief on her expectations.

PAGE 138

128 Instruction for Struggling Readers Modeling. The researcher observed Kerry modeling throughout the observed tutoring sessions. She modeled fluent reading, using picture clues, decoding, blending, encoding, and rereading strategies. Kerry used the whiteboard, magnetic letters, and Elkonin boxes to model these strategies. Wait time. The researcher observed throughout the observed tutoring sessions that when a student miscued, Kerry would immediately interrupt the students reading and prompt the student to figure out the word. However, after pointing to the miscue, Kerry would allow the student to attempt again or give the student a strategy prompt and wait for the student to attempt the unknown word. Kerry usually did not provide any wait time after a miscue to allow for self-correction during the observed tutoring sessions. Kerry did always allow wait time after a strategy prompt for the students to apply the strategy. Prompting. The researcher observed that Kerry often prompted students to apply a reading strategy. She prompted students to reread, decode, look for little words within the word, look at the pictures, and segment sounds. She prompted students to think about whether a miscue made sense or sounded correct in the sentence. Kerry always allowed time for the student to apply the strategy. Providing answers The researcher observed that Kerry rarely supplied the answers to students. Kerrys students did the work themselves and Kerry let the students apply the strategies and skills. She had the students figure out unknown words on their own. Kerry would provide more coaching when a student was not successful right away. However, she only gave the students the word once or twice when it seemed the student was not going to be able to figure out the word. During the writing portion of an observed lesson, the researcher observed that the student was not participating when Kerry was working

PAGE 139

129 on segmenting the word into sounds. Kerry immediately stopped and told the student, Oh, no, you do it with me. Kerry and the student did the segmenting together and then Kerry had the student segment the word on his own. Text. The researcher noted that Kerrys students were reading text at their instructional level. Since the text was at their instructional level, Kerry did not have to provide extensive support so that the students were able to read the text. During the running record, Drew recorded the childs reading verbatim with no encouragement, prompting, or input in any way. The researcher noted that this correct implementation of the assessment technique allowed Kerry to know the students correct instructional level. Table 4-25 summarizes Kerrys instruction for struggling readers. Table 4-25 Kerrys Instruction for Struggling Readers Category Instruction Modeling Fluent reading. Using picture clues. Decoding. Blending. Encoding. Rereading. Materials: whiteboard, magnetic letters, Elkonin boxes, various texts. Wait Time No wait time after miscue. Allows wait time after questions or prompts. Prompting Prompted strategy use. Providing Answers Tutor did not provide the answers to students. Students apply the strategies and skills. Text Provided instructional level text for students. Influence of Beliefs on Instruction The influence of Kerrys beliefs and professional knowledge on her instruction while she was teaching children who were struggling with reading acquisition was evident during the observed tutoring sessions.

PAGE 140

130 Kerrys beliefs about teaching struggling readers were directly aligned with her instruction for struggling readers. Kerry believed that she, as a future classroom teacher, was personally capable of and responsible for teaching all of her struggling readers to read. Her belief and professional knowledge that she was capable of teaching all students to read is evident in the type of instruction she provided to her students. Kerry allowed wait time after prompts, allowed students to apply the strategies and skills themselves, and provided instructional level text. This type of instruction was reflective of her high teacher efficacy and responsibility. She believed that she was capable of teaching her students and, therefore, they would be able to apply the strategies and skills that she taught them. Evaluation of Struggling Readers Kerry submitted three written evaluations of the struggling readers that she was tutoring. Her evaluations included the strengths and weaknesses of each student. Her final evaluations were also discussed in the final interview. Text level In her final evaluation, Kerry reported that one of her students was reading at a Reading Recovery level 20 and the other student was reading at a level 17 at the end of the tutoring sessions. Grade level. Both of Kerrys students were reading on grade level at the end of the tutoring sessions. Reading strategies Kerry described the strengths and weaknesses of her students reading strategies. Strengths included good memory, good decoding, reads with expression and intonation, good reading rate. Weaknesses included rushing through reading, not self-correcting, small sight word vocabulary, and difficulty understanding letter blends and vowel combinations.

PAGE 141

131 Reading disability Kerry reported that, to her knowledge, none of her tutored students had been diagnosed with a reading disability. Behavior Kerry reported that her students behavior affected their reading achievement. Kerry reported that being determined was a positive behavior. Negative behaviors that Kerry reported included being frustrated, having difficulty concentrating, becoming easily distracted, having anxiety, and a reluctance to read. Table 4-26 summarizes Kerry evaluations of struggling readers. Table 4-26 Kerrys Evaluation of Struggling Readers Category Evaluation Text level Students reading on Reading Recovery levels 17 and 20. Grade level Students reading on grade level. Reading strategies Student has good memory. Student decodes. Student reads with prosody. Student has good reading rate. Student rushes through reading. Student not self-correcting. Student has small sight word vocabulary. Student has difficulty with letter blends and vowel combinations. Reading disability Students do not have reading disability. Behavior Student is determined. Student becomes frustrated. Student having difficulty concentrating. Student easily distracted. Student has anxiety. Student is reluctant to read. Influence of Beliefs on Evaluations The influence of Kerrys beliefs and professional knowledge on her evaluations of struggling readers was discovered in her

PAGE 142

132 written evaluations. Kerrys beliefs about teaching struggling readers were directly aligned with her evaluations of struggling readers. Kerry also believed that children struggle with reading acquisition because they lack motivation to read and because of poor behavior. These beliefs about motivation and behavior were directly aligned with her evaluations of her struggling readers. Kerry reported behaviors and motivation factors that interfered with her students reading progress such as being frustrated, having difficulty concentrating, easily distracted, and reluctant to read. Kerry reported positive behaviors such being determined that also reflect her belief that children learn to read if they are motivated. Kerrys teacher efficacy belief was stronger than her beliefs about motivation and behavior as she believed that she could teach all of her students to read. Cross-Case Analysis The case study approach utilized in the present study was a multiple case study design. As described in Merriam (1998), the researcher performed two stages of analysis in this multiple case study. First, the researcher performed a within-case analysis, where each case was viewed as a comprehensive case in and of itself. The researcher began cross-case analysis upon completion of the analysis of each individual case. In this cross-case analysis the researcher attempted to see processes and outcomes that occur across many cases, to understand how they are qualified by local conditions, and thus develop more sophisticated descriptions and more powerful explanations (Miles & Huberman, 1994b). Comparative analysis of the six cases yielded similar as well as discrepant cases and were used to form more general explanations among the cases of the preservice teachers.

PAGE 143

133 The following research questions were answered based upon the analysis of the data collected from the background information sheets of the participants, autobiographies of the participants, interviews with the participants, observations of the participants, and the participants written expectations and evaluations of struggling readers. Research Question 1: What are preservice teachers beliefs and professional knowledge about teaching reading in general and teaching struggling readers in particular? The participants beliefs and professional knowledge identified in the data collected were classified into nine categories. These categories are: 1) parental involvement, 2) motivation, 3) readiness, 4) access and exposure to print, 5) socioeconomic status, 6) behavior, 7) reading disability, 8) teacher efficacy, and 9) responsibility. Because it is necessary to classify and organize the preservice teachers beliefs and professional knowledge in a manageable system for data analysis, the interpretation included in these descriptions of preservice teachers beliefs and professional knowledge may be simplified representations of complex belief systems. The researcher has attempted to describe and represent the beliefs and professional knowledge of these preservice teachers accurately while attempting to understand the influence of these complex interactions. All of the preservice teachers shared some common beliefs and professional knowledge about teaching readers. Some of the common beliefs shared by all participants included the beliefs that parental involvement is important for reading acquisition, children learn to read if they are motivated to read, children learn to read if they are developmentally ready to read, and children learn to read through access and exposure to

PAGE 144

134 print. They also shared the beliefs that children struggle with reading acquisition without one of the aforementioned conditions or because of their socioeconomic status, poor behavior, or because they have a reading disability. These common beliefs and professional knowledge were probably based upon their similar experiences learning to read, successful school careers, and their similar professional preparation as students in a teacher education program at one public university. The participants differed in some of their other beliefs and professional knowledge. Some participants believed that it was the classroom teachers responsibility to teach struggling readers. Some participants believed it was the responsibility of the resource teachers to teach struggling readers. Still others believed parents were at least partially responsible for this task. One participant believed that the struggling reader was responsible for learning to read. Only two of the participants believed that they would be able to teach all of their students to read proficiently. The other four participants believed that they would be able to teach the majority of their students to read proficiently. They did not believe that they would be able to teach all of their struggling readers to read and they did not believe they would be able to teach a student with a reading disability to read. Table 4-27 summarizes the beliefs and professional knowledge of the six participants. Research Question 2: How do preservice teachers beliefs and professional knowledge influence their expectations for struggling readers? The participants expectations for struggling readers were classified into five categories. These categories are 1) text level, 2) grade level, 3) reading strategies, 4)

PAGE 145

135 Table 4-27 Preservice Teachers Beliefs and Professional Knowledge about Teaching Reading Beliefs and Professional Knowledge Cindy Erin Nancy Laura Drew Kerry Parental involvement is important for reading acquisition. + + + + + + Children struggle with reading acquisition because of lack of parental involvement. + + + + + + Children learn to read if they are motivated to read. + + + + + + Children struggle with reading acquisition because they lack motivation to read. + + + + + + Motivation is the most important factor in reading acquisition. + Children learn to read when they are developmentally ready to read. + + + + + + Children learn to read through access and exposure to print. + + + + + + Children struggle with reading acquisition if they are not provided access and experience with print. + + + + + + Children struggle with reading acquisition because of their socioeconomic status. + + + + + + Children struggle with reading acquisition because of poor behavior. + + + + + + Some children struggle with reading acquisition because they have a reading disability + + + + + + Can not personally teach a student with a reading disability to read. + + + + Will not be able to teach every child to read proficiently. + + + + Can teach every child to read proficiently. + + Responsibility of the classroom teacher to teach struggling students to read. + +

PAGE 146

136 Table 4-27. Continued Beliefs and Professional Knowledge Cindy Erin Nancy Laura Drew Kerry Responsibility of the resource teachers to teach struggling readers to read. + + + + Responsibility of the school to teach struggling readers to read. + Responsibility of the parents to teach struggling readers to read. + + Responsibility of the struggling reader to learn to read. + + reading disability, and 5) behavior. Participants expectations were classified as high expectations or low expectations based upon their expectations for text level progress and grade level reading achievement. Two of the participants had high expectations for all of their struggling readers. Three participants had low expectations for all of their struggling readers. One of the participants had high expectations for the individual student she was tutoring and low expectations for the students she was tutoring in a small group. Table 4-28 summarizes the six participants expectations for struggling readers. Table 4-28 Preservice Teachers Expectations for Struggling Readers Expectations Cindy Erin Nancy Laura Drew Kerry All students will make significant improvement in reading text levels. + + All students will be reading on grade level. + + One or more students will be diagnosed with a reading disability. + + + + Poor behavior will interfere with progress. + + + + + + The influence of the preservice teachers beliefs and professional knowledge on their expectations was evident in their written expectations of struggling readers, their

PAGE 147

137 descriptions of their students achievement of their expectations during an interview, and in the debriefing sessions after the observations. Preservice teachers beliefs and professional knowledge influenced both their expectations for struggling readers and their explanations for their students successful or unsuccessful achievement of those expectations. The two preservice teachers who believed that they were personally capable of teaching all of their struggling readers to read also expected all of their struggling readers to learn to read on grade level. These two preservice teachers had high expectations for all of their students and believed they were responsible for teaching them to read. When the students met their expectations, these preservice teachers believed that their instruction was responsible for the students progress. When the students did not meet their expectations, these preservice teachers believed that they were responsible for providing the students more instruction to meet their needs. This illustrates the influence of preservice teachers teacher efficacy and responsibility beliefs on their expectations for struggling readers. The four preservice teachers who did not believe that they were personally capable of teaching all of their struggling readers to read also expected their struggling readers to remain below grade level at the end of the tutoring sessions. These preservice teachers had low expectations for almost all of their students and believed that it was the responsibility of a resource teacher or the parents to help these students learn to read. Two of the preservice teachers believed that the struggling reader shared the responsibility for learning to read. When the students met these preservice teachers expectations, the preservice teachers believed that the student was ready and motivated to learn. When the students did not meet these preservice teachers expectations, the

PAGE 148

138 preservice teachers described reasons intrinsic to the students such as not motivated to learn to read, low socioeconomic status, lack of developmental readiness, possible reading disability, or poor behavior. The preservice teachers teacher efficacy beliefs and beliefs about responsibility were directly aligned with their expectations for struggling readers. When the preservice teachers believed that they were capable of and responsible for teaching all of their struggling readers to read, they had high expectations for their struggling readers. When the preservice teachers believed that they were not capable of or responsible for teaching all of their struggling readers to read, they had low expectations for their struggling readers. When the students met these preservice teachers expectations, the preservice teachers believed that the student was ready and motivated to learn. When the students did not meet these preservice teachers expectations, the preservice teachers described reasons intrinsic to the student such as not motivated to learn to read, low socioeconomic status, lack of developmental readiness, possible reading disability, or poor behavior. Table 4-29 illustrates the relationship between the preservice teachers beliefs and professional knowledge and their expectations for struggling readers. Research Question 3: How do preservice teachers beliefs and professional knowledge influence their instruction for struggling readers? The preservice teachers instruction for struggling readers was classified into five categories. These categories are 1) modeling, 2) wait time, 3) prompting, 4) providing answers, and 5) text. After analyzing the preservice teachers instruction, the researcher then classified the participants as coaches or supplier. The coaches provided instruction that allowed for student application and challenged students to apply the new strategies

PAGE 149

139 and skills at higher levels. The students tutored by the coaches were active and engaged in the activities. The suppliers provided all the answers for students and did not allow students to practice and apply the strategies and skills. The students tutored by the coaches were passive learners. Table 4-29 Relationship between Preservice Teachers Beliefs and Professional Knowledge and their Expectations for Struggling Readers High Teacher Efficacy = High Expectations Low Teacher Efficacy = Low Expectations Student meeting expectations Tutor responsible Instruction responsible Student motivated Student ready to read No learning disability Student responsible Student motivated Student ready to learn Student not meeting expectations Tutor responsible Need additional instruction May have learning disability Student responsible Resource teacher responsible Parent responsible Student not motivated Student has low socioeconomic status Student not ready to read Possible reading disability Poor behavior Only one preservice teacher included in the study, Kerry, could be classified as a full-time coach. Kerry modeled and prompted for strategy use and allowed wait time after prompts for student application of the strategies and skills. She did not, however, provide wait time after a miscue for a student to possibly self-correct. Kerry provided instructional level text for her students so that they were able to read and practice skills at the appropriate level without becoming frustrated.

PAGE 150

140 One other preservice teacher, Erin, was classified as a part-time coach as she modeled and prompted for strategy use and allowed wait time after prompts for student application of the strategies and skills. Like Kerry, she did not provide wait time after a miscue for a student to possibly self-correct. However, unlike Kerry, Erin did not provide instructional level text for her students throughout all of the tutoring sessions. In the earlier tutoring sessions, Erin did provide instructional level text so that her students were able to read and practice strategies and skills. However, by the end of the tutoring sessions, Erin was providing frustration level texts to her students. While using frustration level texts, Erins students were not able to read and practice skills at the appropriate level without becoming frustrated. This caused Erin to provide higher and higher levels of support and provide more of the answers to her students as the text was too difficult for them to read and apply their knowledge and skills. She continued to prompt students to apply strategies and skills themselves. However, the frustration level of the text made this difficult. For this reason, Erin was classified as a part-time coach. The remaining four preservice teachers were all classified as suppliers. All four of these preservice teachers modeled and prompted for strategy use. However, they did not provide wait time after prompts or miscues for student application of the strategies and skills. These preservice teachers did not provide instructional level text for their students. Because of this, students were not able to read and practice skills at the appropriate level without becoming frustrated. All four of these preservice teachers provided extensive levels of support and supplied answers to their students rather than allowing them to read and apply their knowledge and skills. For these reasons they were classified as suppliers. Table 4-30 summarizes the six participants instruction for struggling readers.

PAGE 151

141 Table 4-30 Preservice Teachers Instruction for Struggling Readers Instruction Cindy Erin Nancy Laura Drew Kerry Model + + + + + + Prompt strategy use + + + + + + Allow wait time after miscue Allow wait time after prompt + + Allow students to apply strategies and skills + + Provide instructional level text +/+ The influence of the preservice teachers beliefs and professional knowledge on their instruction while they were teaching children who were struggling with reading acquisition was evident during the observed tutoring sessions. The preservice teachers beliefs about teaching struggling readers were directly aligned with their instruction for struggling readers. The two preservice teachers who believed that they were personally capable of teaching all of their struggling readers to read were the two participants classified as coaches, who allowed wait time after prompts, allowing students to apply the strategies and skills, and providing instructional level text most of the time. These two preservice teachers were also the participants who believed that they were responsible for providing the students instruction to meet their needs. This type of instruction was reflective of their high teacher efficacy and responsibility. These preservice teachers believed that they were capable of teaching their students to read. Therefore, their students would be able to apply the strategies and skills that they taught them. This illustrates the influence of their teacher efficacy and responsibility beliefs on their instruction for struggling readers.

PAGE 152

142 The four preservice teachers who did not believe that they were personally capable of or responsible for teaching all of their struggling readers to read were the four participants classified as suppliers. These preservice teachers did not believe that they were personally capable of or responsible for teaching all of their struggling readers to read due to the students lack of parental involvement, lack of motivation, lack of developmental readiness, lack of exposure to print, low socioeconomic status, possible reading disability, and poor behavior. These beliefs were directly aligned with their instruction. These preservice teachers did not allow wait time after miscues or strategy prompts and supplied the answers to students rather than allowing the students to apply the strategies and skills. This type of instruction reflects the belief that the preservice teachers would not be able to teach the students to read due to all of the previous factors. These factors would prevent the preservice teachers from being capable of or responsible for teaching the students to read. This illustrates the influence of their teacher efficacy beliefs and responsibility beliefs on their instruction for struggling readers. The preservice teachers teacher efficacy beliefs and beliefs about responsibility were directly aligned with their instruction for struggling readers. When the preservice teachers believed that they were capable of and responsible for teaching all of their struggling readers to read, they provided instruction that allowed for student application and challenged students to apply the new strategies and skills at higher levels. When the preservice teachers believed that they were not capable of or responsible for teaching all of their struggling readers to read, they supplied all of the answers for students and did not allow students to practice and apply the strategies and skills.

PAGE 153

143 Table 4-31 illustrates the relationship between the preservice teachers beliefs and professional knowledge and their instruction for struggling readers. Table 4-31 Relationship between Preservice Teachers Beliefs and Professional Knowledge and their Instruction for Struggling Readers Coach Supplier Preservice Teacher Belief or Professional Knowledge Able to teach all students to read Responsible for teaching all students to read Not able to teach all students to read Not responsible for teaching all students to read Preservice Teacher Instruction Model Prompt strategy use Allow wait time after prompt Allow students to apply strategies and skills Model Prompt strategy use Do not allow wait time after prompt Do not allow students to apply strategies and skills Research Question 4: How do preservice teachers beliefs and professional knowledge influence their evaluation of struggling readers? The preservice teachers evaluations of struggling readers were classified into five categories. These categories are 1) text level, 2) grade level, 3) reading strategies, 4) reading disability, and 5) behavior. The preservice teachers reported the strengths and weaknesses of their students in these written evaluations. The participants included in their evaluations the text level, whether or not the student was reading on grade level, and the strengths and weaknesses of their reading strategies. All of the participants also included evaluations of student behavior in their reports including conclusions that behavior had interfered with student progress. Four of the preservice teachers included in

PAGE 154

144 their evaluations that their students who continued to struggle with reading acquisition probably had some type of reading disability. The influence of the preservice teachers beliefs and professional knowledge on their evaluations of struggling readers was discovered in their written evaluations. The preservice teachers beliefs about teaching struggling readers were directly aligned with their evaluations of struggling readers. All of the preservice teachers believed that children struggle with reading acquisition because they lack motivation to read and because of poor behavior. These beliefs about motivation and behavior were directly aligned with the preservice teachers evaluations of their struggling readers. All of the preservice teachers reported behaviors and motivation factors that interfered with their students reading progress such as being distracted, frustrated, uncooperative, temperamental, discouraged, disruptive, unwilling to try, giving up easily, or unwilling to participate. The preservice teachers beliefs and professional knowledge was reflected in these evaluations of struggling readers motivation and behavior. All of the preservice teachers believed that some children struggle with reading acquisition because they have a reading disability. This belief is evident in their evaluations of their struggling readers. Five of the six participants had students who continued to struggle with reading acquisition at the end of the tutoring sessions. Of those five participants, four of them included in their evaluations that their most struggling readers probably had a reading disability that interfered with their ability to make progress even though they had not been tested or diagnosed with any type of reading disability. The preservice teachers belief that children who continue to struggle with

PAGE 155

145 reading acquisition must have a reading disability would explain for the preservice teachers the students lack of progress and their inability to teach them to read. This is significant because of those five participants who believed at least one of their students had a reading disability, only one of those believed she was capable of or responsible for teaching a child with a reading disability to read. As reported in the previous sections, when the preservice teachers did not believe they were capable of or responsible for teaching a child to read, their expectations were low and their instruction provided excessive support with little opportunity for student growth in reading achievement. This illustrates the complex relationship between preservice teachers beliefs and professional knowledge and their expectations, instruction, and evaluation of struggling readers. Table 4-32 illustrates the relationship between the preservice teachers beliefs and professional knowledge and expectations, instruction and evaluation of struggling readers. Summary The preservice teachers included in this study had both distinct and common beliefs and professional knowledge about teaching struggling readers. The researcher has attempted to describe and represent the beliefs and professional knowledge of these preservice teachers accurately while attempting to understand the influence of the complex interactions on teaching behaviors.

PAGE 156

146 Table 4-32 Relationship between Preservice Teachers Beliefs and Professional Knowledge and their Expectations, Instruction, and Evaluations of Struggling Readers Preservice Teacher Beliefs Able to teach all students to read Responsible for teaching all students to read Not able to teach all students to read Not responsible for teaching all students to read Preservice Teacher Behavior High expectations Instruction with opportunity for student practice and application Challenge students Accept responsibility for progress Low expectations Instruction with no opportunity for student practice and application Do not challenge students Responsibility of students for progress (motivation, readiness, socioeconomic status, behavior, reading disability) Common beliefs shared by all participants included the beliefs that parental involvement is important for reading acquisition, children learn to read if they are motivated to read, children learn to read if they are developmentally ready to read, and children learn to read through access and exposure to print. They also shared the beliefs that children struggle with reading acquisition without one of the aforementioned conditions or because of their socioeconomic status, poor behavior, or because they have a reading disability. The preservice teachers also differed in some of their beliefs and professional knowledge. Some participants believed that it was the classroom teachers responsibility to teach struggling readers. Some participants believed it was the responsibility of the resource teachers to teach struggling readers. Still others believed parents were at least partially responsible for this task. Two of the preservice teachers believed that the struggling reader shared the responsibility for learning to read.

PAGE 157

147 Only two of the participants believed that they would be able to teach all of their students to read proficiently. The other four participants believed that they would be able to teach the majority of their students to read proficiently. They did not believe that they would be able to teach all of their struggling readers to read and they did not believe they would be able to teach a student with a reading disability to read. The preservice teachers teacher efficacy beliefs and beliefs about responsibility directly influenced their expectations for struggling readers. When the preservice teachers believed that they were capable of and responsible for teaching all of their struggling readers to read, they had high expectations for their struggling readers. When the preservice teachers believed that they were not capable of or responsible for teaching all of their struggling readers to read, they had low expectations for their struggling readers. The preservice teachers efficacy beliefs and beliefs about responsibility also directly influenced their instruction for struggling readers. When the preservice teachers believed that they were capable of and responsible for teaching all of their struggling readers to read, they provided instruction that allowed for student application and challenged students to apply the new strategies and skills at higher levels. Their students were active and engaged in the activities. This type of instruction was reflective of their high teacher efficacy and responsibility. These preservice teachers believed that they were capable of teaching their students to read. Therefore, their students would be able to apply the strategies and skills that they taught them. When the preservice teachers believed that they were not capable of or responsible for teaching all of their struggling readers to read due to the students lack of parental involvement, lack of motivation, lack of developmental readiness, lack of exposure to

PAGE 158

148 print, low socioeconomic status, possible reading disability, and poor behavior, they supplied all of the answers for students and did not allow students to practice and apply the strategies and skills. Their students were passive learners. This type of instruction reflects the belief that the preservice teachers would not be able to teach the students to read due to all of the previous factors. These factors would prevent the preservice teachers from being capable of or responsible for teaching the students to read. This illustrates the influence of preservice teachers teacher efficacy beliefs on instruction for struggling readers. The preservice teachers beliefs that children struggle with reading acquisition because they lack motivation to read and because of poor behavior directly influenced the preservice teachers evaluations of their struggling readers. All of the preservice teachers reported behaviors and motivation factors that interfered with their students reading progress such as being distracted, frustrated, uncooperative, temperamental, discouraged, disruptive, unwilling to try, giving up easily, or unwilling to participate. The preservice teachers belief that children struggle with reading acquisition because they have a reading disability also influenced their evaluations of their struggling readers. Five of the six participants had students who continued to struggle with reading acquisition at the end of the tutoring sessions. Of those five participants, four of them included in their evaluations that their most struggling readers probably had a reading disability that interfered with their ability to make progress even though they had not been tested or diagnosed with any type of reading disability. This is significant because of those five participants who believed at least one of their students had a reading disability, only one of those believed she was capable of or

PAGE 159

149 responsible for teaching a child with a reading disability to read. As reported in the previous sections, when the preservice teachers did not believe they were capable of or responsible for teaching a child to read, their expectations were low and their instruction provided excessive support with little opportunity for student growth in reading achievement. This illuminates the complex relationship between preservice teachers beliefs and professional knowledge and their expectations, instruction, and evaluation of struggling readers.

PAGE 160

CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION This chapter is a review of the current study. First, the purpose, literature, and methods are reviewed. A summary of the results related to the research questions is included and the limitations of the present study are presented. Implications for teacher education are discussed. And finally, recommendations for further research conclude this chapter. Overview of the Study In this study, the researcher identified six elementary education majors, who would be employed as tutors in Project UFLI, a federally funded study of beginning reading intervention. The researcher described the preservice teachers beliefs and professional knowledge about teaching struggling readers. The researcher described the preservice teachers expectations, instruction, and evaluation of struggling readers. The researcher then detailed how the preservice teachers beliefs and professional knowledge about teaching struggling readers impacted their teaching behaviors. Common beliefs and teaching behaviors were illuminated. The purpose of this qualitative study was to examine the beliefs and professional knowledge of preservice teachers about teaching struggling readers. This study was an exploration of the participants beliefs and professional knowledge in the context of tutoring struggling readers in order to discover how these beliefs and professional knowledge influenced the preservice teachers expectations, instruction, and evaluations of these learners. 150

PAGE 161

151 Specifically, this study addressed the following questions: 1. What are preservice teachers beliefs and professional knowledge about teaching reading in general and teaching struggling readers in particular? 2. How do preservice teachers beliefs and professional knowledge influence their expectations for struggling readers? 3. How do preservice teachers beliefs and professional knowledge influence their instruction, for struggling readers? 4. How do preservice teachers beliefs and professional knowledge influence their evaluation of struggling readers? Review of Literature The literature review for this study was grounded in research that investigated teaching struggling readers, beliefs and professional knowledge, preservice teachers beliefs and professional knowledge, influence of beliefs and professional knowledge on teaching behaviors, influence of beliefs and professional knowledge on teaching struggling readers, and influence of beliefs and professional knowledge on teacher expectations. A need for further research on the manner in which preservice teachers beliefs and professional knowledge about teaching struggling readers impact their teaching behaviors was established. Review of Methods The methods used for this study consisted of case studies of six preservice teachers who were employed as tutors in Project UFLI, a federally funded study of beginning reading intervention, and describe how their beliefs and professional knowledge about teaching struggling readers influenced their teaching behaviors. These descriptions were based on data collected over a four-month period (February 2003 May 2003). Included in the data collection procedures were five sources of data: preservice teachers background information sheets, preservice teachers autobiographies, interviews with

PAGE 162

152 preservice teachers, observations of preservice teachers while teaching struggling readers, and preservice teachers written expectations and evaluations of struggling readers. This methodology was implemented in order to provide multiple data sources for attempting to answer the research questions. A case study approach was utilized with the descriptive data sources from this research. A cross-case analysis was then employed to search for patterns across cases. The researcher generated categories, themes, and patterns and tested emergent understandings while searching for alternative explanations (Marshall & Rossman, 1999). The data collection questions were intended to probe the relationship between preservice teachers beliefs and professional about teaching struggling readers and their teaching behaviors. The researcher subjected all of the data from all of the data sources to data reduction. Miles and Huberman (1994b) define data reduction as the process of selecting, focusing, simplifying, abstracting, and transforming the data that appear in written-up filed notes or transcriptions (p. 10). The researcher identified patterns that emerged during coding, reduction, and analysis (Appendix H). These patterns became the basis for the descriptive case study narratives written by the researcher and the findings reported about the research questions. Findings The findings included in this section relate to the four research questions presented in Chapter 3. These findings are based upon the case studies of the six preservice teachers as described in the individual case studies and cross-case analysis presented in Chapter 4. The findings support previous research presented in Chapter 2. In addition, new knowledge was gained from the current study.

PAGE 163

153 Question One What are preservice teachers beliefs and professional knowledge about teaching reading in general and teaching struggling readers in particular? All of the preservice teachers shared some common beliefs and professional knowledge about teaching readers. These common beliefs and professional knowledge were probably based upon their similar experiences learning to read, successful school careers, and their similar professional preparation as students in a teacher education program at one public university (Richardson, 1996; Stuart & Thurlow, 2000). Some of the common beliefs shared by all participants included the beliefs that parental involvement is important for reading acquisition, children learn to read if they are motivated to read, children learn to read if they are developmentally ready to read, and children learn to read through access and exposure to print. They also shared the beliefs that children struggle with reading acquisition without one of the aforementioned conditions or because of their socioeconomic status, poor behavior, or because they have a reading disability. The participants differed in some of their other beliefs and professional knowledge. Some participants believed that it was the classroom teachers responsibility to teach struggling readers. Some participants believed it was the responsibility of the resource teachers to teach struggling readers. Still others believed parents were at least partially responsible for this task. Two of the preservice teachers believed that the struggling reader shared the responsibility for learning to read. This is consistent with the findings of other researchers (Nierstheimer et al., 1996; Soodak & Podell, 1994; Winfield, 1986). Only two of the participants believed that they would be able to teach all of their students to read proficiently. The other four participants believed that they would be able

PAGE 164

154 to teach the majority of their students to read proficiently. They did not believe that they would be able to teach all of their struggling readers to read and they did not believe they would be able to teach a student with a reading disability to read. This is consistent with the findings of Soodak and Podell (1994). The current study adds to the strength of this conclusion through observational data not included in the previous study. Question Two How do preservice teachers beliefs and professional knowledge influence their expectations for struggling readers? Preservice teachers beliefs and professional knowledge influenced both their expectations for struggling readers and their explanations for their students successful or unsuccessful achievement of those expectations. This is consistent with the findings of other researchers (McGill-Franzen, 1994; Winfield, 1986) The two preservice teachers who believed that they were personally capable of teaching all of their struggling readers to read also expected all of their struggling readers to learn to read on grade level. These two preservice teachers had high expectations for all of their students and believed they were responsible for teaching them to read. When the students met their expectations, these preservice teachers believed that their instruction was responsible for the students progress. When the students did not meet their expectations, these preservice teachers believed that they were responsible for providing the students more instruction to meet their needs. This illustrates the influence of preservice teachers teacher efficacy beliefs and responsibility beliefs on their expectations for struggling readers. The four preservice teachers who did not believe that they were personally capable of teaching all of their struggling readers to read also expected their struggling readers to

PAGE 165

155 remain below grade level at the end of the tutoring sessions. These preservice teachers had low expectations for almost all of their students and believed that it was the responsibility of a resource teacher or the parents to help these students learn to read. Two of the preservice teachers believed that the struggling reader shared the responsibility for learning to read. When the students met these preservice teachers expectations, the preservice teachers believed that the student was ready and motivated to learn. When the students did not meet these preservice teachers expectations, the preservice teachers described the reasons intrinsic to the student such as not motivated to learn to read, low socioeconomic status, lack of developmental readiness, possible reading disability, or poor behavior. This illustrates the influence of preservice teachers beliefs about teacher efficacy and responsibility on their expectations for struggling readers. The preservice teachers teacher efficacy beliefs and beliefs about responsibility were directly aligned with their expectations for struggling readers. When the preservice teachers believed that they were capable of and responsible for teaching all of their struggling readers to read, they had high expectations for their struggling readers. When the preservice teachers believed that they were not capable of or responsible for teaching all of their struggling readers to read, they had low expectations for their struggling readers. Question Three How do preservice teachers beliefs and professional knowledge influence their instruction, for struggling readers? Consistent with the research reviewed in chapter two, the preservice teachers beliefs and professional knowledge influenced their instruction for struggling readers in

PAGE 166

156 several ways (Johnston & Winograd, 1985; McGill-Franzen, 1994; Winfield, 1986). The two preservice teachers who believed that they were personally capable of teaching all of their struggling readers to read allowed wait time after prompts and allowed students to apply the strategies and skills. Their students were actively engaged learners. These two preservice teachers were also the participants who believed that they were responsible for providing the students instruction to meet their needs. This type of instruction was reflective of their high teacher efficacy and responsibility. These preservice teachers believed that they were capable of teaching their students to read. Therefore, their students would be able to apply the strategies and skills that they taught them. The conclusions of the current study are strengthened through observational data not included in previous studies. The four preservice teachers who did not believe that they were personally capable of or responsible for teaching all of their struggling readers to read due to the students lack of parental involvement, lack of motivation, lack of developmental readiness, lack of exposure to print, low socioeconomic status, possible reading disability, and poor behavior did not allow wait time after strategy prompts and supplied the answers to students rather than allowing the students to apply the strategies and skills. Their students were passive learners. Their beliefs were directly aligned with their instruction. This type of instruction reflects the belief that the preservice teachers would not be able to teach the students to read due to all of the previous factors. These factors would prevent the preservice teachers from being capable of or responsible for teaching the students to read. This illustrates the influence of preservice teachers beliefs about teacher efficacy and responsibility on their instruction for struggling readers.

PAGE 167

157 The preservice teachers teacher efficacy beliefs and beliefs about responsibility directly influenced their instruction for struggling readers. When the preservice teachers believed that they were capable of and responsible for teaching all of their struggling readers to read, they provided instruction that allowed for student application and challenged students to apply the new strategies and skills at higher levels. When the preservice teachers believed that they were not capable of or responsible for teaching all of their struggling readers to read, they provided all the answers for students and did not allow students to practice and apply the strategies and skills. Question Four How do preservice teachers beliefs and professional knowledge influence their evaluation of struggling readers? The influence of preservice teachers beliefs and professional knowledge was evident in their evaluations of struggling readers. This is consistent with the conclusions of Winfield (1986). All of the preservice teachers believed that children struggle with reading acquisition because they lack motivation to read and because of poor behavior. These beliefs about motivation and behavior were directly aligned with the preservice teachers evaluations of their struggling readers. All of the preservice teachers reported behaviors and motivation factors that interfered with their students reading progress such as being distracted, frustrated, uncooperative, temperamental, discouraged, disruptive, unwilling to try, giving up easily, or unwilling to participate. The preservice teachers who believed that they were capable of and responsible for teaching all of their students to read believed that they would be able to teach their students to read proficiently in spite of these behavior and motivation factors. These beliefs about behavior and motivation contributed to the other preservice teachers low

PAGE 168

158 teacher efficacy for teaching struggling readers as they believed that these factors would prevent them from being able to teach all children to read proficiently. This illustrates the influence of preservice teachers beliefs about teacher efficacy and responsibility on their evaluations of struggling readers. All of the preservice teachers believed that children may struggle with reading acquisition because they have a reading disability. This belief is evident in their evaluations of their struggling readers. Five of the six participants had students who continued to struggle with reading acquisition at the end of the tutoring sessions. Of those five participants, four of them included in their evaluations that their most struggling readers probably had a reading disability that interfered with their ability to make progress even though they had not been tested or diagnosed with any type of reading disability. This is significant because of those five participants who believed at least one of their students had a reading disability, only one of those believed she was capable of or responsible for teaching a child with a reading disability to read. When the preservice teachers did not believe they were capable of or responsible for teaching a child to read, their expectations were low and their instruction provided excessive support with little opportunity for student growth in reading achievement. These findings illuminate the complex interrelationship between preservice teachers beliefs and professional knowledge, expectations, instruction, and evaluation. Conclusions The following conclusions are based on the findings of the current study. 1. The majority of the preservice teachers did not believe they were capable of or responsible for teaching all of their students to read.

PAGE 169

159 Four of the six preservice teachers believed it was the responsibility of someone other than the classroom teacher to teach struggling readers. Each of these preservice teachers who assigned responsibility to someone else for teaching struggling readers also had low teacher efficacy. These preservice teachers believed that they could not teach all struggling readers to read and that they could not teach a child with a reading disability to read. 2. When the preservice teachers believed that they were capable of and responsible for teaching all of their struggling readers to read, they had higher expectations. The two preservice teachers who believed that they were personally capable of teaching all of their struggling readers to read also expected all of their struggling readers to learn to read on grade level by the end of the tutoring sessions. These two preservice teachers had high expectations for all of their students and believed they were responsible for teaching them to read. 3. When the preservice teachers believed that they were not capable of or responsible for teaching all of their struggling readers to read, they had lower expectations. The four preservice teachers who did not believe that they were personally capable of teaching all of their struggling readers to read expected their struggling readers to remain below grade level at the end of the tutoring sessions. These preservice teachers had low expectations for almost all of their students and believed that it was the responsibility of a resource teacher or the parents to help these students learn to read. Two of the preservice teachers believed that the struggling reader shared the responsibility for learning to read.

PAGE 170

160 4. The preservice teachers who believed that they were capable of and responsible for teaching all struggling readers to read accepted responsibility when the students made significant progress in reading. These preservice teachers believed that their instruction was responsible for the students progress in reading. They did not cite student factors as the reason for the students achievement. 5. Preservice teachers who did not believe that they were capable of or responsible for teaching all struggling readers to read did not accept responsibility when the students made significant progress in reading. These preservice teachers cited causes intrinsic to the student as the reason for progress in reading. These preservice teachers believed that the student was ready and motivated to learn when the students made progress in reading. They did not cite their instruction as a reason for the students achievement. 6. The preservice teachers who believed that they were capable of and responsible for teaching all of their struggling readers to read accepted responsibility when students did not make significant progress in reading. These preservice teachers cited teacher and instruction as the reasons for the lack of achievement. When the students did not make progress, these preservice teachers believed that they were responsible for providing more instruction to meet their students. They did not cite student factors as the reason for the lack of reading progress. 7. The preservice teachers who did not believe that they were capable of and responsible for teaching all of their struggling readers to read did not accept responsibility when students did not make significant progress in reading.

PAGE 171

161 These preservice teachers placed the responsibility for lack of achievement on the students. They cited student factors when the students did not make progress in reading. These preservice teachers described the possible reasons for lack of achievement as the struggling readers were not motivated to learn to read, had low socioeconomic status, lacked developmental readiness, possibly had a reading disability, or had poor behavior. They did not cite their instruction as a reason for the students lack of achievement even though they often had placed students in frustration level texts and failed to allow students the opportunity to practice targeted strategies. 8. When preservice teachers believed that they were capable of and responsible for teaching all of their struggling readers to read, they provided support that challenged students and allowed them to be active, engaged learners. The two preservice teachers who believed that they were personally capable of teaching all of their struggling readers to read allowed wait time after prompts and allowed students to apply the strategies and skills. This type of instruction was reflective of their high teacher efficacy and responsibility. These preservice teachers believed that they were capable of teaching their students to read. Therefore, their students would be able to apply the strategies and skills that they taught them. 9. When preservice teachers believed that they were not capable of or responsible for teaching all of their struggling readers to read, they provided excessive support during instruction and created passive learners. These preservice teachers did not allow wait time after miscues or strategy prompts and supplied the answers to students rather than allowing the students to practice and apply the strategies and skills themselves. These preservice teachers did not believe

PAGE 172

162 that they were personally capable of or responsible for teaching all of their struggling readers to read due to the students lack of parental involvement, lack of motivation, lack of developmental readiness, lack of exposure to print, low socioeconomic status, possible reading disability, and poor behavior. This type of instruction reflects the belief that the preservice teachers would not be able to teach the students to read due to all of the previous factors. Therefore, the preservice teachers would need to provide excessive support due to the students lack of ability to apply these strategies and skills. 10. Preservice teachers assigned the blame to a reading disability when students who were struggling with reading acquisition made little or no progress. Five of the six participants had students who continued to struggle with reading acquisition and had made little or no progress by the end of the tutoring sessions. Of those five participants, four of them included in their evaluations that their most struggling readers probably had a reading disability that interfered with their ability to make progress even though they had not been tested or diagnosed with any type of reading disability thus shifting the responsibility for failure to an undocumented trait. 11. Preservice teachers believed that children struggle with reading acquisition because they lack motivation to read and because of poor behavior. All of the preservice teachers reported behaviors and motivation factors that interfered with their students reading progress. The reported behavior and motivation factors included being distracted, frustrated, uncooperative, temperamental, discouraged, disruptive, unwilling to try, giving up easily, or unwilling to participate.

PAGE 173

163 Implications Implications for Preservice Teachers and Teachers Several recommendations were determined from the results of the current study. Preservice and inservice teachers should explore their own beliefs and professional knowledge and how they influence their teaching behaviors. By examining their own beliefs, professional knowledge, and practice they can make changes that lead to more effective instruction for our struggling readers. Preservice teachers and inservice teachers should consider how their own backgrounds, prior school experiences, professional preparation, and experiences shape their own belief systems and how these belief systems interact with their own expectations, instruction, and evaluation of struggling readers. Preservice and inservice teachers should specifically examine their teacher efficacy beliefs and beliefs about responsibility. Determining their teacher efficacy beliefs and beliefs about responsibility for teaching struggling readers is an important aspect of understanding how their beliefs and professional knowledge influence their teaching behaviors. Implications for Teacher Educators Teacher educators continually strive to better prepare preservice teachers to teach all children to read. The current study provides a descriptive analysis of preservice teachers beliefs and professional knowledge and how those beliefs and professional knowledge influence teaching behaviors. This description of preservice teacher beliefs and professional knowledge provides a framework for understanding some preservice teacher behaviors. The influence of these beliefs and professional knowledge on teaching behaviors is likely to have consequences for the learning outcomes of students who are struggling with reading acquisition.

PAGE 174

164 In order to promote growth among preservice teachers, teacher educators should challenge preservice teachers to make their beliefs explicit, to challenge the adequacy of those beliefs, and provide extended opportunities for preservice teachers to examine and integrate new information into their existing belief systems. As the preservice teachers included in this study were graduating the month the study concluded, it would be unlikely that there would be any change in their beliefs about responsibility or teacher efficacy prior to their entry into the classroom. It is, therefore, important for teacher educators to identify preservice teachers beliefs and professional knowledge early in their preparation program and provide experiences for students to understand and reflect and inform these beliefs and professional knowledge. If preservice teachers beliefs and professional knowledge about teaching struggling readers are developed based upon their professional preparation and their personal experiences, teacher educators can utilize this information to design more effective teacher education programs. If teacher educators are going to develop teachers who are able to effectively teach all children to read, they must work to ensure that preservice teachers feel confident in their ability to teach all readers. Every teacher needs to feel personally capable of and responsible for teaching every one of their students to read. By empowering all of our preservice teachers with the knowledge and skill and responsibility to teach all readers, teacher educators will help to improve teacher efficacy and responsibility of our preservice teachers. While further study is needed into preservice teachers beliefs and professional knowledge and the manner in which they influence teaching behaviors, the current study

PAGE 175

165 will contribute to the knowledge base and assist others in developing and improving teacher education programs. Recommendations for Further Study Research on the manner in which preservice and inservice teachers beliefs and professional knowledge influences their teaching behaviors exists, however, it is not extensive. Specifically, there is little research on the manner in which preservice teachers beliefs and professional knowledge influence their teaching behaviors for struggling readers. There are several research options that would enhance the findings of the current study. Researchers could investigate in greater depth a more specific aspect of teachers beliefs and professional knowledge, such as teacher efficacy and the manner in which it influences teaching behaviors. This research might focus on inservice teachers in order to determine what is happening in existing classrooms. Researchers could examine the complex interaction between teachers beliefs and professional knowledge, teaching behaviors, and reading achievement. Researchers could increase the number of participants in order to strengthen the generalizability of the findings. This type of research might include some quantitative measures such as checklists, surveys, and teacher beliefs inventories in addition to the qualitative instruments in order to possibly draw stronger

PAGE 176

APPENDIX A BACKGROUND INFORMATION SHEET Name_____________________________________________________________ Age______________ Race ____________________________________________ Telephone______________________ e-mail ______________________________ Area of graduate specialization: How many semester hours have you taken that relate to teaching reading? Describe briefly each course, field experience, or training you have taken that were specifically related to literacy. Please describe any other experiences you have had learning about reading, teaching reading, or tutoring reading. In what school did you complete your student teaching? In what grade(s) did you complete your student teaching? Were there some children that you found difficult to teach? Describe one of those children in detail. 166

PAGE 177

167 In what other school(s) have you had field experiences? (Indicate grades you worked with at each school.) In what grade(s) do you want to teach during your first five years? Describe the ideal school you hope to teach in. Describe the ideal student you hope to teach.

PAGE 178

APPENDIX B AUTOBIOGRAPHY GUIDE Please write an autobiography describing yourself and your family. Please describe your own experience learning to read and your school literacy experiences. Please describe your life as a reader and your reading habits. Describe your beliefs about good readers and how children learn to read. Finally, describe your beliefs about why children have difficulty learning to read. 168

PAGE 179

APPENDIX C INTERVIEW ONE GUIDE Name: _____________________________ Date______________ Do you have any students who are meeting or exceeding your expectations? How? What do you think accounts for that? Do you have any students who are not meeting your expectations? How? What do you think accounts for that? What do you believe needs to be done to help this (these) student(s) meet your expectations? Do your students like reading? How do you know? What do you think accounts for that? Do you have students who are able to read a word one time and not the next? 169

PAGE 180

170 What do you think accounts for that? Are your students motivated to learn? How? In what ways? What do you think accounts for that? Do you believe your students are able to sound out words independently in order to identify unknown words? Why or why not? What do you think accounts for that? Do you believe your students are capable of using various strategies independently in order to identify an unknown word? Why or why not? What do you think accounts for that? Do you think you have influenced your tutored students reading achievement? Explain.

PAGE 181

171 Do you think the classroom teacher has influenced your tutored students reading achievement? Explain. What type of home backgrounds do your tutored students come from? How do you think their background influences their reading achievement? Explain.

PAGE 182

APPENDIX D INTERVIEW TWO GUIDE Now that you have completed the tutoring experience, do you believe that as a classroom teacher you will be able to teach all of the students in your classroom to read proficiently? If not, why not? And who will be responsible for teaching the children you are not able to teach to read proficiently? If yes, describe how. Do you have any tutored students that you now believe are reading approximately on grade level? Who? Why do you think they made such good progress? Do you have any tutored students that you believe are still not reading on grade level? 172

PAGE 183

173 Who? Why do you think these students did not make sufficient progress to be reading on grade level? From your perspective, what do you think these students need in order to become proficient readers? Some tutors have tutored students that they felt had too many obstacles to overcome in order to become proficient readers during the tutoring program. Some of these students have been referred to ESE. Whose responsibility do you think it is to teach these struggling students to read? What do you think these students need in order to become proficient readers? Do you think classroom management is important when teaching students to read? Why or why not? In what ways?

PAGE 184

174 Tell me about your classroom management skills. Describe your expectations for future school progress for each of the students that you tutored. Do you think that youve made a difference in your tutored students future school success? Explain. Describe what you believe is the role of the reading specialist in regard to struggling readers? Describe what you believe is the role of the special education teacher in regard to struggling readers? Describe what you believe is the role of the classroom teacher in regard to struggling readers? How important is a childs background for reading success? Explain. As a classroom teacher, do you think you will be able to teach all of your children to read proficiently regardless of their background?

PAGE 185

175 If so, how? If not, why not? From your perspective, describe what you believe are the strengths and weaknesses of the UFLI tutoring program for teaching struggling readers. Why do you believe that?

PAGE 186

APPENDIX E OBSERVATION GUIDE Tutor: Date: School: Student: Session #: Gaining Fluency: Measuring Progress: 176

PAGE 187

177 Writing for Reading: Reading a New Book: Extending Literacy:

PAGE 188

178 Observation Debriefing: Tell me about your students performance today. What do you think accounts for that? Did your student meet your expectations today? How/Why not? Tell me about your teaching today.

PAGE 189

179 Did you have to make any modifications to the lesson today? Why? Why did you ____________(anything that stood out)?

PAGE 190

APPENDIX F WRITTEN EVALUATION AND EXPECTATION GUIDE Describe your student and his or her reading abilities. Include the students strengths, weaknesses, and your expectations for this students progress in reading development. 180

PAGE 191

APPENDIX G CONSENT FORM FOR PARTICIPANTS Dear Student: I am a graduate student in the Department of Teaching and Learning at the University of Florida, conducting research on the beliefs of preservice teachers under the supervision of Dr. Richard Allington. The purpose of this study is to analyze preservice teachers beliefs about struggling readers. If you choose to participate in this study, I will collect all data from a short autobiography written by you, a background information sheet, two interviews with you, observations of you while you are teaching struggling readers, debriefing sessions following the observations, and your written evaluations of struggling readers. The data will be collected from January through May 2003, while you are tutoring struggling readers. The focus of these activities is preservice teachers beliefs about struggling readers. If you participate, the interviews and debriefing sessions will be audiotaped. You will not have to answer any question you do not wish to answer. Interviews will be conducted at the UFLI office after I have received a copy of this signed consent from you. Only I will have access to the tape, which I will personally transcribe, removing any identifiers during transcription. Your identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law and your identity will not be revealed in the final manuscript. If you participate, your name will be removed from all data records, a pseudonym will be assigned to protect your confidentiality, and all audiotapes will be destroyed after data analysis is complete. All background information, autobiographies, observations, written evaluations, and interviews will remain confidential to the extent provided by law. There are no known risks for your participation in this study. Potential benefits may include identifying your beliefs about struggling readers and the opportunity to reflect upon these beliefs. Your participation is strictly voluntary, and you are free to withdraw from this study at any time without consequence. For your participation in this study, you will receive $50 compensation. I expect that your participation will not require more than four hours of your time. I will be willing to discuss this study with you at any time and will answer any questions that arise. Please call me at (407) 695-2728 or my supervisor, Dr. Richard Allington, at 2403 Norman Hall, (352) 392-9191 with any questions or concerns. At the completion of this study, I would like to discuss the findings with you. If you would like to participate in this study, please sign and return to me this copy of the letter. The second copy is for your records. By signing this letter, you give me permission to report your responses anonymously in the final manuscript to be submitted to my faculty supervisor as part of my dissertation. Any questions or concerns about research participants rights may be directed to the UFIRB Office, Box 112250, Gainesville, FL 32611-2250; phone (352) 392-0433. Your participation is voluntary and you may withdraw your participation at anytime without penalty. 181

PAGE 192

182 Sincerely, Tabatha Scharlach I have read the procedure described above for the study of preservice teachers beliefs about struggling readers. I agree to participate in the study, and I have received a copy of this description. ___________________________________ __________________ Signature of Participant Date

PAGE 193

APPENDIX H CODES Beliefs Parental involvement Motivation Readiness Access and exposure to print Socioeconomic status Behavior Reading disability Teacher efficacy Responsibility Expectations Text level Grade level Reading strategies Reading disability Behavior Instruction Modeling Wait Time Prompting Providing answers Text Evaluation Text level Grade level Reading strategies Reading disability Behavior 183

PAGE 194

REFERENCES Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge: Bradford. Allington, R. (2002). What I've learned about effective reading instruction from a decade of studying exemplary elementary classroom teachers. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(10), 740-747. Allington, R., & Li, S. (1990). Teacher beliefs about children who find learning to read difficult. Miami, FL: Paper presented at the National Reading Conference. Allington, R. L. (1977). If they don't read much, how they ever gonna get good? Journal of Reading, 57-61. Allington, R. L. (1980). Poor readers don't get to read much in reading groups. Language Arts, 57(8), 872-875. Allington, R. L. (2001). What really matters for struggling readers: Designing research-based programs. NY: Longman. Ashton, P. T., & Webb, R. B. (1986). Making a difference: Teachers' sense of efficacy and student achievement. NY: Longman. Baker, S., Gersten, R., & Keating, T. (2000). When less may be more: A 2-year longitudinal evaluation of a volunteer tutoring program requiring minimal training. Reading Research Quarterly, 35(4), 494-519. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Clay, M. M. (1991). Becoming literate: the construction of inner control. Aukland, New Zealand: Heinemann. Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. (1991). Tracking the unique effects of print exposure in children: Associations with vocabulary, general knowledge, and spelling. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 264-274. Cunningham, P. M., & Allington, R. L. (1994). Classrooms that work: They can all read and write. NY: HarperCollins. 184

PAGE 195

185 Darling-Hammond, L. (1999). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Center for the study of teaching and policy. Retrieved November 2, 2002, from the World Wide Web: www.tc.columbia.edu/nctaf/publications/ Dilley, P. (2000). Conducting successful interviews: Tips for intrepid research. Theory into practice, 39(3), 131-137. Elbaum, B., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M. T., & Moody, S. W. (2000). How effective are one-on-one tutoring programs in reading for elementary students at risk for reading failure? A meta-analysis of the intervention research. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(4), 605-619. Fang, Z. (1996). A review of research on teacher beliefs and practices. Educational Researcher, 38(1), 47-65. Fitzgerald, J. (2001). Can minimally trained college student volunteers help young at-risk children to read better? Reading Research Quarterly, 36(1), 28-47. Fountas, I. C., & Pinell, G. S. (1996). Guided reading: Good first teaching for all children. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine. Glesne, C. (1999). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. NY: Longman. Harris, T. L., & Hodges, R. E. (1995). The literacy dictionary: The vocabulary of reading and writing. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Hayes, L. F., Lane, H. B., & Pullen, P. C. (1999). University of Florida literacy initiative: Tutoring for beginning readers. Gainesville, FL: Authors. Invernizzi, M. (2001). The complex world of one-on-one tutoring. In S. Neuman & D. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 459-470). NY: Guilford. Invernizzi, M., Juel, C., & Rosemary, C. A. (1998). A community volunteer tutorial that works. In R. Allington (Ed.), Teaching struggling readers: Articles from the reading teacher (pp. 276-284). Newark: International Reading Association. Johnston, P., & Allington, R. (1991). Remediation. In R. Barr & M. Kamil & P. Mosenthal & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 984-1011). White Plains, NY: Longman. Johnston, P. H., & Winograd, P. N. (1985). Passive failure in reading. Journal of Reading Behavior, XVII(4), 279-301.

PAGE 196

186 Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first through fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 437-447. Juel, C. (1991). Cross-age tutoring between student athletes and at-risk children. The Reading Teacher, 45, 178-186. Juel, C. (1996). What makes literacy tutoring effective? Reading Research Quarterly, 31(3), 268-289. Kagan, D. M. (1990). Ways of evaluating teacher cognition: Inferences concerning the Goldilocks principle. Review of Educational Research, 60(3), 419-469. Kagan, D. M. (1992). Professional growth among preservice and beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research, 62(2), 129-169. Kagan, D. M., & Smith, K. E. (1988). Beliefs and behaviors of kindergarten teachers. Educational Researcher, 30(1), 26-35. Klenk, L., & Kibby, M. (2000). Re-mediating reading difficulties: Appraising the past, reconciling the present, constructing the future. In M. Kamil & P. Mosenthal & P. D. Pearson & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 667-690). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lonberger, R. B. (1992). The belief systems and instructional choices of preservice teachers. In N. D. Padak & T. V. Rasinksi & J. Logan (Eds.), Literacy research and practice, foundations for the year 2000 (pp. 71-78). Pittsburg, KS: College Reading Association. Mallette, M. H., Readence, J. E., McKinney, M., & Smith, M. M. (2000). A critical analysis of two preservice teachers' knowledge of struggling readers: Raced, classed, and gendered? Reading Research and Instruction, 39(3), 222-234. Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1999). Designing qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Maxson, S. (1996). The influence of teachers' beliefs on literacy development for at-risk first grade students. Chicago, IL: Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. McGill-Franzen, A. (1994). Compensatory and special education. In E. H. Hiebert & B. M. Taylor (Eds.), Getting reading right from the start (pp. 13-35). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. McGill-Franzen, A., & James, I. (1990). Teacher beliefs about remedial and learning disabled readers. Miami, FL: Paper presented at the National Reading Conference.

PAGE 197

187 Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A. (1994a). Making good sense: Drawing and verifying conclusions. In A. Huberman (Ed.), Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (pp. 245-287). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994b). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994c). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). (2000). Program standards for elementary teacher preparation. National council for accreditation of teacher education. Retrieved November 2, 2002, from the World Wide Web: www.ncate.org National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Development. Nierstheimer, S. L., Hopkins, C. J., Dillon, D. R., & Schmitt, M. C. (2000). Preservice teachers' shifting beliefs about struggling literacy learners. Reading Research and Instruction, 40(1), 1-16. Nierstheimer, S. L., Hopkins, C. J., & Schmitt, M. C. (1996). "But I just want to teach regular kids!" Understanding preservice teachers' beliefs about teaching children experiencing difficulty learning to read. Literacy Teaching and Learning, 2(1), 15-24. Pajares, F. (1993). Preservice teachers' beliefs: A focus for teacher education. Action in teacher education, 15(2), 45-54. Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Pikulski, J. J. (1998). Preventing reading failure: A review of five effective programs. In R. Allington (Ed.), Teaching struggling readers: Articles from the reading teacher (pp. 35-45). Newark: International Reading Association. Pinnell, G. S., Lyons, C. A., DeFord, D. E., Bryk, A. S., & Seltzer, M. (1994). Comparing instructional models for the literacy education of high-risk first graders. Reading Research Quarterly, 29(1), 8-39.

PAGE 198

188 Pressley, M. (2001). Effective beginning reading instruction: A paper commissioned by the National Reading Conference. Retrieved December 5, 2002, from the World Wide Web: http://nrc.oakland.edu/documents/2001/pressleywhite2.pdf Reading Recovery Council of North America. (2004). Reading Recovery Book List 2004. Columbus, OH: Reading Recovery Council of North America. Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. Sikula, Buttery, T.J., & Guyton, E. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 102-119). NY: Simon & Schuster Macmillan. Richardson, V., Anders, P., Tidwell, D., & Loyd, C. (1991). The relationship between teachers' beliefs and practices in reading comprehension instruction. American Educational Research Journal, 28(3), 559-586. Rokeach, M. (1968). Beliefs, attitudes, and values. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Ross, D. D., Lane, H., & McCallum, C. (in preparation). Description of the unified elementary special education PROTEACH program. In E. Bondy & D. D. Ross & R. W. Webb (Eds.), Preparing for inclusive teaching: Meeting the challenges of teacher education reform at the University of Florida. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Shanahan, T. (1998). On the effectiveness and limitations of tutoring in reading. In P. D. Pearson & A. Iran-Nejad (Eds.), Review of research in education (Vol. 23, pp. 217-234). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Shanahan, T., & Barr, R. (1995). Reading recovery: An independent evaluation of the effects of an early instructional intervention for at-risk learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(4), 958-996. Shank, G. D. (2002). Qualitative research: A personal skills approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall. Smith, J. (1993). Hermeneutics and qualitative inquiry. In G. Mills (Ed.), Theory and concepts in qualitative research: Perspectives from the field (pp. 183-200). NY: Teachers College Press. Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Solomon, D., Battistich, V., & Hom, A. (1996). Teacher beliefs and practices in schools serving communities that differ in socioeconomic level. Journal of Experimental Education, 64(4), 327-347. Soodak, L. C., & Podell, D. M. (1994). Teachers' thinking about difficult-to-teach students. Journal of Educational Research, 88(1), 44-51.

PAGE 199

189 Spear-Swerling, L., & Sternberg, R. (1998). Off track: When poor readers become "learning disabled." Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Stanovich, K. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 306-407. Strickland, D. (2000). Classroom intervention strategies: Supporting the literacy development of young learners at risk. In D. Strickland & L. M. Morrow (Eds.), Beginning reading and writing (pp. 99-110). NY: Teachers College Press. Strickland, D. (2001). Early intervention for African American children considered to be at risk. In S. Neuman & D. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 322-332). NY: Guilford Press. Stuart, C., & Thurlow, D. (2000). Making it their own: Preservice teachers' experiences, beliefs, and classroom practices. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(2), 113-121. Vellutino, F. R., & Scanlon, D. M. (2001). Emergent literacy skills, early instruction, and individual differences as determinants of difficulties in learning to read: The case for early intervention. In S. Neuman & D. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 295-321). NY: Guilford. Walmsley, S. A., & Allington, R. L. (1995). Redefining and reforming instructional support programs for at-risk students. In R. L. Allington & S. A. Walmsley (Eds.), No quick fix: Rethinking literacy programs in America's elementary schools (pp. 19-44). NY: Teachers College Press. Wellington, J. (2000). Educational Research: Contemporary issues and practical approaches. NY: Continuum. Whitehurst, G., & Lonigan, C. (2001). Emergent literacy: Development from prereaders to readers. In S. Neuman & D. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 11-29). NY: Guilford. Wiest, L. R. (1998). Using immersion experiences to shake up preservice teachers' views about cultural differences. Journal of Teacher Education, 49(5), 358-365. Winfield, L. F. (1986). Teacher beliefs toward academically at risk students in inner urban schools. Urban Review, 18(4), 253-268. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Zeichner, K., & Hoeft, K. (1996). Teacher socialization for cultural diversity. In J. Sikula, Buttery, T.J., & Guyton, E. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (Second ed., pp. 525-547). NY: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

PAGE 200

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Tabatha Dobson Scharlach was born in Jacksonville, Illinois, to Robert and Sharon Dobson. She graduated from the University of Central Florida with a bachelors degree in elementary education. She returned to the University of Central Florida to receive a Master of Education degree in elementary and early childhood education. Tabatha was previously a primary classroom teacher in Lake County, Florida, and Seminole County, Florida. She has worked as a reading resource teacher for children in grades two through five. Tabatha has taught preservice teachers in undergraduate coursework and has worked as a reading researcher and as a professional developer. Tabatha, her husband, and two children reside in Orlando, Florida. She is currently the Research Coordinator for Reading First Professional Development and Florida Literacy and Reading Excellence at the University of Central Florida. 190


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0009344/00001

Material Information

Title: Analysis of preservice teachers' beliefs and professional knowledge about teaching struggling readers
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Language: English
Creator: Scharlach, Tabatha Dobson ( Dissertant )
Allington, Richard L. ( Thesis advisor )
McGill-Franzen, Anne ( Reviewer )
Fu, Danling ( Reviewer )
Lane, Holly ( Reviewer )
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2005
Copyright Date: 2005

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: Teaching and Learning thesis, Ph. D.
Dissertations, Academic -- UF -- Teaching and Learning
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
Spatial Coverage: United States--Florida

Notes

Abstract: The purpose of this qualitative case study was to examine the beliefs and professional knowledge of preservice teachers about teaching struggling readers. These descriptions were based on the qualitative methods of questionnaires, autobiographies, interviews, observations, and document review. This qualitative study was conducted during a four-month period in 2003. The participants were six elementary education majors who were employed as tutors in Project UFLI, a federally funded study of beginning reading intervention. The study was concerned with participants' beliefs and professional knowledge in the context of tutoring struggling readers in order to discover how these beliefs and professional knowledge influenced the preservice teachers' expectations, instruction, and evaluations of these learners. Separate cases were reported for each preservice teacher, patterns were identified, and cross-case analysis was utilized. This study contributed to the knowledge and understanding of preservice teachers' beliefs and professional knowledge about teaching struggling readers and how these beliefs and knowledge influenced their teaching behaviors. Specifically, the findings from this study described how preservice teachers' beliefs and professional knowledge about teaching struggling readers influenced their expectations, instruction, and evaluation of struggling readers. The findings from this multiple case study suggest that preservice teachers may not believe they are capable of or responsible for teaching all of their students to read. The preservice teacher beliefs about teacher efficacy and responsibility influenced many teaching behaviors in the current study. These findings illustrate the complex interrelationship between preservice teachers' beliefs and professional knowledge, expectations, instruction, and evaluation. Several recommendations were determined from the results of the current study. Preservice and inservice teachers should explore how their beliefs and professional knowledge influence their teaching behaviors. It is important for teachers to examine their own beliefs, professional knowledge, and practice in order to make changes that lead to more effective instruction for our struggling readers. Teacher educators can utilize this information to improve teacher education programs as teacher education programs have been shown to significantly impact preservice teachers' beliefs and professional knowledge. The results are important as they provide guidance to teacher educators as they teach, support and supervise preservice teachers.
General Note: Title from title page of source document.
General Note: Document formatted into pages; contains 200 pages.
General Note: Includes vita.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 2005.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
General Note: Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: aleph - 003322332
System ID: UFE0009344:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0009344/00001

Material Information

Title: Analysis of preservice teachers' beliefs and professional knowledge about teaching struggling readers
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Language: English
Creator: Scharlach, Tabatha Dobson ( Dissertant )
Allington, Richard L. ( Thesis advisor )
McGill-Franzen, Anne ( Reviewer )
Fu, Danling ( Reviewer )
Lane, Holly ( Reviewer )
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2005
Copyright Date: 2005

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: Teaching and Learning thesis, Ph. D.
Dissertations, Academic -- UF -- Teaching and Learning
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
Spatial Coverage: United States--Florida

Notes

Abstract: The purpose of this qualitative case study was to examine the beliefs and professional knowledge of preservice teachers about teaching struggling readers. These descriptions were based on the qualitative methods of questionnaires, autobiographies, interviews, observations, and document review. This qualitative study was conducted during a four-month period in 2003. The participants were six elementary education majors who were employed as tutors in Project UFLI, a federally funded study of beginning reading intervention. The study was concerned with participants' beliefs and professional knowledge in the context of tutoring struggling readers in order to discover how these beliefs and professional knowledge influenced the preservice teachers' expectations, instruction, and evaluations of these learners. Separate cases were reported for each preservice teacher, patterns were identified, and cross-case analysis was utilized. This study contributed to the knowledge and understanding of preservice teachers' beliefs and professional knowledge about teaching struggling readers and how these beliefs and knowledge influenced their teaching behaviors. Specifically, the findings from this study described how preservice teachers' beliefs and professional knowledge about teaching struggling readers influenced their expectations, instruction, and evaluation of struggling readers. The findings from this multiple case study suggest that preservice teachers may not believe they are capable of or responsible for teaching all of their students to read. The preservice teacher beliefs about teacher efficacy and responsibility influenced many teaching behaviors in the current study. These findings illustrate the complex interrelationship between preservice teachers' beliefs and professional knowledge, expectations, instruction, and evaluation. Several recommendations were determined from the results of the current study. Preservice and inservice teachers should explore how their beliefs and professional knowledge influence their teaching behaviors. It is important for teachers to examine their own beliefs, professional knowledge, and practice in order to make changes that lead to more effective instruction for our struggling readers. Teacher educators can utilize this information to improve teacher education programs as teacher education programs have been shown to significantly impact preservice teachers' beliefs and professional knowledge. The results are important as they provide guidance to teacher educators as they teach, support and supervise preservice teachers.
General Note: Title from title page of source document.
General Note: Document formatted into pages; contains 200 pages.
General Note: Includes vita.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 2005.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
General Note: Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: aleph - 003322332
System ID: UFE0009344:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text












ANALYSIS OF PRESERVICE TEACHERS' BELIEFS AND PROFESSIONAL
KNOWLEDGE ABOUT TEACHING STRUGGLING READERS
















By

TABATHA DOBSON SCHARLACH


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2005















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank all of my committee members for their support and guidance

throughout my doctoral program and the dissertation process. Richard Allington and

Anne McGill-Franzen have inspired me and encouraged me and challenged me to think

in new ways. Their passion and conviction are only matched by the depth and breadth of

their knowledge and expertise. Dr. Danling Fu shared her expertise and encouraged me

from the beginning of my program to read widely and broaden my perspectives A special

thank you goes to Holly Lane who made the current study possible. Her experience,

knowledge, guidance, support and encouragement throughout the past five years have

been invaluable. My committee members have been examples for me in professional

commitment, passion for learning, and personal concern for students. I am fortunate to

have been one of those students.

I would also like to thank my family for their contribution. Throughout this long

journey, my husband, Greg, and my daughter, Hannah, have been incredibly supportive,

encouraging, patient, and understanding. They have sacrificed along with me in order to

allow me to complete my studies. To them I am eternally grateful. Now, together with

Ryan, we will all be able to enjoy our weekends again.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ................................................................... ......... ................ ii

LIST OF TABLES ................................. .... .........................vii

ABSTRACT .............. .......................................... ix

CHAPTER

1 IN TR OD U CTION ............................................... .. ......................... ..

Background of the Problem ........................................................... .................
State ent of the P problem ............................................................................. ........ 2
Significance of the Study .............................................................................. ...... .4
Purpose of the Study ............... ............... .................................. .4
R research Q uestions............... ........ .. ................................... ............. .. ..............
Delimitations and Limitations of the Study......................................................5
D e fin itio n s ........................................................... ................ 6

2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE ......................................................... .............. 8

In tro d u ctio n .................................................................................. 8
Reading Instruction....... ...................................... ................ ... .8
E m ergent Literacy ................. .... ........................... ... ....... ................ .9
Teaching Struggling readers............................................................. ............... 9
A access and Exposure to Print...................................................................... .... 12
Effective Teachers ............................................. .... .... ................. 13
Early Intervention .................. .......................... .. ...... ............... ... 14
B eliefs and Professional K now ledge..................................... .................................. 18
Influences of Beliefs and Professional Knowledge on Teaching ..............................20
Influence of Beliefs and Professional Knowledge on Teaching Struggling Readers.25
S u m m a ry ...................................................................................................... 3 1

3 M E T H O D O L O G Y ............................................................................ ................... 33

Introduction ........................................................................................................ 33
General Research Plan.......................................................33
Q ualitative R research ......................................... ........... .... .. ...... .... 35
Grounded Theory .................. ............................... ........ ... ............ 37









R e se arch D e sig n ................................................................................................... 3 8
M ethods and Procedures......... ............ ................... .... 38
Preservice Teacher Background Information Sheet ....................................... 40
Preservice Teacher Autobiography..................... ...... ........................... 40
In te rv ie w s .............................................................................4 0
O observations ...........................................4 1
Written Evaluations and Expectations......... ................................... ...............42
Data M management .................. ...................................... ....43
D ata A nalysis................................................... 43
Case Descriptors ........... .... .............. ..... .................... .....44
V alidity an d R eliab ility ......................................................................................... 4 5
Internal V alidity................................... .......... ................ 45
R e liab ility ................................................................4 5
E x tern al V alid ity ........................................................................................... 4 6
R e se arch er B ia s ............................................................................................. 4 6
Entry and A access Into the Field................................... ................... 47
Investigator B ias ...................................................... 47
E ethical Issues ................................................................... 48

4 R E S U L T S .............................................................................5 0

Introduction ......... ...................................................................... .......... ................50
Participant Identification ............... ..... ...... ... .... .... ........................ .... 51
Participants' Background, Experiences, and Professional Knowledge .................51
In te rv ie w s .......................................................................................................5 1
O b se rv a tio n s ............................................................................................................... 5 2
Case Studies........................................... 53
C ase Study 1: C indy ........................ .... ... .... ... ........... .................. 54
Beliefs and Professional Knowledge About Teaching Reading.......................54
Expectations for Struggling Readers ...................... ............................... ............ 58
Instruction for Struggling Readers .......................................... 62
Evaluation of Struggling Readers ........... ................... ................. 66
C ase Study 2 : E rin ............................... .... ................................ ... .. ........ ... 69
Beliefs and Professional Knowledge About Teaching Reading.......................70
Expectations for Struggling Readers ............... .................. ......... .. ........... 74
Instruction for Struggling R leaders ........................................... .....................76
Evaluation of Struggling Readers......... ................................... ...............79
C ase Study 3: N ancy ................................ ..... .... .... ........... ............... 83
Beliefs and Professional Knowledge About Teaching Reading..........................84
Expectations for Struggling Readers ............... .................. ......... .. ........... 88
Instruction for Struggling R leaders ........................................... ............... 91
Evaluation of Struggling Readers........ ......................... ...............94
C ase Study 4 : L au ra ................. ........ ........ ...... ......... ... .. .. ..............97
Beliefs and Professional Knowledge About Teaching Reading........................97
Expectations for Struggling Readers ............................. .........................100
Instruction for Struggling Readers ........................................ ............... 104
Evaluation of Struggling Readers........................ ................. ...............107


iv










C ase Study 5: D rew .......................... ....... ..... .... ....... ........... ............ 109
Beliefs and Professional Knowledge About Teaching Reading........................110
Expectations for Struggling R leaders ............................................ ...............112
Instruction for Struggling Readers ..........................................................116
Evaluation of Struggling Readers .......................................... ...............119
Case Study 6: K erry .................................. ..... ....... ... .... .. .............. 121
Beliefs and Professional Knowledge About Teaching Reading........................122
Expectations for Struggling Readers ................................................125
Instruction for Struggling R leaders ........................................ .....................128
Evaluation of Struggling Readers .......................................... ...............130
Cross-Case Analysis ..................................... ........ ....... ................. 132
S u m m a ry ........................................................................................14 5

5 DISCUSSION .................. ................................... ........... ... ..... ....... 150

O v erview of the Stu dy .................................................................. .. .................... 150
Review of Literature .................. ............................ ........ ................ 151
Review of M methods .................. .............................. ........ ................ 151
F in d in g s .............................................................................1 5 2
Question One ................................................................... ... ......... 153
Q u e stio n T w o .............................................................................................. 1 5 4
Q u e stio n T h re e ............................................................................................ 1 5 5
Question Four ................................ ................................ .. ....... 157
C o n c lu sio n s......................................................................................................... 1 5 8
Implications .............................. ....... .... .. ................163
Implications for Preservice Teachers and Teachers ........... .. ............. 163
Implications for Teacher Educators .................................................................163
Recommendations for Further Study .............................................................165

APPENDIX

A BACKGROUND INFORMATION SHEET ...........................................................166

B A U TOBIO GRA PH Y GU ID E ............................................................................ 168

C INTERVIEW ONE GUIDE ........................................ ....... .........169

D INTERVIEW TW O GUIDE................................... .................... 172

E O B SE R V A TIO N G U ID E ................................................................................... 176

F WRITTEN EVALUATION AND EXPECTATION GUIDE ...............................180

G CONSENT FORM FOR PARTICIPANTS ......................................... ...............181

H C O D E S ..............................................................................1 8 3




v









R E F E R E N C E S ........................................ ............................................................ 18 4

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ............................................................. ..................190
















LIST OF TABLES


Table page

3-1 M ethodology D descriptions ................................................ .............................. 34

3-2 M methodology M atrix .......................................................................... ....................34

3-3 Timeline of Research M ethodologies........................... ............... 35

4-1 Participants' B ackgrounds........ ......................... ......... ................... ............... 52

4-2 Chronological Listing of Observations............................................................... 53

4-3 Cindy's Beliefs and Professional Knowledge About Teaching Reading....................59

4-4 Cindy's Expectations for Struggling Readers .................................. ............... 61

4-5. Cindy's Instruction for Struggling Readers........... ............... ..............65

4-6 Cindy's Evaluation of Struggling Readers ...................................... ............... 68

4-7 Erin's Beliefs and Professional Knowledge About Teaching Reading ..................73

4-8 Erin's Expectations for Struggling R leaders ........................................ .....................75

4-9 Erin's Instruction for Struggling Readers .........................................................79

4-10 Erin's Evaluation of Struggling Readers ....................................... ...............82

4-11 Nancy's Beliefs and Professional Knowledge About Teaching Reading .................89

4-12 Nancy's Expectations for Struggling Readers ................................................ 90

4-13 Nancy's Instruction for Struggling Readers .................................. ............... 93

4-14 Nancy's Evaluation of Struggling Readers .................................... ............... 96

4-15 Laura's Beliefs and Professional Knowledge About Teaching Reading ..............101

4-16 Laura's Expectations for Struggling Readers..................................... ................ 103

4-17 Laura's Instruction for Struggling Readers ..........................................................106









4-18 Laura's Evaluation of Struggling Readers.................. ........... ............... 109

4-19 Drew's Beliefs and Professional Knowledge About Teaching Reading ...............113

4-20 Drew's Expectations for Struggling Readers ........................................................115

4-21 Drew's Instruction for Struggling Readers.......................................................118

4-22 Drew's Evaluation of Struggling Readers...... .............. ................................121

4-23 Kerry's Beliefs and Professional Knowledge About Teaching Reading ..............126

4-24 Kerry's Expectations for Struggling Readers ................ ............. ............... 127

4-25 Kerry's Instruction for Struggling Readers ........... ..................... ....................129

4-26 Kerry's Evaluation of Struggling Readers.............. ................... .... ............131

4-27 Preservice Teachers' Beliefs and Professional Knowledge about Teaching Reading
..................................................................................................... . 1 3 5

4-28 Preservice Teachers' Expectations for Struggling Readers...................................136

4-29 Relationship between Preservice Teachers' Beliefs and Professional Knowledge and
their Expectations for Struggling Readers .................................. ............... 139

4-30 Preservice Teachers' Instruction for Struggling Readers .............................141

4-31 Relationship between Preservice Teachers' Beliefs and Professional Knowledge and
their Instruction for Struggling Readers..... .......... ......... ......................... 143

4-32 Relationship between Preservice Teachers' Beliefs and Professional Knowledge and
their Expectations, Instruction, and Evaluations of Struggling Readers................146















Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements of the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

ANALYSIS OF PRESERVICE TEACHERS' BELIEFS AND PROFESSIONAL
KNOWLEDGE ABOUT TEACHING STRUGGLING READERS

By

Tabatha Dobson Scharlach

May 2005

Chair: Richard Allington
Major Department: Teaching and Learning

The purpose of this qualitative case study was to examine the beliefs and

professional knowledge of preservice teachers about teaching struggling readers. These

descriptions were based on the qualitative methods of questionnaires, autobiographies,

interviews, observations, and document review. This qualitative study was conducted

during a four-month period in 2003. The participants were six elementary education

maj ors who were employed as tutors in Project UFLI, a federally-funded study of

beginning reading intervention. The study was concerned with participants' beliefs and

professional knowledge in the context of tutoring struggling readers in order to discover

how these beliefs and professional knowledge influenced the preservice teachers'

expectations, instruction, and evaluations of these learners. Separate cases were reported

for each preservice teacher, patterns were identified, and cross-case analysis was utilized.

This study contributed to the knowledge and understanding of preservice teachers'

beliefs and professional knowledge about teaching struggling readers and how these









beliefs and knowledge influenced their teaching behaviors. Specifically, the findings

from this study described how preservice teachers' beliefs and professional knowledge

about teaching struggling readers influenced their expectations, instruction, and

evaluation of struggling readers. The findings from this multiple case study suggest that

preservice teachers may not believe they are capable of or responsible for teaching all of

their students to read. The preservice teacher beliefs about teacher efficacy and

responsibility influenced many teaching behaviors in the current study. These findings

illustrate the complex interrelationship between preservice teachers' beliefs and

professional knowledge, expectations, instruction, and evaluation.

Several recommendations were determined from the results of the current study.

Preservice and inservice teachers should explore how their beliefs and professional

knowledge influence their teaching behaviors. It is important for teachers to examine

their own beliefs, professional knowledge, and practice in order to make changes that

lead to more effective instruction for our struggling readers. Teacher educators can utilize

this information to improve teacher education programs as teacher education programs

have been shown to significantly impact preservice teachers' beliefs and professional

knowledge. The results are important as they provide guidance to teacher educators as

they teach, support and supervise preservice teachers.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Background of the Problem

Teacher educators are faced with the daunting task of preparing preservice teachers

to teach an increasingly diverse student population in the new millennium. Whether the

diversity is ethnicity, race, gender, economic status, or learning differences, teacher

education programs must develop teachers who are able to effectively teach all children

(National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education [NCATE], 2000).

Reading is a lifelong skill that is crucial for success in today's world. It is widely

known that children who struggle with reading acquisition perform lower in other subject

areas, possess lower self-esteem, present greater discipline problems in school, and are

less likely to finish high school (Shanahan & Barr, 1995). Although students in the

United States read as well as or better than they ever have before in history, there is still a

small population of children who struggle with reading acquisition (Klenk & Kibby,

2000). Teachers of reading must have a deep understanding of how children learn to read

and be prepared to teach all children to high levels of literacy. Preparing preservice

teachers for the challenges of teaching children who are struggling with reading

acquisition must be a crucial priority among educators.

Because preservice teachers' beliefs about teaching children who are struggling

with reading acquisition will influence their future teaching decisions and practices as

they work with such children (Nierstheimer, Hopkins, & Schmitt, 1996), it is important

that preservice teachers and teacher education programs examine these beliefs.









Statement of the Problem

Teachers of reading must have a deep understanding of how children learn to read

and be prepared to teach all children to high levels of literacy. Teacher education

programs are constantly striving to improve the preparation of preservice teachers in

order to meet the high demands and expectations placed on beginning teachers. Crucial to

this effort, teacher educators must explore preservice teachers' beliefs about students,

teaching, and learning, as teachers' beliefs influence their judgments and decision-

making and exert critical influence on classroom practice (Pajares, 1992). As human

beings we have beliefs about everything whether they are implicit or explicit beliefs.

Researchers have argued that these beliefs are the basis for all of the choices that we

make as individuals (Bandura, 1986; Richardson, 1996; Rokeach, 1968).

Preservice teachers often have an unrealistic optimism and become disillusioned

when teaching children who are struggling with reading acquisition (Nierstheimer et al.,

1996). This unrealistic optimism may be the result of preservice teachers relying on their

own experiences as literacy learners to inform their beliefs about how all children learn

(Kagan, 1992). Because preservice teachers may believe that their students will be much

like themselves, it may be necessary for them to confront their beliefs about students who

are different from themselves. If preservice teachers do not reexamine their beliefs and,

therefore, their instruction for struggling readers, the result might be that the struggling

reader is viewed as the problem instead of the instruction being viewed as the problem. It

may also mean that the preservice teachers may not provide the most appropriate learning

experiences for the children that they are teaching and may even be biased toward the

students based upon their beliefs.









An area that is important for professors and teacher education programs to consider

is preservice teachers' beliefs and professional knowledge and the manners in which

these beliefs and professional knowledge influence their teaching behaviors. If

preservice teachers' beliefs and professional knowledge influence their teaching

behaviors, it would seem essential for those teaching, supporting, and supervising

preservice teachers to be aware of these beliefs and knowledge and the manners in which

these beliefs and knowledge influence teaching behaviors. Deeper understanding of these

beliefs and professional knowledge may be important to assist teacher educators in

preparing preservice teachers to teach all children to read proficiently. These

understandings may be useful in the design and implementation of teacher education

programs for teachers of reading.

Researchers have reported that teachers do make decisions based upon their beliefs

(Fang, 1996; Kagan & Smith, 1988; Lonberger, 1992; Richardson, 1996; Solomon,

Battistich, & Hom, 1996; Soodak & Podell, 1994; Stuart & Thurlow, 2000; Winfield,

1986). These decisions and actions have significant impact upon the learning

experiences provided for students. Teachers' actions are influenced by their attitudes and

beliefs, which then influence student learning and student behaviors (Soodak & Podell,

1994; Wiest, 1998).

Preservice teachers' beliefs and professional knowledge about teaching struggling

readers are important to study as these beliefs and knowledge influence the preservice

teachers' expectations, instruction, and evaluation of struggling readers. As researchers

and educators attempt to prepare teachers who are able to teach all children to read, it is









important to understand how preservice teachers' beliefs and professional knowledge

about struggling readers influence their teaching behaviors.

Significance of the Study

This research benefited the research community, preservice teachers, teachers, and

teacher educators. This study extended and refined the understandings regarding

preservice teachers' beliefs and professional knowledge and the manner in which these

impact preservice teachers' behaviors. This study may impact the design and

implementation of teacher education programs. As researchers uncover more insights into

preservice teachers' beliefs and professional knowledge, teacher educators will have

more information with which to design appropriate preservice and inservice teacher

education programs.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this qualitative study is to examine the beliefs and professional

knowledge of preservice teachers about teaching struggling readers. Specifically, this

study was an exploration of the participants' beliefs and professional knowledge in the

context of tutoring struggling readers in order to discover how these beliefs and

professional knowledge influenced the preservice teachers' expectations, instruction, and

evaluations of these learners.

Research Questions

Specifically, this study addressed the following questions:

1. What are preservice teachers' beliefs and professional knowledge about teaching
reading in general and teaching struggling readers in particular?

2. How do preservice teachers' beliefs and professional knowledge influence their
expectations for struggling readers?









3. How do preservice teachers' beliefs and professional knowledge influence their
instruction, for struggling readers?

4. How do preservice teachers' beliefs and professional knowledge influence their
evaluation of struggling readers?

Delimitations and Limitations of the Study

This research was limited to six preservice teachers at one university in Northern

Florida. The small number of participants provided the opportunity to deeply probe the

research questions being studied. The power of the study relied on the rich descriptions

and patterns that described the participants' experiences. Multiple data sources

strengthened the power of the data through triangulation. Descriptions of the participants

were sufficiently detailed to allow transferability to other settings. However,

generalizations are modest as the researcher sought to understand individuals in a specific

context.

The researcher had some previous knowledge of the participants and worked with

the participants in a supervisory capacity. This may have limited the participants' abilities

to be completely forthcoming with responses. The researchers' biases could not be

separated from the data. These biases included those as a former classroom teacher,

reading resource teacher, graduate student of reading, preservice teacher educator, and

researcher of a reading intervention program. These biases also included those of a white,

middle-class female. While attempting to describe, analyze, and report the beliefs,

professional knowledge, and actions of these preservice teachers, the researcher's identity

provided the lens through which all the information was processed.









Definitions

Beliefs and professional knowledge are the attitudes, values, beliefs, and

knowledge about teaching, students, content and the education process that students bring

to teacher education (Kagan, 1990; Pajares, 1993).

Blending refers to combining the sounds represented by letters to pronounce a

word; to sound out (Harris & Hodges, 1995).

Decoding refers to the process of translating printed words into an oral

representation using knowledge of letter-sound relationships and word structure (National

Reading Panel, 2000).

Elkonin boxes refers to a method in which squares are drawn to represent the

number of discrete sounds in a word. The student segments the phonemes in the word and

determines and writes the letter in the box to represent each of these phonemes.

Encoding refers to changing a message into symbols as in encoding oral language

into writing.

Fluency refers to the ability to read text quickly, accurately, and with proper

expression (National Reading Panel, 2000).

Frustration reading level refers to the level at which a reader can read text at less

than 90% success rate. The readability of material is too difficult to be read successfully

by student even with instruction and support (Harris & Hodges, 1995).

Genre refers to different kinds of literary texts, such as informational, instructional,

mystery, realistic fiction, historical fiction, biography, fantasy, traditional folk and fairy

tales, science fiction, etc. (Fountas & Pinell, 1996).

Independent reading level refers to the level at which a reader can read text at a

95% or higher success rate (National Reading Panel, 2000).









Instructional reading level refers to the level at which a reader can read text

between a 90% and 94% success rate. The material is challenging but not frustrating for

students to read successfully with instruction and support (Harris & Hodges, 1995).

Miscue refers to an oral reading response that differs from the expected response to

written text (Harris & Hodges, 1995).

Modeling refers to the act of serving as an example of behavior and or technique

(Harris & Hodges, 1995).

Oral cloze refers to the procedure of restoring omitted portions of an oral message

from its remaining context (Harris & Hodges, 1995).

Reading disability refers to reading achievement that is significantly below

expectancy for both an individual's reading potential and for chronological age or grade

level (Harris & Hodges, 1995).

Reading Recovery leveled text refers to reading materials that have been leveled

by Reading Recovery" based on a gradient of difficulty in order for teachers to make

decisions about materials to select for children to read (Clay, 1991).

Running record refers to the cumulative account of selected behavior, as of that of a

student reading as noted by a teacher over time (Harris & Hodges, 1995).

Self-correction refers to the use of knowledge of language and context to correct

errors in reading (Harris & Hodges, 1995).

Self-efficacy refers to the belief in one's capabilities to organize and execute the

sources of action required to manage prospective situations (Bandura, 1986).














CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Introduction

This review begins with what researchers have reported about effectively teaching

struggling readers. Next is a review of the literature on beliefs and professional

knowledge and pre- and inservice teachers' beliefs and professional knowledge. Next in

the review is research that has been conducted on the influence pre- and inservice

teachers' beliefs and professional knowledge have on their teaching behaviors. The final

section is a review of the limited research that has been conducted related to the influence

that pre- and inservice teachers' beliefs and professional knowledge have on teaching

struggling readers is presented.

Reading Instruction

Effective teacher education facilitates preservice teachers in their development of

content area expertise, research-based knowledge about teaching and learning, and

pedagogical skills that will enable them to teach effectively to a diverse population of

learners (NCATE, 2000; Ross, Lane, & McCallum, in preparation; Zeichner & Hoeft,

1996). This focus on rigorous content, theory, and pedagogy will prepare exemplary

teachers with expectations for all children to develop high levels of thoughtful literacy

skills, critical thinking skills, active learning skills, content knowledge application, and

problem solving abilities.









Emergent Literacy

Most literacy researchers and educators agree that learning to read and write is a

developmental process that begins long before the commencement of formal schooling

(Adams, 1990; Clay, 1991; Snow, Bums, & Griffin, 1998; Spear-Swerling & Sternberg,

1998; Whitehurst & Lonigan, 2001). This theory of emergent literacy supplanted the

previous reading readiness approach in which there was a perceived boundary between

what constituted "pretend" reading prior to formal literacy instruction and "real" reading

after formal literacy instruction when students were "ready to read" (Whitehurst &

Lonigan, 2001). The emergent literacy perspective validated the importance of literacy

activities such as storybook reading, chanting, singing, print awareness, and word-play

activities that occur in homes and preschool settings prior to formal schooling.

Young children who experienced more of these kinds of literate activities would

benefit more from formal reading instruction and learn to read sooner and more skillfully

than children who lacked these types of informal learning experiences (Whitehurst &

Lonigan, 2001). For these children, reading acquisition had begun well before the onset

of formal instruction (Spear-Swerling & Sternberg, 1998). Many children, however, have

had limited or have had no experiences with these types of literacy activities prior to

formal schooling. For these children, reading acquisition may be slower and more

difficult.

Teaching Struggling readers

There are many factors that can influence whether a child will have difficulty

learning to read including but not limited to instructional influences, socioeconomic

status, speaking a non-standard variety of English, having limited proficiency in English,

biological deficits, and cultural differences (Snow et al., 1998). The majority of children









who are struggling with reading acquisition at the completion of first grade will continue

to struggle with reading acquisition throughout their school careers (Juel, 1988). Literacy

researchers and educators are continually searching for effective strategies to ensure that

all children will become literate.

There is nothing so complicated about learning to read that would keep any child
who is not mentally retarded from being able to learn to read near, on, or above
grade level, provided this child is given enough instruction and instruction of
sufficient quality (Klenk & Kibby, 2000, p. 684-685).

In the first half of the twentieth century, the medical model was used to attempt to

determine the causes) of reading difficulties by studying variables such as visual acuity,

auditory acuity, general physical status, neurological factors, emotional/psychiatric

factors, and intelligence (Klenk & Kibby, 2000). The belief was that there must be

something inherently wrong with a child who was struggling with reading acquisition.

This "deficit hypotheses" argued that the deficit was within the child and caused by

environment, experience, or heredity (Johnston & Allington, 1991). Researchers now

believe that students who are struggling with reading acquisition do not require

qualitatively different instruction than children who are not struggling with reading

acquisition (Snow et al., 1998). Instead, children who are struggling with reading

acquisition require extra time in quality reading instruction, extensive opportunities to

read high-success materials, and specific strategy instruction (Allington, 2001;

Strickland, 2000).Therefore, children who are struggling with reading acquisition need

more quality reading instruction beginning early in their school careers (Pikulski, 1998).

Snow, Burns, and Griffin (1998), in a review of literature for the National Research

Council, argued for integrating attention to the alphabetic principle with attention to the

construction of meaning and opportunities to develop fluency. The researchers found









that most reading difficulties could be prevented with effective instruction. Their

conclusions for effective reading instruction included children reading to obtain meaning

from print; frequent opportunities to read; exposure to frequent, regular spelling-sound

relationships; instruction on the alphabetic principle; and instruction on the structure of

spoken words. Snow et al. concluded that progressing beyond the beginning reading

level required an understanding of the alphabetic principle, reading practice, sufficient

background knowledge and vocabulary to derive meaning from the text, monitoring

strategies, and interest and motivation to read for a variety of purposes.

Though criticized for its narrow focus on few topics and for limiting its review to

experimental and quasi-experimental evidence (Pressley, 2001), the National Reading

Panel's Report (2000) outlined evidence for teaching beginning reading skills in their

review of research. The conclusions of the panel were that phonemic awareness

instruction was effective in promoting early reading and spelling skills; systematic

phonics instruction improved reading, spelling, and comprehension skills; guided oral

reading and repeated reading of texts increased reading fluency; a variety of methods of

vocabulary instruction should be implemented; comprehension strategies instruction

improves comprehension; professional development can influence teachers' instruction in

reading; greater community resources can promote literacy; when children have access to

books, children are more likely to engage in literate activities which result in enhanced

language and literacy skills; whole language interventions at school may promote some

general, beginning understandings about reading and writing; literature-driven instruction

increased children's autonomous reading; instruction with strong connections between

literature and concept learning increased interest and engagement and comprehension









strategies; experiences with literature increased understanding of story structures;

comprehension of texts increased when children engage in conversations about literature

with peers and teachers; and exposure to a second language can have positive

implications for literacy development.

In his criticism, Pressley (2001) advised that the conclusions reached by the Panel

are not enough. Pressley argued that the Panel's emphases on discrete skills at specific

development levels did not take into account that effective reading instruction occurs

over a number of years and changes with the child's development. He contended that

"effective literacy instruction is a balance and blend of skills teaching and holistic

literature and writing experiences" (p. 4).

Access and Exposure to Print

To become a proficient reader one needs the opportunity to read (Allington, 1977).

Allington (1980) observed reading group instruction in twenty-four first and second

grade classrooms. He discovered that good readers read an average of 539 words during

a reading lesson but poor readers read only an average of 237 words during a reading

lesson. Allington argued that poor readers needed to read larger quantities of reading

material of they were ever going to become good readers. In addition, Allington

explained this reading material must be at the child's instructional level and must be

contextual reading as opposed to other reading instruction activities.

After tracking the effects of print exposure in fourth, fifth, and sixth grade students,

Cunningham and Stanovich (1991) found that print exposure is a significant unique

predictor of spelling, vocabulary, verbal fluency, word knowledge, and general

information even after controlling for differences in general ability and phonological









coding ability. These researchers argued that even the child with limited reading skills

would build vocabulary and knowledge structures through reading.

Stanovich's (1986) theory of "Matthew Effects" in reading explained that children

who experience early success in reading are likely to read more and become even better

readers. Conversely, children who struggle with reading acquisition are likely to spend

less time reading and achieve even less progress, falling farther and farther behind their

peers. Stanovich suggested,

If the development of vocabulary knowledge substantially facilitates reading
comprehension, and if reading itself is a major mechanism leading to vocabulary
growth which in turn will enable more efficient reading then we truly have a
reciprocal relationship that should continue to drive further growth in reading
throughout a person's development (p. 380).

His theory of "Matthew Effects" in reading further supports the position that the

volume of reading done by students directly affects reading achievement. Stanovich

theorizes that the very children who are reading well and who have good vocabularies

will read more, learn more word meanings, and read even better while children with

inadequate vocabularies who read slowly and without enjoyment read less, and as a result

have slower development of vocabulary knowledge, which inhibits further growth in

reading.

Effective Teachers

In a review of research examining students' passive failure in reading, Johnston and

Winograd (1985) contended that teachers treat less successful students differently than

more successful students. These differences in teacher actions for less successful students

include giving these children answers, allowing less wait time, interrupting reading more

frequently, having lower expectations, paying less attention, and praising less frequently.

Johnston and Winograd argued that these differences in teacher actions allow less









successful students to attribute their failure to low ability which, in turn, leads to passive

failure in reading. The authors concluded that research and teaching activities should

focus on children learning to read rather than the teaching of reading in order to prevent

passive failure in reading.

Allington (2002) argued that what really matters in reading instruction is effective

teachers. While studying exemplary teachers through research at the National Research

Center on English Learning and Achievement, Allington found that the most important

aspects of effective instruction were time spent in actual reading and writing activities;

quality and quantity of easily read materials; active instruction that modeled and

demonstrated reading and writing strategies; conversational talk; substantive, challenging

tasks; and assessment based on effort and improvement. This type of instruction can only

occur with effective, knowledgeable teachers.

Allington's (2002) focus on the teacher and instruction is supported by Darling-

Hammond's (1999) review of policy evidence in regard to teacher quality and student

achievement. Darling-Hammond found that well-prepared teachers can have strong

effects on student achievement ameliorating the impact of student poverty level, language

background, or minority status. She also concluded that teacher quality variables were

more strongly related to student achievement than class size, overall spending levels or

teacher salaries.

Early Intervention

Educators have increasingly turned to early intervention in order to help accelerate

literacy learning of students who are struggling with reading acquisition (Strickland,

2001). While it is crucial that the classroom teacher provide exemplary instruction and

take responsibility for all students in the classroom (Walmsley & Allington, 1995), rising









expectations for young literacy learners has shifted the focus to intensive early

intervention along with exemplary teaching practices (Strickland, 2001). These short-

term, intensive programs of intervention aimed at accelerating literacy development are

becoming preferable to extended remediation efforts such as Title I pull-out programs

(Strickland, 2001). Fortunately, the majority of children struggling with reading

acquisition can become readers if they are provided early and intensive intervention

(Vellutino & Scanlon, 2001). Providing this early intervention to children struggling with

reading acquisition is a crucial priority among educators. Research has shown many

forms of tutoring to be effective with struggling readers (Shanahan, 1998).

Reading Recovery is a one-to-one tutorial intervention provided by specially

trained teachers developed specifically for children struggling with reading acquisition in

the first years of formal schooling (Pinnell, Lyons, DeFord, Bryk, & Seltzer, 1994).

Reading Recovery was developed by Marie Clay, a developmental psychologist and

teacher of special education in New Zealand, and her colleagues in 1976 in an effort to

develop an intervention that would accelerate the reading development of the lowest

achieving children up to the reading development of the average achieving children in the

classroom. The lesson framework includes reading and rereading familiar texts; analysis

of student reading through running record techniques; composing, writing, and reading

messages; and reading new and more challenging texts with teacher support. In a study

conducted by Pinell et al. (1994) children who received Reading Recovery as an

intervention performed significantly higher than other treatment groups and the control

group. In an independent analysis of the effectiveness of Reading Recovery, Shanahan

and Barr (1995) found Reading Recovery to be less effective and more costly than had









been claimed. Despite these findings, the researchers recommended the continued support

of Reading Recovery as a successful intervention strategy.

Many researchers have reported that the majority of children struggling with

reading acquisition can become readers if they are provided individualized, early and

intensive literacy intervention (Hayes, Lane, & Pullen, 1999; Juel, 1991; Pinnell et al.,

1994; Vellutino & Scanlon, 2001). These researchers have reported that some students

would require longer periods of effective, intensive remediation but that many students

could actually be remediated with less intensive and shorter interventions if that

intervention was provided early in the child's reading development. Vellutino and

Scanlon (2001) concluded that reading difficulties in the majority of children struggling

with reading acquisition were caused by experiential and instructional deficits rather than

cognitive deficits.

Other tutorial intervention strategies that have utilized volunteers or college

students have also proven to be effective in helping children who are struggling with

reading acquisition (Baker, Gersten, & Keating, 2000; Elbaum, Vaughn, Hughes, &

Moody, 2000; Fitzgerald, 2001; Hayes et al., 1999; Invemizzi, 2001; Invernizzi, Juel, &

Rosemary, 1998; Juel, 1996). Many of these literacy interventions were based upon the

design of the Reading Recovery (Pinnell et al., 1994) framework including rereading

familiar texts, word study, writing, and reading an unfamiliar book with the assistance of

a tutor who is providing specific strategy instruction. The tutoring models that utilized

volunteers or college students offered an affordable form of early intervention that was

proven to be successful in raising literacy levels. These studies confirmed that well-

designed, reliably implemented interventions could improve the literacy development for









students struggling with reading acquisition. The crucial factor in successful volunteer

efforts appeared to be the training and mentoring provided to tutors (Invernizzi, 2001).

Elbaum et al. (2000) cautioned that the instruction provided by volunteers or college

students was intended to supplement, not replace, the classroom reading instruction.

Research consistently supports the effectiveness of tutoring (Shanahan, 1998).

However, tutoring is not a perfect solution and does have some potential drawbacks. One

criticism of pull-out programs in general is that students who are receiving interventions

during the school day lose ten to fifteen minutes of instructional time just traveling

between the classroom and the intervention (Cunningham & Allington, 1994). These

researchers suggested that it may be difficult or impossible to make up for this lost time

regardless of the effectiveness of the intervention. In order to control for these factors,

attention must be focused on limiting the loss of instructional time through transitions as

well as careful attention to the decision about which classroom activities will be lost

during the intervention. Many schools have chosen to add these intervention programs on

to their school day either before or after school in order to address these issues and

provided extended learning for struggling children.

Shanahan (1998) warned that if the person providing the tutoring is ineffective, the

intervention will be ineffective. Of course, if the intervention is inappropriate or

ineffective, trading exemplary classroom instruction for this instruction would be

detrimental to student achievement (Shanahan, 1998). Providing extra time in quality

reading instruction, extensive opportunities to read high-success materials, and specific

strategy instruction (Strickland, 2000) as previously suggested is appropriate and

effective intervention.









The researchers included in this review have reported that there are common

elements of effective literacy instruction for all readers in general and struggling readers

in particular. These common elements include extra quality reading instruction, extensive

opportunities to read high-success texts and useful, specific strategy instruction with an

effective teacher. In addition to the described reading instruction occurring within the

regular classroom, more intensive, short-term intervention programs may also be

implemented to accelerate the learning of some struggling readers. While occurring in a

smaller group and a more intensive manner, this intervention instruction should not be

qualitatively different than the instruction provided to those children who are not

struggling with reading acquisition.

Beliefs and Professional Knowledge

As human beings we have beliefs about everything whether they are implicit or

explicit beliefs. Researchers have argued that these beliefs are the basis for all of the

choices that we make as individuals (Bandura, 1986; Richardson, 1996; Rokeach, 1968).

Researchers have reported that teachers, like all human beings, make decisions based

upon their beliefs (Bandura, 1986; Fang, 1996; Kagan & Smith, 1988; Lonberger, 1992;

Richardson, 1996; Rokeach, 1968; Solomon et al., 1996; Stuart & Thurlow, 2000;

Winfield, 1986). These decisions and actions have significant impact upon the learning

experiences provided for students. Teachers' actions are influenced by their attitudes and

beliefs, which then influence student learning and student behaviors (Wiest, 1998).

Rokeach (1968) theorized that the decisions that people make throughout their

lives are based upon their beliefs. His research and theories about beliefs, attitudes and

values are often-cited and studied. Rokeach (1968) defined beliefs as "any simple

proposition, conscious or unconscious, inferred from what a person says or does, capable









of being preceded by the phrase 'I believe that ...'" (p. 113). Rokeach was interested in

the structure of belief systems and conducted a quantitative study on 29 subjects' belief

systems using hypnotic procedures. He concluded that some beliefs are more central than

other beliefs and that the more central the belief, the more it will be resistant to change.

He also concluded that knowledge is a component of belief. Rokeach warned that beliefs

should not necessarily be verbal reports taken at face value, but rather inferences made by

an observer about the underlying states based on all the things the "believer" is doing and

saying.

Bandura (1986), agreed with Rokeach that beliefs are the best indicator of an

individual's decision-making. Beliefs are the basis upon which individuals plan, interpret,

and make decisions. Bandura argued that beliefs must be studied in context specific

situations in order to be useful, as human beings have beliefs about everything. He also

argued that some beliefs are more resistant to change than others and that teacher efficacy

beliefs are the strongest predictors of motivation and actions.

Pajares' (1993) defined preservice teachers' beliefs as: "the attitudes and values

about teaching, students, and the education process that students bring to teacher

education attitudes and values that can be inferred by teacher educators not only from

what preservice teachers say but from what they do" (p. 46). Because of the subjective

nature of teaching, Kagan (1990) used beliefs and knowledge interchangeably. Kagan

defined teachers' cognitions as any of the following: "pre- or inservice teachers' self-

reflections; beliefs and knowledge about teaching, students, and content; and awareness

of problem-solving strategies endemic to classroom teaching" (p. 421).









For the purposes of this study, these two definitions will be combined. Preservice

teachers' beliefs and professional knowledge will be defined as: The attitudes, values,

beliefs, and knowledge about teaching, students, content and the education process that

students bring to teacher education. Additionally, Pajares' (1993) advice that preservice

teachers' attitudes and values should be inferred not only from what preservice teachers

say but also from what they do will be heeded.

Because human beings have beliefs about everything and these beliefs are the basis

for decision-making and actions (Bandura, 1986; Rokeach, 1968), belief research is an

important field of study. Based upon the theory that beliefs are central to human beings'

everyday decisions and actions (Bandura, 1986; Rokeach, 1968) and that there need not

be any truth or evidence required for a belief (Richardson, 1996), it seems logical that

teacher beliefs are central to their classroom decisions and actions. Understanding

teachers' beliefs is important for understanding teachers' actions.

Influences of Beliefs and Professional Knowledge on Teaching

Researchers have discovered that teachers make decisions based upon their beliefs.

These decisions and actions have significant impact upon the learning experiences

provided for their students. This section will describe research that has been conducted on

the influence of teachers' beliefs and professional knowledge on teaching behaviors.

In a study of teachers' beliefs about self-efficacy, Ashton and Webb (1986) used

the quantitative and qualitative methods of questionnaires, interviews, classroom

observations, and student records to determine if there was a relationship between

teachers' self-efficacy and student achievement. Forty-eight high school teachers were

included in the study. These researchers found that the teachers' self-efficacy was

associated with student achievement in both reading and math. Additionally, these









researchers determined that teachers' self-efficacy influenced teaching behaviors such as

their use of praise and whether or not they were task-oriented. It is an important finding

that there is a relationship between teachers' self-efficacy beliefs and their teaching

behaviors as well as between teachers' self-efficacy beliefs and student achievement.

Kagan and Smith (1988) examined the relationship between kindergarten teachers'

self-reported beliefs and their classroom practice. Fifty-one kindergarten teachers

completed self-report instruments that assessed cognitive style, teaching ideology,

classroom behavior, and occupational stress. They were later observed for two hours

teaching their kindergarten students. The researchers were specifically interested in

whether the teachers believed in a more child-centered or a more teacher-centered

kindergarten classroom. Kagan and Smith found the teachers' self-reported beliefs were

strongly consistent with the researcher observations and that their beliefs were evident in

their classroom practice and classroom environment. The researchers described how the

teachers' beliefs were reflected in their teaching behaviors. These behaviors included the

teachers' verbal behavior, teachers' position in the room, and students' positions and

groupings in the room. Kagan and Smith concluded that teachers with a more child-

centered approach to teaching kindergarten held a consistent set of beliefs and behaviors.

This study is significant in that it reports how teachers' beliefs and professional

knowledge are reflected in teaching behaviors.

Richardson, Anders, Tidwell, and Loyd (1991) studied the relationship between

teachers' beliefs about teaching reading comprehension and their classroom practices. In

the study, thirty-nine intermediate elementary teachers, including 30 females and 9 males,

were interviewed to determine their beliefs about reading comprehension and how









children learn to read. These teachers were then observed twice while teaching reading

comprehension to determine if their beliefs were consistent with their classroom

practices. The researchers concluded that the beliefs of the teachers in the study reflected

their classroom practices in the teaching of reading comprehension.

In a quantitative study of the relationship between belief systems and the

instructional choices of preservice teachers, Lonberger (1992) assessed the beliefs of 37

elementary and special education students enrolled in an introductory reading methods

course. The students' beliefs about reading, how children read, and teaching a child to

read were assessed through informal questions. Responses were classified by philosophy

and frequencies of response by belief system were tabulated. Students later designed,

implemented, and were observed teaching a lesson for teaching word recognition. The

lessons were then judged to be congruent or incongruent with the preservice teachers'

philosophies. Lonberger reported that 84% of the students made instructional choices that

were congruent with their beliefs and theoretical orientations to reading and that these

orientations evolved during the reading methods course. These conclusions are important

in understanding the nature of preservice teacher beliefs and the manners in which these

beliefs influence teaching behaviors.

In a quantitative study, Solomon, Battistich, and Hom (1996) assessed the attitudes,

beliefs, perceptions and classroom practices of 476 teachers in 24 urban and suburban

elementary schools through the use of teacher questionnaires and classroom observations

during the course of a school year. The researchers reported that teachers' beliefs were

consistent with their teaching practices after statistically controlling for school poverty

level and students' achievement. Among the findings from the data, Solomon et al. found









that teachers in economically disadvantaged schools emphasized teacher authority and

control rather than student autonomy and constructivist approaches. They found that

teachers in the poor communities provided less engaging activities and saw themselves as

having less influence than teachers in more affluent communities. These findings, that

teachers interact with students differently based on their beliefs about students,

underscore the need for understanding how teachers' beliefs influence their teaching

behaviors.

Stuart and Thurlow (2000) analyzed the beliefs of preservice teachers enrolled in a

mathematics and science methods course. Twenty-six students were asked to examine

their beliefs and the impact these beliefs had on classroom practice. The researchers

included interviews and written responses to journal prompts, mathematics

autobiographies, final examination questions, field observations, and semi-structured

interviews in their data collection. Stuart and Thurlow challenged the preservice teachers

to confront their beliefs through reflection and discussion. They reported that the

preservice teachers' beliefs' about teaching were heavily influenced by their childhood

experiences. Stuart and Thurlow concluded that the preservice teachers gained a better

understanding of the impact their beliefs would have on classroom practice and how that

classroom practice would impact student learning. Stuart and Thurlow described how the

preservice teachers thought their beliefs would influence classroom practice. However,

they did not describe how preservice teachers' beliefs actually did influence their

classroom practice.

In her review of research on attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach, Richardson

(1996) concluded that in an interactive relationship, teachers' decisions and actions are









based upon their beliefs. She reported that preservice teachers' beliefs about teaching

result from personal experience, schooling and instruction, and formal knowledge.

However, she concluded that these beliefs could be changed or added to because of

experience and reflection upon that experience. She found in her review of research that

preservice teachers' beliefs are strong and highly resistant to change. Richardson argued

that teacher education programs must facilitate the self-identification and self-assessment

of preservice teachers' beliefs relative to their classroom actions in order to help facilitate

positive change in preservice teachers' beliefs.

In his review of the relationship between teacher beliefs and practices, Fang (1996)

reported that teachers' theories and beliefs are an important part of their general

knowledge. These beliefs can influence teachers' expectations of student performance as

well as teachers' theories about teaching and learning. These, in turn, can have significant

impact on academic performance and student learning. Fang called for further research

on teacher beliefs that addresses the personal experiences of teachers and their influence

on shaping their beliefs.

Researchers have reported that inservice and preservice teachers' beliefs influence

their teaching behaviors (Ashton & Webb, 1986; Fang, 1996; Kagan & Smith, 1988;

Lonberger, 1992; Richardson, 1996; Richardson et al., 1991; Solomon et al., 1996; Stuart

& Thurlow, 2000; Winfield, 1986). These beliefs and professional knowledge include

beliefs about teacher efficacy, responsibility for teaching, pedagogical methods, and

issues of authority and autonomy. The researchers have also reported that teachers'

beliefs are congruent with their teaching behaviors and influence teachers' expectations

as well as student achievement. Obviously, the decisions and actions that are made by









teachers in the classroom have significant impact upon the learning experiences provided

for students. It is, therefore, important to more fully understand preservice teachers'

beliefs and professional knowledge and the manner in which these beliefs and knowledge

influence their teaching behaviors.

Influence of Beliefs and Professional Knowledge on Teaching Struggling Readers

As researchers and educators attempt to prepare teachers who are able to teach all

children to read, it is be important to understand how preservice teachers' beliefs and

professional knowledge about teaching struggling readers influence their teaching

behaviors. This section will describe research that has been conducted on the relationship

between teachers' and preservice teachers' beliefs and professional knowledge about

teaching struggling readers in particular and the influence these beliefs and knowledge

have on their teaching behaviors.

Winfield (1986) studied inservice teachers' beliefs about academically at risk

students in inner city schools. Winfield studied five inner-urban schools which served

predominately minority and low income students. Forty teachers were interviewed for the

study, which utilized a case study methodology to examine the schools over a one-year

period. Winfield categorized the teachers' beliefs based on whether teachers believed

some type of instructional assistance could improve the students' achievement and

whether teachers assumed responsibility for improving instruction or shifted

responsibility to someone else. By using a cross-classification, Winfield categorized

teachers as either: 1) "tutors" who believed they were responsible for and provided the

necessary instruction to the lowest readers; 2) "general contractors" who believed the

students needed remedial instruction but that it was not their job to provide that

instruction; 3) "custodians" who believed that little or nothing could be done to improve









the students' achievement; and 4) "referral agents" who believed students could not learn

in the classroom or remedial program and should be referred for psychological testing or

special education. Winfield concluded that teachers' beliefs influenced their expectations

as well as their instruction for at risk students. This is an important contribution to the

study of how teachers' beliefs influence expectations, instruction, and assessment.

McGill-Franzen (1994) reported on earlier research (Allington & Li, 1990; McGill-

Franzen & James, 1990) that investigated the relationship between institutional practices

and teachers' beliefs about children and their ability to learn to read. Thirty-nine

elementary classroom teachers, compensatory education teachers, and special education

teachers in six school districts were interviewed about the struggling readers in their

classes. The researchers found that special education teachers believed that their students

could not perform on grade level and that they could only make six months progress for

each year of school. This was reflected in the special education teachers' behaviors,

which included a slower pace of instruction, easier materials, repetition, and retention of

students. McGill-Franzen reported that teachers held different beliefs about remedial

students as opposed to special education students. The teachers believed that remedial

students would eventually be able to perform on grade level and that they expected these

remedial students to make at least one year's progress for each year in school. This

translated to teaching behaviors that included actual opportunities for reading and writing

as the basis for literacy instruction. McGill-Franzen called for challenging the beliefs,

expectations and instruction of teachers who work with at-risk children. This is an

important study of the influence of teachers' beliefs and professional knowledge about

teaching struggling readers on teaching behaviors.









Soodak and Podell (1994) investigated teachers decision-making with regard to

students experiencing difficulty in reading. The researchers were interested in teachers'

causal beliefs and sense of efficacy. The researchers distributed questionnaires to 110

participants that included a case study of a third grade student from a divorced family

experiencing difficulty in reading with occasional problems with self-control that

disrupted the class. Participants were to list possible ways to address the situation,

including which they believed would be most effective and what they believed was the

cause of the situation. Teachers also completed a teacher efficacy scale. The researchers

found that teachers offer a wide variety of suggestions for addressing a student's

problems and a wide variety of causes for the student's difficulties. The teachers did not,

however, believe that their efforts would be successful with the student. Additionally, the

teachers frequently believed that someone outside of the classroom would be needed to

effect change in the situation. The researchers also reported that when teachers believed

the home was the cause of the student's problems, they sought parental involvement.

When the teachers believed the school was the cause of the student's problems, they

sought outside interventions. Finally, the researchers reported that teachers' personal

efficacy beliefs influenced their decisions regarding instruction for "difficult-to-teach"

students. This study is an important study that describes the influence of teachers' beliefs

about efficacy and responsibility on their teaching decisions.

Maxson (1996) reported that there is an intricate, interactive relationship between

what teachers believe and teachers' actions such as curriculum decision-making,

planning, and experiences that teachers provide for students. Maxson (1996) used a

multiple case study design to explore the influence of teachers' beliefs on literacy









instruction for at-risk first graders. The sample included five white, female teachers

teaching at different high-risk schools within the same school district. Maxson collected

data from interviews, observations, questionnaires, and teacher reflections throughout a

school year and made conclusions based upon the constant comparative method. Maxson

concluded that there was a direct relationship between the teachers' beliefs and their

practices and that the teachers held definite beliefs about teaching at-risk students.

Maxson found that the teachers functioned within an instructional paradigm that was

directly influenced by their individual belief systems. She reported that many external

factors such as content and population of students influenced the teachers' beliefs.

Maxson did not report the teachers' beliefs, only that they were related to practice.

Nierstheimer, Hopkins, and Schmitt (1996), conducted a study examining

preservice teachers' beliefs about teaching students who are struggling with reading

acquisition. The preservice teachers included 60 female and 7 male participants. These

preservice teachers were enrolled in a corrective reading methods course with a tutoring

practicum. Features of the Reading Recovery professional development model were

incorporated into the program. Data sources included questionnaires, videotapes,

interviews, small-group discussions, observations, lesson plans and portfolios. The

researchers conducted within- and cross-case analyses to analyze the data. The

researchers reported that the preservice teachers assigned responsibility for the cause of

reading problems to someone else and assigned the responsibility for teaching struggling

readers to read to someone else. The preservice teachers believed it was not the

classroom teachers' responsibility to teach struggling readers. The preservice teachers

included in the study believed that the parents and home environment or the children









themselves were responsible for the reading difficulties. Additionally, the preservice

teachers believed it was the responsibility of a resource teacher or parents to teach these

struggling readers. This study is important in describing the relationship between

preservice teachers' beliefs and their sense of responsibility for teaching struggling

readers.

In a study examining preservice teachers' shifting beliefs about struggling literacy

learners, Nierstheimer et al. (2000), utilized qualitative methods to re-examine the

previously reported (Nierstheimer et al., 1996) study of 67 preservice teachers. The

researchers found that after participating in the course, the preservice teachers' beliefs

shifted toward "assuming responsibility for helping children with reading problems rather

than assigning responsibility to someone else as they had when the course began" (p.1).

The researchers concluded that carefully guided tutoring experiences are crucial in

preparing effective literacy teachers.

Mallette, Readence, McKinney, and Smith (2000) critically analyzed the written

work of two preservice teachers' who had been tutoring struggling readers. The

researchers analyzed the preservice teachers' field notes, case studies, reflective writings,

and group lesson plans by coding and exploring the relationships in the various sources.

Mallette et al. was interested in exploring how the ideologies of the preservice teachers

effected the preservice teachers' development of knowledge about teaching struggling

readers. The researchers defined ideologies as beliefs embedded in hegemonic relations.

They discovered that the preservice teachers' expectations about reading acquisition,

success, parental support, reading difficulties, attitude toward reading, assessment,

teaching, and education were based upon their white, middle-class, female identities.









These preservice teachers believed their students would be similar to themselves and

struggled with these ideologies when the students were not like them. Mallette et al.

concluded that it is important for teacher educators to help preservice teachers understand

how their knowledge about education is centered in ideologies that are based on their

raced, classed, and gendered identities. The researchers called for an exploration of

beliefs of preservice teachers' at a deeper level to examine how they reflect ideologies.

Researchers have concluded that teachers' beliefs about teaching struggling readers

influence their teaching behaviors (Mallette et al., 2000; Maxson, 1996; McGill-Franzen,

1994; Soodak & Podell, 1994; Winfield, 1986). Researchers have described how these

beliefs and professional knowledge have translated into different expectations and

instruction for struggling readers (McGill-Franzen, 1994; Winfield, 1986). These beliefs

and professional knowledge also influence teachers' sense of responsibility for teaching

struggling readers (Nierstheimer et al., 1996; Soodak & Podell, 1994; Winfield, 1986).

The Winfield (1986) study is an important contribution to the study of how

teachers' beliefs about at-risk students influenced their expectations, instruction, and

assessment of these students. McGill-Franzen (1994) offered specific details about

teachers' beliefs and how these beliefs influenced teaching behaviors. Her research was

limited to teachers' beliefs about special education students as opposed to remedial

education students. Soodack and Podell's (1994) research described the influence of

teachers' beliefs about efficacy and responsibility on their teaching decisions. However,

the researchers did not observe actual teaching behaviors to determine how these beliefs

influenced actual classroom practice. Maxson (1996) concluded that there was a

relationship between teachers' beliefs and teaching behaviors, however, she did not









provide specific details about this relationship. Nierstheimer et al. (1996) found that

teachers' beliefs influenced their sense of responsibility for teaching struggling readers,

however, they did not explore how this translated into teaching behaviors. Finally,

Mallette et al. (2000) were interested in hegemonic relations and the manner in which

these influenced preservice teachers' beliefs about teaching struggling readers. Again,

this research did not attempt to explore the manner in which these beliefs influenced

teaching behaviors.

Summary

Researchers included in this review have demonstrated that teachers' beliefs and

professional knowledge influence their teaching behaviors in general and their teaching

behaviors for struggling readers in particular. However, the research on the relationship

between teachers' beliefs and professional knowledge about teaching struggling readers

is limited. More research is needed in order to more fully understand preservice teachers'

beliefs and professional knowledge about teaching struggling readers and how these

beliefs and knowledge influence their teaching behaviors. Specifically, more research is

needed to explore the relationship between preservice teachers' beliefs and professional

knowledge about teaching struggling readers and their expectations, instruction, and

evaluation of struggling readers. The current research study attempted to fill this gap in

the research.

This study of preservice teachers' beliefs about teaching struggling readers and

their influence on their teaching behaviors should help researchers explore areas for

potential preservice teacher program improvement. Researchers in this review reported

that teacher education programs could have a significant impact upon preservice

teachers' beliefs and professional knowledge. It is, therefore, a challenge for preservice






32


teacher educators and researchers to identify the beliefs and professional knowledge of

preservice teachers and discover the impact of these beliefs on the teaching of struggling

readers in order to identify directions for improvement in teacher education. If preservice

teachers' beliefs and professional knowledge influence their teaching behaviors, it would

seem essential for those teaching, supporting, and supervising preservice teachers to be

aware of these beliefs and knowledge and the manners in which these beliefs and

knowledge influence teaching behaviors.














CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY

Introduction

The purpose of this qualitative study was to examine the beliefs and professional

knowledge of preservice teachers about teaching struggling readers. The study was an

exploration of the participants' beliefs and professional knowledge in the context of

tutoring struggling readers in order to discover how these beliefs and professional

knowledge influenced the preservice teachers' expectations, instruction, and evaluations

of these learners.

General Research Plan

The research plan was to identify six elementary education majors who would be

employed as tutors in Project UFLI, a federally funded study of beginning reading

intervention, and describe how their beliefs and professional knowledge about teaching

struggling readers influenced their teaching behaviors. These descriptions were based on

data collected over a four-month period (February 2003 May 2003). Included in the

data collection procedures were five sources of data: preservice teachers' background

information sheets, preservice teachers' autobiographies, interviews with preservice

teachers, observations of preservice teachers while teaching struggling readers, and

preservice teachers' written expectations and evaluations of struggling readers (Table 3-

1). This methodology was implemented in order to provide multiple data sources for

attempting to answer the research questions. These questionnaires, autobiographies,

interviews, observations, written expectations and evaluations allowed for triangulation









of the data (Table 3-2). The researcher developed a timeline in order to ensure that all

methods were applied over a four-month period (Table 3-3).

Table 3-1 Methodology Descriptions


Methods


Source


Data


Background
Information
Sheets


Autobiographies









Interviews



Observations


Expectations
and Evaluations


Preservice
Teachers



Preservice
Teachers








Preservice
Teachers


Researcher


Preservice
Teachers


Establish pertinent demographic and background
information. Identify preservice teachers' educational
background and teaching experiences. Help to refine the
interview and observation guide.

Identify preservice teachers' beliefs about themselves,
family, their own literacy experiences and reading
habits. Identify preservice teachers' beliefs and
professional knowledge about good readers, how
children learn to read, and their beliefs and professional
knowledge about why children have difficulty learning
to read. Help to refine the interview and observation
guide.

Explore research questions in depth and corroborate
background information, autobiography, and
observational data.

Explore research questions firsthand and gain contextual
information.

Identify preservice teachers' expectations and
evaluations of struggling readers.


Table 3-2 Methodology Matrix
Beliefs and
professional
knowledge


Research
Methods
Background
Information
Sheets
Autobiographies
Interviews
Observations
Expectations and
Evaluations


about teaching
reading


How beliefs and
professional
knowledge
influence
expectations


How beliefs and
professional
knowledge
influence
instruction


How beliefs and
professional
knowledge
influence
evaluation










Table 3-3 Timeline of Research Methodologies
Date(s) Instrument
February 2003 Autobiography

February 2003 Background Information Sheet

February 2003 Expectations and Evaluations of Tutored Students

February 2003 Observation One

February/March 2003 Observation Two

March 2003 Interview One

March/April 2003 Expectations and Evaluations of Tutored Students

March/April 2003 Observation Three

April/May 2003 Expectations and Evaluations of Tutored Students

April/May 2003 Interview Two


A case study approach was utilized with the descriptive data sources from this

research. A cross-case analysis was then employed to search for patterns across cases.

The researcher generated categories, themes, and patterns and tested emergent

understandings while searching for alternative explanations (Marshall & Rossman, 1999).

The data collection questions were intended to probe the relationship between preservice

teachers' beliefs and professional about teaching struggling readers and their teaching

behaviors. The following questions guided data collection in this research:

1. What are preservice teachers' beliefs and professional knowledge about teaching
reading in general and teaching struggling readers in particular?

2. How do preservice teachers' beliefs and professional knowledge influence their
expectations for struggling readers?

3. How do preservice teachers' beliefs and professional knowledge influence their
instruction, for struggling readers?









4. How do preservice teachers' beliefs and professional knowledge influence their
evaluation of struggling readers?


Qualitative Research

Patton (1990) described necessary assumptions of qualitative research: 1) A holistic

approach that seeks to understand in entirety in order to develop a complete

understanding of the person or situation rather than experimental research which seeks to

isolate and measure narrowly defined variables with prediction and control, 2) begins

with specific observations and moves toward the development of patterns that emerge

from the cases under study rather than defining variables and hypotheses prior to data

collection, 3) seeks to discover and understand in naturally occurring states rather than

under controlled conditions with a limited amount of outcome variables.

Miles and Huberman (1994a) included the following in their defense of qualitative

methods: Data can be collected in close proximity to a specific situation rather than

through mail or over phone; the emphasis can be on specific cases in context; there is the

possibility for understanding latent, underlying or non-obvious issues; there is potential

for richness, holism, and revealing complexity; data collected over a sustained period

makes them more powerful; possibility for locating meanings and for connecting these

meanings to the social world.

Most of the current research on teacher beliefs has shifted to a qualitative research

design (Richardson, 1996). Interviews and observations are the most widely used data

collection in research on teacher beliefs (Richardson, 1996). Case studies involve

multiple methods such as interviews, observations, and document analysis. The goal of

these types of designs is not to predict, but to understand the nature of teachers' beliefs.









In the hermeneutic nature of many of the teacher belief studies, researchers were

concerned with obtaining rich understandings through an openly dialogic process of

repeatedly returning to the text to gain increased understanding and a more compete

interpretation (Smith, 1993). There is a relationship between the researcher and the

subject matter and the researcher is involved in the explanatory process, which intrudes

into the context of the data. According to Richardson (1996), an important trend in these

hermeneutic studies of teachers' beliefs is that the data collection is used for purposes of

teacher change as well as research. For example, the coursework, autobiographies,

reflections, and cultural analysis in the qualitative studies above may serve not only for

the researchers to understand the preservice teachers' beliefs, but also for the preservice

teachers to change their beliefs based upon their participation in the activities.

Qualitative methods were useful for an in-depth exploration of how beliefs and

professional knowledge influenced preservice teachers' expectations, instruction, and

evaluation in order to fully understand the impact of preservice teachers' beliefs on

children who are struggling with reading acquisition.

Grounded Theory

Sociologists Glaser and Strauss introduced the research methodology of grounded

theory to researchers in their book, The Discovery of Grounded Theory (1967). In

grounded theory the researcher is the primary instrument of data collection and analysis.

As such, the researcher takes an inductive stance and strives to derive meaning from the

data (Merriam, 1998). The result of this research is the emergence of a theory that is

"grounded" in the data. The theory that emerges is usually substantive theory that is

useful to practice (Merriam, 1998).









Research Design

The research design is the logic that makes the connections between the collected

data and the initial study questions (Yin, 2003). (Table 3-1, Table 3-2). The conceptual

framework was designed to answer the question, how do preservice teachers' beliefs and

professional knowledge about teaching struggling readers influence their teaching

behaviors?

The research design for the current study was based on a case study approach. A

case study has a distinct advantage when "a 'how' or 'why' question is being asked about

a contemporary set of events, over which the investigator has little or no control" (Yin,

2003) (Yin, 2003, p. 9). Advantages of case study research include providing a means of

investigating complex social units consisting of multiple variables; studies are conducted

in real world situations; the rich and holistic descriptions offer insight and illuminate

meanings; and the case study can advance a field's knowledge base (Merriam, 1998).

Case studies can be single or multiple cases. A multiple case study approach may

be preferred in order to substantiate conclusions, allow for replication, and expand the

external generalizability of the findings (Yin, 2003). The current study employed a

multiple case study design and was explanatory, descriptive, and exploratory in nature.

Methods and Procedures

In this multiple-case study design, data were collected from six participants. These

participants were elementary education majors at the University of Florida who were

employed as tutors in Project UFLI, a federally funded study of beginning reading

intervention.

The University of Florida Literacy Initiative is a tutorial intervention designed to

improve the literacy development of children struggling with literacy acquisition (Hayes









et al., 1999). This intervention is a comprehensive literacy intervention that combines

effective practices from other programs in order to address the needs of children

struggling with reading acquisition. The framework of the lesson includes: 1) Gaining

fluency through reading high-success familiar texts, 2) measuring progress through

running record techniques, 3) writing for reading with an emphasis on analyzing words

and constructing their spellings, 4) reading unfamiliar and increasingly challenging text

with appropriate instructional coaching from the tutor and, 5) extending literacy with an

emphasis on exploring a wide variety of genres. This intervention program trains

university students, primarily from the College of Education, to implement the tutoring

program. These tutors are trained by university personnel, continuously supervised, and

provided with ongoing support through weekly meetings with the authors of the program.

Lane and Pullen, the developers of the program at the University of Florida, have

conducted internal research on the effectiveness of the program in both one-to-one and

small group settings. Based upon their internal research, this intervention program has

proven to be consistently effective in improving the literacy development of children

struggling with reading acquisition.

Data were collected over a four-month period (February 2003 May 2003).

Included in the data collection procedures were preservice teachers' background

information sheets, preservice teachers' autobiographies, interviews with preservice

teachers, observations of preservice teachers while teaching struggling readers, and

preservice teachers' written expectations and evaluations of struggling readers.

Interviews allow preservice teachers to reflect upon recent behavior as well as beliefs and

biases.









Preservice Teacher Background Information Sheet

The preservice teacher background information sheet (Appendix A) was designed

by the researcher. This questionnaire was designed to provide data describing the

preservice teachers' educational backgrounds and teaching experiences. This type of

document is a stable source that can be reviewed repeatedly and provides background

information and details of experiences that may have shaped preservice teachers'

professional knowledge and beliefs about teaching and learning.

Preservice Teacher Autobiography

The preservice teacher autobiography sheet (Appendix B) was designed by the

researcher. The preservice teachers were asked to identify their beliefs and professional

knowledge about themselves, their families, their own literacy experiences and their own

reading habits. The preservice teachers were also asked to identify their beliefs and

professional knowledge about good readers, how children learn to read, and their beliefs

and professional knowledge about why children have difficulty learning to read. This

type of document is a stable source that can be reviewed repeatedly and provides

background information and details of experiences that may have shaped preservice

teachers' professional knowledge and beliefs about teaching and learning.

Interviews

Interviews allow participants to reflect upon recent behavior as well as beliefs and

professional knowledge. Interviews also allow the researcher to discuss behaviors,

beliefs, and professional knowledge in detail. Multiple in-depth interviews with multiple

preservice teachers over time allows triangulation of the data across sources and tests

issues of reliability and validity (Dilley, 2000). The data collection can be sufficiently in

depth to foster thick description of preservice teachers' beliefs and professional









knowledge. Interviews can be useful in order to obtain large amounts of data quickly and

allow for immediate follow-up and clarification. Interviews, however, are open to

different interpretations, difficult to replicate, dependent on the participants being

forthcoming and honest, and highly dependent upon the researcher to be "resourceful,

systematic, and honest" (Marshall & Rossman, 1999, p. 135).

Two semi-structured interviews were conducted with each individual participant.

The questions for the interviews were generated from the preservice teachers'

background information sheets, autobiographies, written evaluations of struggling readers

and observations of the preservice teachers working with struggling readers (Appendixes

C and D). To better understand the beliefs, professional knowledge and understandings of

the participants, the questions were designed to be open-ended and focused on the

research questions in Chapter 2. The researcher conducted each of the teacher interviews

at the University of Florida Literacy Initiative Office or at the elementary school site

where the preservice teacher was tutoring struggling readers at a time chosen by the

preservice teacher. With the permission of the participants (Appendix G), each interview

was audio-taped, transcribed, coded, and critically analyzed.

Observations

When combined with interviews, observation allows the researcher to understand

the meanings that people hold. Observation allows data to be collected in a natural setting

and is useful for describing complex social interactions (Marshall & Rossman, 1999).

Observation can be useful in obtaining data on nonverbal behavior and communication,

providing contextual information, and for obtaining large amounts of data quickly.

Observations, however, are open to multiple interpretations, are difficult to replicate,









subject to observer effects, and also dependent upon the researcher to be "resourceful,

systematic, and honest" (Marshall & Rossman, 1999, p. 135).

Preservice teachers were observed in the context of tutoring struggling readers.

Participants were each observed a minimum of three times while tutoring struggling

readers. These observations ranged from 30 to 60 minutes. Field notes were collected

during and after the observations using the observation guide (Appendix E). Following

each observation, participants were debriefed about the observation. During the

debriefing the preservice teachers were asked to clarify their rationale for instructional

decisions to determine how their beliefs about teaching struggling readers influenced

their teaching behaviors. Each debriefing was audio taped. The audiotapes were

transcribed, coded, and critically analyzed.

Written Evaluations and Expectations

Observations and interviews were supplemented with analysis of documents

constructed specifically for this research. These documents include the preservice

teachers' written evaluations and expectations of struggling readers. These documents

provided contextual information and facilitated analysis and triangulation (Marshall &

Rossman, 1999). This type of data is easy to manage, administer, and categorize for

analysis. Despite these strengths, document analysis can also be open to multiple

interpretations and is dependent upon the researcher to be "resourceful, systematic, and

honest" (Marshall & Rossman, 1999, p. 135).

Participants wrote three narrative evaluations of the struggling readers they were

tutoring (Appendix F). These evaluations included the preservice teachers' expectations

for student progress. These documents were analyzed to identify preservice teachers'

expectations and evaluations of struggling readers.These evaluations were written









approximately after the third, seventh, and tenth week of tutoring. These evaluations were

coded and analyzed.

Data Management

The researcher developed a system of data management for the case study early in

the data collection process. The researcher transcribed interviews, typed notes, and filed

documents into computer folders. The researcher created a data base that allows access of

the data by other researchers. The data for this investigation included background

information sheet data, autobiography data, transcripts from interviews, observational

field notes, transcripts from debriefings, written evaluations and expectations, and

researcher comments.

Data Analysis

Data analysis focused on the research questions to: (a) describe the beliefs and

professional knowledge of each preservice teacher; and (b) discover how these beliefs

and professional knowledge influenced their teaching behaviors.

"Data analysis involves organizing what you have seen, heard, and read so that you

can make sense of what you have learned" (Glesne, 1999). The researcher began with

reading and rereading the data sources for each preservice teacher and coding for

emerging themes. Coding is analyzing (Miles & Huberman, 1994b) and searching for

patterns in the data (Shank, 2002). Each preservice teacher's data analysis involved

sorting, classifying, and labeling as well as clustering and organizing these emerging

classifications. The codes needed to have conceptual and structural order that allowed

them to be integrated into a governing structure (Miles & Huberman, 1994b). Open

coding was used rather than a predetermined framework in order to ensure themes were

not artificially forced onto the data. After initial coding, the data were reviewed again to









search for categories neglected in the initial identification. This process was repeated for

each individual participant. These coding structures were compared in order to support

the coding system. Each participant's data was reviewed again as new codes and themes

emerged.

Next, the researcher combined the original themes from each case study to search

for overarching themes. In making connections across the individual preservice teachers,

the researcher was careful not to lose the meaning of any individual participant (Miles &

Huberman, 1994b).

The next step in data analysis was to extend the description in a systematic manner

through identifying, describing and illustrating the themes that emerged (Glesne, 1999).

Case Descriptors

The cases were arranged around the categories of: (a) preservice teachers' beliefs

and professional knowledge about teaching reading, (b) preservice teachers' expectations

for struggling readers, (c) preservice teachers' instruction for struggling readers, and (d)

preservice teachers' evaluation of struggling readers. In the category of preservice

teachers' beliefs and professional knowledge about teaching reading, nine codes were

identified: 1) parental involvement, 2) motivation, 3) readiness, 4) access and exposure

to print, 5) socioeconomic status, 6) behavior, 7) reading disability, 8) teacher efficacy,

and 9) responsibility. In the category of preservice teachers' expectations for struggling

readers, five codes were developed: 1) text level, 2) grade level, 3) reading strategies, 4)

reading disability, and 5) behavior. In the category of preservice teachers' instruction for

struggling readers, five categories emerged: 1) modeling, 2) wait time, 3) prompting, 4)

providing answers, and 5) text. In the category of preservice teachers' evaluation of

struggling readers, five codes were identified: 1) text level, 2) grade level, 3) reading









strategies, 4) reading disability, and 5) behavior. The grounded theory developed in the

current study was data driven and emerged from the exhaustive data analysis. The

identification of themes allowed for cross-case analysis. The researcher used the results

from the cross-case analysis to identify conclusions and develop recommendations.

Validity and Reliability

Internal Validity

In order to establish construct validity the researcher needs to use multiple sources

of evidence (Yin, 2003). In the current study, the triangulation of data was implemented

for construct validity by collecting data through multiple sources: preservice teachers'

background information sheets, preservice teachers' autobiographies, interviews with

preservice teachers, observations of preservice teachers while teaching struggling readers,

and preservice teachers' written expectations and evaluations of struggling readers.

Findings in a case study that are based upon multiple sources of information that lead to

converging lines of inquiry are considered to be more convincing and accurate in case

study research (Yin, 2003). The researcher spent four months collecting data through

written documents, observations, and interviews. This prolonged engagement adds to the

validity of the current study.

Reliability

Reliability refers to the extent that the research results could be replicated if the

study was repeated (Merriam, 1998). The objective of reliability is to "minimize the

errors and biases in a study" (Yin, 2003). Lincoln and Guba (1985) suggested that in

qualitative research reliability should be thought about in terms of dependability and

consistency. This means that the findings based on the data collected make sense and are

consistent and dependable. The researcher in the current study developed a database that









can be the subject of a separate, secondary analysis or inspection of the raw data that led

to the study conclusions in order to strengthen the reliability of the study. This database

includes all of the collected data, case study notes, narratives, and case study documents.

External Validity

External validity is concerned with the extent to which the findings can be

generalized to other situations (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The researcher chose a multiple

case study approach in order to strengthen the conclusions from the study and expand the

external generalizability of the findings. The current study includes six case studies.

According to case study method (Yin, 2003), each case study was conducted and

analyzed individually and each case report was written individually. Subsequently, cross-

case conclusions were drawn and the cross-case report was written. The researcher also

included rich, thick descriptions in order to help the reader determine transferability of

the findings to another situation (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

Researcher Bias

Qualitative research and data analysis are highly time consuming and filled with

researcher bias and judgment (Marshall & Rossman, 1999). Interviews do involve

personal interaction so cooperation is essential. Interviews require good listening skills,

questioning techniques, and probing ability. Interviews also require high participation

from the participants in the research. The interviewees may be uncomfortable or

unwilling to share all that the interviewer hopes to explore. The researcher may not ask

questions that evoke long narratives from participants and at times interviewees have

good reasons not to be truthful.

Self-report data such as reflections, semantic maps, narratives, and autobiographies

may be flawed due to participants responding in a manner they believe desirable by the









researcher. Researchers conducting qualitative research have challenges such as

developing a thorough, concise conceptual framework; planning a flexible, yet systematic

and manageable design (Marshall & Rossman, 1999). Additionally, the researcher may

impose her values through the phrasing of questions or interpretation of data. Studies

should triangulate interview data with other data gathered though other methods.

Qualitative researchers believe and accept that the investigator can not be separate

from what is being studied (Miles & Huberman, 1994a). In fact, in qualitative designs,

the researcher's presence in the lives of the participants is fundamental to the qualitative

paradigm (Marshall & Rossman, 1999). Simply by being present, the researcher is

involved in the study. The emphasis is on the socially constructed nature of reality, a

close relationship between the researcher and the object of study, and the context that

influences the inquiry (MIles & Huberman, 1994).

Entry and Access Into the Field

The researcher was study coordinator for the University of Florida Literacy

Initiative. The researcher's position as coordinator made access and entry to the

participant preservice teachers and study sites possible. The researcher worked in a

supervisory capacity with the study participants. The preservice teacher participants gave

their consent to participate in this research study before the researcher began data

collection (Appendix G).

Investigator Bias

The researcher had some previous knowledge of the participants and worked with

the participants in a supervisory capacity. This may have limited the participants' abilities

to be completely forthcoming with responses. The researchers' biases could not be

separated from the data. These biases included those as a former classroom teacher,









reading resource teacher, graduate student of reading, preservice teacher educator, and

researcher of a reading intervention program. These biases also included those of a white,

middle-class female. While attempting to describe, analyze, and report the beliefs,

professional knowledge, and actions of these preservice teachers, the researcher's identity

provided the lens through which all the information was processed.

Ethical Issues

The researcher was responsible for designing and conducting the study and writing

the results in an ethical manner. Wellington (2000) has established a set of eight

guidelines that were maintained by the researcher for this study. 1) No parties should be

involved without their prior knowledge or permission and informed consent. 2) No

attempts should be made to force people to do anything unsafe, or do something

unwillingly. 3) Relevant information about the nature and purpose of the research should

always be given. 4) No attempts should be made to deceive the participants. 5) Avoid

invading participants' privacy or taking too much of their time. 6) Benefits should not be

withheld from some participants or disadvantages imposed upon others. 7) All

participants should be treated fairly, with consideration, with respect and with honesty. 8)

Confidentiality and anonymity should be maintained at every stage, especially in

publication.

In this study, participants' names and the schools and students' names have

remained anonymous. The researcher assigned pseudonyms to participants to report study

results. All participants signed an informed consent prior to the data collection (Appendix

G) which was approved by the University of Florida's Institutional Review Board as

required for research projects that involve human subjects. The researcher did not allow

bias to interfere with the honest reporting of the results. The researcher believes that the






49


findings illuminate that beliefs and professional knowledge can impact teaching

behaviors.














CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

Introduction

The purpose of this qualitative case study was to examine the beliefs and

professional knowledge of preservice teachers about teaching struggling readers. The

findings presented in this chapter were based on the following data sources: (a)

questionnaires, (b) autobiographies of the participants, (c) interviews with the

participants, (d) observations of the participants, and (e) participants' written evaluations

and expectations of struggling readers.

Specifically, this study addressed the following questions:

1. What are preservice teachers' beliefs and professional knowledge about teaching
reading in general and teaching struggling readers in particular?

2. How do preservice teachers' beliefs and professional knowledge influence their
expectations for struggling readers?

3. How do preservice teachers' beliefs and professional knowledge influence their
instruction, for struggling readers?

4. How do preservice teachers' beliefs and professional knowledge influence their
evaluation of struggling readers?

This chapter contains four sections. The first section reports the identification of

participants for this case study. The second section describes the participants'

backgrounds, experiences, and professional knowledge as it relates to reading in general

and teaching struggling readers in particular. Section three provides thick descriptions of

the interviews, observations, evaluations, and expectations of the participants in a case

study format. Section four is the cross-case analysis and a summary of the research.









Participant Identification

The six participants consisted of University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI)

tutors working in the spring semester of 2003. Announcements were made at tutor

meetings about the opportunity to participate in this project. All announcements made

clear the strictly voluntary nature of participation in this project. All participants were

female graduate students in education and were at least 21 years of age. Each participant

was compensated $50 for their participation. Each of the participants signed the

University of Florida IRB Informed Consent statement (Appendix G) and complied with

all IRB and University of Florida guidelines.

Participants' Background, Experiences, and Professional Knowledge

All of the participants were female graduate students in the college of education at

the University of Florida. Four of the subjects identified themselves as Caucasian, one as

black, and one as white/Hispanic. All of the participants were unmarried and ranged in

age from 20 to 24. All of the preservice teachers had completed a pre-internship. Table 4-

1 provides a summary of the background information for each of the preservice teachers

included in this study. Descriptive information specific to each participant follows in

their individual case studies. Pseudonyms are employed to protect the anonymity of the

participants.

Interviews

The preservice teacher participants were interviewed twice at the University of

Florida Literacy Initiative office on the University of Florida campus or at the elementary

school site based upon the convenience of the preservice teacher. The interviews were

conducted in the middle of the study and then again at the end of the study.









Table 4-1 Participants' Backgrounds
Preservice Gender Age Race
Teachers'
Pseudonym

Cindy female 22 white

Erin female 23 white


Nancy

Laura

Drew


Kerry


female 23 white

female 20 black

female 23 white/
Hispanic

female 24 white


Graduate
specialization


literacy

Interdisciplinary
(math/science/
reading/social
studies)
math/science

literacy

math/science


children's
literature


Semester
Hours of
Reading

21

12


Student
teaching
grade
level
5

4


Other
teaching
experiences

pre-
internship
pre-
internship


pre-
internship
pre-
internship
pre-
internship/
private tutor
pre-
internship


Observations

Table 4-2 provides a chronological listing of the observations of preservice teachers

made over a period of three months. An observation guide was made based upon the

structure of the tutoring program the preservice teachers were implementing. The

researcher focused on the research questions during the observations. Preservice teachers

were debriefed following the observation to gain more insight into their beliefs and

professional knowledge and their teaching behaviors.

The researcher took anecdotal notes during each observation. The observations

ranged in time from 40 to 45 minutes based upon the tutoring session. The researcher

observed each participant at least two times while tutoring struggling readers.









Case Studies

The case study method was utilized in order to explore the professional knowledge

and beliefs of preservice teachers and how that professional knowledge and beliefs

influence their teaching behaviors. Case studies of six preservice teachers were prepared.

Table 4-2 Chronological Listing of Observations
Date Tutor Length of Time
2/21/03 Erin 40 minutes
2/21/03 Nancy 40 minutes
2/24/03 Drew 40 minutes
2/24/03 Cindy 40 minutes
2/24/03 Erin 40 minutes
2/28/03 Drew 45 minutes
2/28/03 Kerry 40 minutes
2/28/03 Nancy 40 minutes
2/28/03 Laura 40 minutes
3/3/03 Nancy 40 minutes
3/3/03 Cindy 40 minutes
3/7/03 Laura 45 minutes
3/7/03 Laura 40 minutes
3/17/03 Drew 40 minutes
3/17/03 Nancy 40 minutes
3/24/03 Kerry 40 minutes
3/24/03 Cindy 40 minutes
3/24/03 Erin 40 minutes

These six case studies were designed to generate knowledge relevant to the

research questions with respect to: (a) preservice teachers' beliefs and professional

knowledge about teaching reading, (b) preservice teachers' expectations for struggling

readers, (c) preservice teachers' instruction for struggling readers, and (d) preservice

teachers' evaluation of struggling readers. Each of the case studies was organized around

these four categories. The cases were written based on data reduction from the

background information sheets of the participants, autobiographies of the participants,

interviews with the participants, observations of the participants, and the participants'

written evaluations and expectations of struggling readers.









These categories of preservice teachers' beliefs and professional knowledge,

expectations, instruction, and evaluation of struggling readers assisted the researcher in

sorting through the data and were useful in developing the description of each case. For

the purpose of this study, preservice teachers' beliefs and professional knowledge are

defined as the attitudes, values, beliefs, and knowledge about teaching, students, content

and the education process that students bring to teacher education. The individual cases

describe each of these categories and the patterns for each preservice teacher.

Case Study 1: Cindy

Cindy was a twenty-two year old white female in graduate school at the University

of Florida in Gainesville, Florida, specializing in literacy education. She had completed

twenty-one semester hours related to the teaching of reading including Language Arts for

Diverse Learners, Emergent Literacy, Assessment in Literacy, Children's Literature,

Literacy Seminar, and Classroom Reading 2. Cindy had completed field experiences in

first, third, and fifth grades. Cindy completed her student teaching in fifth grade. Cindy

planned on teaching in grades three to five when she graduated.

Beliefs and Professional Knowledge About Teaching Reading

Cindy's beliefs and professional knowledge were compiled from her

autobiography, background information sheet, interviews, observations, written

expectations and written evaluations.

Parental involvement. Cindy believed that parental involvement is important for

reading acquisition. She believed that some children struggle with reading acquisition due

to a lack of parental involvement. In her autobiography, Cindy recalled that her mother

spent a lot of time with her reading, telling stories and doing role-play activities. She

credited this involvement with her reading success. In her evaluations of struggling









readers, Cindy often mentioned the family of her students and whether or not they were

involved in the academic achievement of her students. She also acknowledged that many

parents may be working a great deal and not available to assist their students. Cindy

believed that parental involvement "makes a huge difference" in students' reading

success.

Motivation. Cindy believed that children learn to read if they are motivated to read.

She wrote that learning to read will be easier for students who are excited about learning

to read. She believed her motivation and desire to read were partly responsible for her

success in school. Cindy described two of her students as motivated and hard working.

Cindy described her other students as having a poor attitude towards reading, feeling

unsuccessful about reading, lacking confidence and avoiding reading.

Readiness. Cindy believed that children will learn to read when they are

developmentally ready. Cindy recalled that she learned to read without formal

instruction. She believed that learning to read came easily to her because she was ready to

read. She recalled that there was little reading instruction in her kindergarten class.

However, because of her readiness to read and her mother's influence at home, she

learned to read without instruction. Cindy described some of her students as not being

ready for intensive reading instruction due to their lack of prior reading experiences.

Access and exposure to print. Cindy believed that children learn to read by being

given access and exposure to print. Cindy remembered having many books and literacy

toys as a child. She remembered her favorite book as a young child was a book of farm

poems that her mother had given her as a gift. She wrote about this belief in her

autobiography.









Through my experiences, I feel that children learn to read when they are
surrounded by an environment rich in text.

In her evaluations of struggling readers, Cindy wrote that many of her students do

not have access to books and do not read outside of school. In her autobiography, Cindy

wrote about her belief that lack of access to books and reading outside of school are the

reasons some children have difficulty learning to read and why she believes they will

continue to struggle throughout their lives.

When kids don't have many experiences with text they are automatically going to
be behind the student who has been read to every night or looks at picture books on
a daily basis. It seems sad to think that the kids whose parents or teachers don't
provide opportunity for textual experiences are in for a lifelong struggle.

Socioeconomic status. Cindy believed that some students struggle with reading

acquisition because of the influence of their socioeconomic status. Cindy wrote about her

belief in her autobiography.

Even more evident are the difficulties experienced by children in poverty. How can
kids learn to read when they are busy thinking about survival and where they are
going to get their next meal.

When asked to describe a student that she found it difficult to teach, Cindy

described a child who wasn't "encouraged at home either by parents or environment." In

an interview, Cindy discussed the reasons that a child's background is important for their

reading success.

I think that a student who comes from a fairly literate family, you know, who keeps
books around, who is doing okay as far as economically, socioeconomics, I think
that that student is going to have a much easier time applying what they know and
the way that they know how to learn to read. And I think a child who doesn't come
from that type of background, who might be poor or might not have access to any
kind of text, is going to have a much harder time learning how to read.









Behavior. Cindy believed that another reason students struggle with reading

acquisition is because of poor behavior. In her evaluations of struggling readers, Cindy

often wrote about behavior.

He has issues. I don't know exactly what is going on there except he has some
emotional problems.

He needs a lot of attention and without it he tends to shut down. This doesn't help
his progress in literacy.

He gets off task really easy. I'm constantly having to redirect him to what he's
doing.

Cindy believed that a teacher would not be able to teach a student to read until

"someone was able get his behavior under control."

Reading disability Cindy believed that students who continue to struggle with

reading acquisition may have a reading disability that prevents them from making

progress. Cindy believed these students required additional instruction beyond what she

could provide. Cindy did not believe that she could teach a student to read if that student

had a reading disability.

Teacher Efficacy. Cindy did not believe that she was capable of teaching all of her

students to read. She wrote about one student, "He needs much more help that I am able

to provide." In an interview conducted upon completion of the tutoring, Cindy responded

that she did not believe that she would be able to teach all of the students in her

classroom to read when she became a classroom teacher.

I think that I'll be able to teach the majority how to read based on what I've been
taught here and with UFLI and other things. There's always going to be one student
that, you know, I'm maybe not going to know how.









As reported previously, Cindy did not believe that she could teach a student to read

if that student had a reading disability. Cindy believed these students required instruction

beyond what she could provide.

Responsibility. Cindy believed that it was the responsibility of the resource

teachers and the school to teach the struggling students to read. She believed the

classroom teacher alone could not teach all of the children in the class to read.

It's the responsibility of the resource teachers and also, the responsibility of, you
know, the school to make sure that they're getting the other help that they need -
like pullouts and things like that. I think the school needs to provide someone who
can work one-on-one with him every day whether it be special education or
something like that.

Table 4-3 summarizes Cindy's beliefs and professional knowledge about teaching

reading.

Expectations for Struggling Readers

Cindy submitted three written expectations for the struggling readers she was

tutoring. Cindy's expectations were low for all of her struggling readers. She expected

each of them to make little progress because they had "too many obstacles to overcome

before becoming a good reader."

Text level. Cindy did not expect any of her struggling students to improve

significantly in their reading text level. She expected them to improve only one to three

Reading Recovery reading levels. She expected one of her students to achieve only a

Reading Recovery level six. Her highest expectation was for some of her struggling

readers to improve from a Reading Recovery level eleven to a thirteen.

Grade level. Cindy expected all of her struggling readers to remain reading below

grade level at the end of the tutoring. Cindy expected her most struggling student to read

text at a Reading Recovery level six and her least struggling reader to read text at a










Table 4-3 Cindy's Beliefs and Professional Knowledge About Teaching Reading
Theme Belief
Parental involvement Parental involvement is important for
reading acquisition.

Children struggle with reading acquisition
because of lack of parental involvement.


Motivation


Readiness


Access and exposure to print


Socioeconomic status


Behavior


Reading disability


Teacher efficacy


Responsibility


Children learn to read if they are motivated
to read.

Children struggle with reading acquisition
because they lack motivation to read.

Children learn to read when they are
developmentally ready to read.

Children learn to read through access and
exposure to print.

Children struggle with reading acquisition
if they are not provided access and
experience with print.

Children struggle with reading acquisition
because of their socioeconomic status.

Children struggle with reading acquisition
because of poor behavior.

Some children struggle with reading
acquisition because they have a reading
disability.

Can not personally teach a student with a
reading disability to read.

Will not be able to teach every child to read
proficiently.

It is the responsibility of the resource
teachers and the school to teach struggling
students to read.









Reading Recovery level thirteen by the end of the year. According to Reading

Recovery, a first grader would need to read level seventeen to be reading on grade level

at the end of the school year (Reading Recovery Council of North America, 2004).

Reading strategies. Cindy expected all of her students to need additional strategy

instruction and practice. She was not specific regarding the type of strategy instruction

and practice. She expected that her students would require individualized instruction from

a resource teacher in the future in order to make progress. She also did not expect her

struggling readers to learn in a group setting. She expected that these students would need

individual instruction in order to make progress. Therefore she expected little or no

progress from these students.

Reading disability. Cindy suspected that two of her struggling readers had reading

disabilities although they had not been tested for reading disabilities. Cindy expected that

these students would require instruction beyond what she could provide. She did not

expect these students to make progress with her instruction. She expected these two

students to qualify for exceptional education.

Behavior. Cindy expected the behavior of her struggling readers to interfere with

their progress. Cindy described every one of her students as "easily frustrated." One

student she described as "needs a lot of attention," which she expected to interfere with

his progress. She described one of her students as having "emotional problems" that

would require "much more help that I am unable to provide." She described one student's

shyness as an obstacle to her progress. Cindy described two of her students as motivated

and hard working. Cindy described her other students as having a poor attitude towards

reading, feeling unsuccessful about reading, lacking confidence and avoiding reading.









Table 4-4 summarizes Cindy's expectations for struggling readers.

Table 4-4 Cindy's Expectations for Struggling Readers
Category Expectations
Text Level Students will improve one to three Reading
Recovery reading levels.

Grade Level Students will remain below grade level.

Reading Strategies Students require additional individualized
instruction based on student need.

Reading Disability Two students will qualify for exceptional
education.

Make little or no progress.

Behavior Students' poor behavior will interfere with
progress.

Influence of beliefs on expectations. The influence of Cindy's beliefs and

professional knowledge on her expectations was evident in her written expectations of

struggling readers, her descriptions of her students' achievement of her expectations

during an interview, and in the debriefing sessions after the observations. Cindy's beliefs

and professional knowledge influenced both her expectations for struggling readers and

her explanations for her students' successful or unsuccessful achievement of those

expectations.

Cindy did not believe she, as a future classroom teacher, was capable of teaching

all of her struggling readers to read and that it was the responsibility of resource teachers

and the school to assist struggling readers with their reading acquisition. She did not

believe she could teach a child with a reading disability to read. Cindy's expectations for

her struggling readers were directly aligned with these beliefs about teaching struggling

readers. She had low expectations for her struggling readers. She expected them to make









small text level reading gains and remain reading below grade level. She expected one

student would be diagnosed with a reading disability and would make little or no

progress.

Cindy's beliefs about 'socioeconomic status, readiness, reading disability,

motivation and poor behavior were also directly aligned with her expectations for her

struggling readers. During the first interview, Cindy reported that one student was

meeting her expectations. Cindy described the student's motivation as the reason for her

progress. Cindy also reported that some of her students were not meeting her

expectations. Cindy described the possible reasons for their lack of success as low

socioeconomic status, lack of developmental readiness, possible reading disability, lack

of motivation, and poor behavior.

Instruction for Struggling Readers

Modeling. The researcher observed Cindy modeling throughout the observed

tutoring sessions. Cindy modeled fluent reading, using picture clues, decoding, blending,

encoding, and rereading strategies. Cindy used the whiteboard, magnetic letters, and

Elkonin boxes to model these strategies.

Wait time. The researcher observed throughout the observed tutoring sessions that

when a student miscued, Cindy would immediately interrupt the student's reading and

prompt the student to figure out the word. Then, before the student could respond, Cindy

would immediately interrupt again and decode the word for the student. Cindy did not

provide any wait time after a miscue to allow for self-correction during the observed

tutoring sessions. She also did not allow wait time after a strategy prompt for the student

to apply the strategy.









Prompting. The researcher observed that Cindy often prompted students to apply a

reading strategy. However, she applied the strategy herself instead of the student. For

example, the researcher observed in one tutoring session that a student hesitated on an

unknown word and looked at Cindy. Cindy prompted the student, "What can we do to

figure that word out?" Before the student could respond, Cindy again prompted, "What if

we covered that part up?" Before the student could respond, Cindy gave him the correct

word. The student repeated the word and Cindy praised him, "Good job."

The researcher observed Cindy prompt students by rereading the sentence as an

oral cloze so the student could guess the word based on context. The students often were

able to guess the word with this method.

The researcher observed Cindy prompt a student to look at the pictures and pointed

to the picture. However, before the student could respond, Cindy supplied the word.

Cindy repeated this pattern of instruction throughout the observed tutoring sessions.

Providing Answers. The researcher observed that Cindy repeatedly supplied the

answers to students rather than let the students apply the strategies and skills. While the

students read the text, Cindy pointed to the words instead of instructing the child to point

to the words. She did not allow the students to figure out unknown words on their own.

After prompting a student to decode a word, Cindy would decode the word for him or

often just provide the word. In the observed tutoring sessions, Cindy did nearly all of the

work for the students

For example, in one tutoring session Cindy asked the student to sound out the word

'make.' Before the student could reply, Cindy made the sounds, "'m' 'a' 'k',

'mmmmm' 'a a a a' 'k'." After Cindy decoded the sounds and blended it together in









this manner, she then said the word. Cindy then praised the child, "Good, very good!"

even though the child had not responded. When the same student made another miscue,

Cindy immediately interrupted, "No, what is this word?" The student guessed incorrectly.

Cindy then sounded the letters out and blended them together. The student did not

respond. Cindy gave him the word.

During writing or word work, the researcher observed Cindy prompt students to use

letter-sound correspondences with Elkonin boxes. However, just as in the reading of text,

Cindy did all of the work for the student. She figured out how many sounds there were in

the words and what the sounds and letters were for the Elkonin boxes. Each time Cindy

asked the student to count the sounds in the word with her, the student held up an

incorrect number of fingers. Cindy did not acknowledge the error or help the student

practice counting the sounds. Cindy simply did all of the work herself and did not help

the student understand how to do it.

During one tutoring session, Cindy showed the student a story book for the

extending literacy step of the UFLI program. Cindy read the book to the student. Two

times during the reading, Cindy prompted the student to make a prediction. However, she

did not allow the student time to respond and kept on reading.

Text. The researcher noted repeatedly in the observed tutoring sessions that Cindy

had the student reading text at his or her frustration level rather than instructional level. In

one observation, the researcher noted that the student struggled with every two or three

words. He did not make it through any sentence without having to work on a word. When

the student finished the book, he threw it across the room. Cindy ignored the behavior. In

the observation conference after the session, Cindy recalled the student's reading.









He did pretty well. And he read the new book without getting frustrated which is a
big battle for us.

Cindy did not seem to realize the level of frustration the student was experiencing.

However, in her final evaluations, Cindy did note that she thought she had all of her

students reading text that she estimated to be at least two levels higher than their

instructional reading level.

Table 4-5 summarizes Cindy's instruction for struggling readers.

Table 4-5. Cindy's Instruction for Struggling Readers
Category Instruction
Modeling Fluent reading.
Using picture clues.
Decoding.
Blending.
Encoding.
Rereading.
Materials: whiteboard, magnetic letters,
Elkonin boxes, various texts.

Wait Time No wait time after miscue.
No wait time after questions or prompts.

Prompting Prompted strategy use.

Providing Answers Supplied the answers to students rather
than let the students apply the strategies
and skills.

Text Provided frustration level text for students.

Influence of Beliefs on Instruction. The influence of Cindy's beliefs and

professional knowledge on her instruction while she was teaching children who were

struggling with reading acquisition was evident during the observed tutoring sessions.

Cindy's beliefs about struggling readers were directly aligned with her instruction for

struggling readers.









Cindy did not believe that she, as a future classroom teacher, was personally

capable of or responsible for teaching all of her struggling readers to read due to the

students' lack of parental involvement, lack of motivation, lack of developmental

readiness, lack of exposure to print, low socioeconomic status, possible reading

disability, and poor behavior. These beliefs were directly aligned with her instruction.

Cindy did not allow wait time after miscues or strategy prompts and supplied the

answers to students rather than allowing the students to apply the strategies and skills.

This type of instruction reflects the belief that the students are not capable of achieving

reading proficiency due to all of the previous factors. These factors would also prevent

her from being capable of or responsible for teaching them to read.

Evaluation of Struggling Readers

Cindy submitted three written evaluations of the struggling readers she was

tutoring. Her evaluations included the strengths and weaknesses of each student.

Text level. In her final evaluations, Cindy wrote that her most struggling reader

was reading at a Reading Recovery text level six. However, she wrote that he should be

on a lower level. "Although he made it to this level honestly he should actually be on a

lower level." The rest of her struggling students were in a group that she had reading text

at a Reading Recovery level fourteen. However, she wrote that her students' reading

levels were probably actually lower than the level on which she had them reading. "I

would estimate the actual reading ability to be a couple levels lower."

Grade level. Based on Cindy's final evaluations, all of her struggling readers

remained reading below grade level at the end of the tutoring. Although Cindy's group

finished on a level fourteen, she estimated their actual reading achievement was "a couple









of levels lower" so they would have been reading well below grade level. Cindy's other

student was significantly below grade level at a Reading Recovery text level six.

Reading strategies. Cindy described the strengths and weaknesses of each her

student's reading strategies. Strengths included use of picture clues and storytelling

ability. Cindy reported that some of her students had difficulty with the letter-sound

relationships, lacked reading strategies, had difficulty recognizing letters, and made

careless mistakes. She described some of her students' reading strategies as "low and

slowly progressing."

Reading disability. Cindy suspected that two of her students had reading

disabilities. Neither student had been evaluated for a reading disability. Cindy speculated

about possible reading disabilities in her evaluations of struggling readers. One of

Cindy's evaluations included that the student read or wrote words backwards or out-of-

order, was a bit confused most of the time, and spelled a word backwards. Cindy

concluded, "I think she's dyslexic. I know she hasn't been tested for it."

Behavior. Behaviors that Cindy mentioned in her evaluations of her struggling

students were distracted, frustrated, "hyper", needs a lot of attention, temperamental

attitude, and poor attitude. Cindy wrote in her evaluations that all of her students were

easily frustrated. This frustration would lead them to become distracted. Cindy described

several students as "needing a lot of attention." Cindy described one of her students'

behavior.

He needs a lot of attention and without attention he tends to shut down. He has
issues. I don't exactly know what is going on there except that he has some
emotional problems. His weakness would definitely be his temperamental attitude.
He is very hyper.









Cindy concluded that her most struggling reader was frustrated very easily because

of the tutoring program.

He gets frustrated fairly easily, more so now than when we started tutoring. I
attribute this to all of the extra reading instruction he has been given since we
began our sessions. He doesn't feel successful in reading and avoids it like the
plague. I have to bribe him into reading a book.

Table 4-6 summarizes Cindy's evaluations of struggling readers.

Table 4-6 Cindy's Evaluation of Struggling Readers
Category Evaluation
Text level Students improved one to three Reading
Recovery reading levels.
Students' actual reading level lower than
current level.


Grade level


Reading Strategies


Students remained below grade level.

Student uses picture clues.
Student good at storytelling.
Student lacks reading strategies.
Student has difficulty recognizing letters.

Student reads or writes words backwards or
out-of-order.
Student might have dyslexia.
Student easily confused.
Student probably has a reading disability.


Reading Disability


Behavior


Student has emotional problems.
Student needs a lot of attention.
Student is shy.
Student is easily distracted.
Student is easily frustrated.
Student is hyperactive.
Student will not participate.


Influence of Beliefs on Evaluations. The influence of Cindy's beliefs and

professional knowledge on her evaluations of struggling readers was discovered in her









written evaluations. Cindy's beliefs about teaching struggling readers were directly

aligned with her evaluations of struggling readers.

Cindy believed that children struggle with reading acquisition because they have a

reading disability. This belief is evident in her evaluations of her struggling readers.

Cindy included in her evaluations of her two most struggling readers that they probably

had a reading disability that interfered with their ability to make progress even though

they had not been tested or diagnosed with any type of reading disability. Cindy also

believed that she, as a future classroom teacher, was not capable of teaching a child with

a reading disability to read. Her evaluation reflected this belief as Cindy believed that the

children who were still struggling the most with reading acquisition after her tutoring

must have a reading disability and that would explain her inability to teach them to read.


Cindy also believed that children struggle with reading acquisition because they

lack motivation to read and because of poor behavior. These beliefs about motivation and

behavior were directly aligned with her evaluations of her struggling readers. Cindy

reported behaviors and motivation factors that interfered with her students reading

progress such as having emotional problems, needing a lot of attention, easily distracted,

easily frustrated, hyperactive, and not willing to participate.

Case Study 2: Erin

Erin was a twenty-three year old white female in graduate school at the University

of Florida in Gainesville, Florida, with an interdisciplinary specialization including math,

science, reading, and social studies. She had completed twelve semester hours related to

the teaching of reading including Children's Literature, Emergent Literacy, Language









Arts Methods, and Classroom Reading 2. Erin completed her student teaching in fourth

grade. Erin planned on teaching in grades one to three when she graduated.

Beliefs and Professional Knowledge About Teaching Reading

Erin's beliefs and professional knowledge were compiled from her autobiography,

background information sheet, interviews, observations, written expectations and written

evaluations.

Parental Involvement. Erin believed that parental involvement is important for

reading acquisition. She believed that children struggle with reading acquisition because

of lack of parental involvement. Erin reported in her autobiography that her mother and

grandmother spent a lot of time reading to her and she also attempted to "read" to them.

Erin talked about the influence that the parents had on the students that she tutored during

an interview.

You can tell that the parents of the kids from the better educated homes read to
them. You can tell that they do. Whereas, the other kids don't have that benefit
because maybe their moms and dads have to work until way past their bedtime or
something. You never know.

She believed parents should meet with their child's teacher at least once a month to

"talk about the different ways you can help your child at home to enhance their school

learning."

Motivation. Erin believed that students who are motivated to read will be good

readers. She described the "ideal" student she hoped to teach as "one that is very eager to

learn and be successful." She also believed that exposing children to various types of

reading material and genres will pique their interest in reading and, therefore, motivate

them to become good readers. She recalled that when she learned to read it gave her a









sense of power and confidence in herself which motivated her to become an even better

reader. Erin believed that the students she was tutoring were motivated.

They get real excited once we're into the actual session. I think it's mainly that they
enjoy feeling like they're doing something when they read a sentence that they
didn't think that they could read. I think that's probably it.

Readiness. Erin believed that children will learn to read when they are

developmentally read. Erin recalled that she learned to read before she began

kindergarten. She believed she was ready to read and learned to read without formal

instruction because she had been immersed in a print rich environment and was read to

on a regular basis.

Access and exposure to print. Erin believed that children learn to read through

access and exposure to print. She believed that children should be exposed to all types of

genres and reading materials in order to get them interested in reading. "In my opinion,

it's very important that they are surrounded by a print rich environment all the time

because it makes them more comfortable in reading."

Socioeconomic status. Erin believed that children struggle with reading acquisition

because of the influence of their socioeconomic status. She reported that it was obvious

which students came from "no-so-good homes" by the way the recognize letters and their

sounds. She believed that students from a low socioeconomic background would not have

had prior experience with books and a print-rich environment.

Behavior. Erin believed that children struggle with reading acquisition because of

poor behavior. She reported that two of the students in her group were often off task

which affected not only their own achievement, but that of the group. She reported that

she had to spend more of her instructional time on their behavior in order to ensure they

were "on track."









I feel like my teaching is not as good because I'm constantly trying to get one kid
sit down or stop making noises and faces. And that's a little frustrating. And I feel
like I neglect two of the other kids because I'm always reprimanding the other
two."

Reading Disability. Erin believed that some children struggle with reading

acquisition because they have a reading disability. She believed these students needed

more individual instruction. Erin described a child who was difficult for her to teach

during her student teaching experience.

One student who was classified ESE and reads at a first grade level (in the fourth
grade), was difficult to teach because he was very unsure about his abilities and he
needed more one-on-one help.

When asked why she thought one of her students was struggling so much with

reading acquisition, she reported, "I think that he has dyslexia. I haven't been able to

think of any other reason." She believed these students needed more instructional time,

not significantly different instruction.

Teacher Efficacy. Erin believed that she could teach every child to read

proficiently. She confidently reported, "I think every child can learn to read." She

believed she was ready to start teaching and believed the UFLI tutoring model "really

helped my ability to teach reading a lot." Erin believed that with a combination of

ongoing progress monitoring and specific strategy instruction she would be able to teach

all of her students to read.

Responsibility. Erin believed that it is the responsibility of the classroom teacher to

teach struggling readers. She reported that she would like to use the exceptional

education teacher as a resource to seek coaching on strategies to help her teach her

struggling readers.









Table 4-7 summarizes Erin's beliefs and professional knowledge about teaching

reading.

Table 4-7 Erin's Beliefs and Professional Knowledge About Teaching Reading
Theme Belief
Parental involvement Parental involvement is important for
reading acquisition.

Children struggle with reading acquisition
because of lack of parental involvement.

Motivation Children who are motivated to read will be
good readers.

Children struggle with reading acquisition
because they lack motivation to read.

Readiness Children learn to read when they are
developmentally ready to read.

Access and exposure to print Children learn to read through access and
exposure to print.

Children struggle with reading acquisition
if they are not provided access and
experience with books.

Socioeconomic status Children struggle with reading acquisition
because of their socioeconomic status.

Behavior Children struggle with reading acquisition
because of poor behavior.

Reading disability Some children struggle with reading
acquisition because they have a reading
disability.

Teacher efficacy Can teach every child to read proficiently.

Responsibility Responsibility of the classroom teacher to
teach struggling students to read.









Expectations for Struggling Readers

Erin submitted three written expectations for the struggling readers that she was

tutoring. Erin included expectations specific to her students' reading development. Her

expectations were high for all of her struggling readers.

Text level. Erin expected all of her students to be reading on a Reading Recovery

level 14 by the end of the tutoring. However, Erin confirmed in her interview that she

believed level fourteen was considered on-grade-level for the end of first grade.

Grade level. Erin expected all of her struggling readers be reading on grade level at

the end of the tutoring. As previously reported, Erin expected all of her students to be

reading on a Reading Recovery level 14 by the end of the tutoring. Although this is

lower than grade level, Erin believed this to be grade level reading. Therefore, Erin had

high expectations that all of her tutored students would be reading on grade level by the

end of the tutoring.

Reading strategies. Erin was very specific in her reading strategy expectations. She

expected her students to improve their fluency and decoding. She expected her students

to improve their ability to independently identify unknown words. Erin expected her

students to increase the number of sight words they were able to quickly and accurately

identify.

Reading disability. Erin suspected that one of her struggling readers had a reading

disability although he had not been tested for reading disabilities. As with all of her

tutored students, Erin expected this student to be reading on a Reading Recovery level

14 by the end of the tutoring program. She also expected him to improve his decoding

and fluency skills.









Behavior. Erin expected her students to become more confident and motivated. She

expected all of her students to enjoy reading and participate. Erin expected her students'

off task behavior to affect their achievement as well as the other students in the tutoring

group as her attention was often on behavior rather than instruction.

Table 4-8 summarizes Erin's expectations for struggling readers.

Table 4-8 Erin's Expectations for Struggling Readers
Category Expectations
Text Level All students will read at Reading Recovery level
fourteen.

Grade Level All students will read on grade level.

Reading Strategies All students will improve fluency, decoding, sight
words.

Reading Disability One student will be labeled dyslexic.

Student will make same progress as other students.

Behavior Students will become motivated, confident,
participate, and enjoy reading.

Students' off task behavior will affect group's
achievement.

Influence of beliefs on expectations. The influence of Erin's beliefs and

professional knowledge on her expectations was evident in her written expectations of

struggling readers, her descriptions of her students' achievement of her expectations

during an interview, and in the debriefing sessions after the observations. Erin's beliefs

and professional knowledge influenced both her expectations for struggling readers and

her explanations for her students' successful or unsuccessful achievement of those

expectations.









Erin believed that she, as a future classroom teacher, was personally capable of

teaching all of her struggling readers to read and that she was responsible for teaching

them to read. Erin's expectations for her struggling readers were directly aligned with

these beliefs about teaching struggling readers. She had high expectations for all of her

struggling readers and expected all of her students to be reading on grade level and

improve their reading strategies.

Erin's belief that students who continue to struggle with reading acquisition may

have a reading disability was reflected in her expectations. Erin expected one of her

students to be diagnosed with a reading disability. However, her high teacher efficacy

belief influenced her expectation for him as she expected him to be reading on grade

level at the end of the tutoring sessions.

During the first interview, Erin reported that all of her students except one were

meeting her expectations. Erin described several elements of the tutoring instruction and

specific strategy instruction as the reasons these students were making progress. Erin also

reported that one of her students was not meeting her expectations. Erin described the

possible reasons for his lack of success as a possible reading disability and the need for

more tutoring instruction.

Instruction for Struggling Readers

Modeling. The researcher observed Erin modeling throughout the observed tutoring

sessions. Erin modeled fluent reading, using picture clues, decoding, blending, encoding,

and rereading strategies. Erin used the whiteboard, magnetic letters, and Elkonin boxes to

model these strategies.

Wait time. The researcher observed throughout the observed tutoring sessions that

when a student miscued, Erin would immediately interrupt the student's reading and









prompt the student to figure out the word. However, after pointing to the miscue, Erin

would allow the student to attempt again or give the student a strategy prompt and wait

for the student to attempt the unknown word. Erin usually did not provide any wait time

after a miscue to allow for self-correction during the observed tutoring sessions. Erin did

always allow wait time after a strategy prompt for the students to apply the strategy.

Prompting. The researcher observed that Erin often prompted students to apply a

reading strategy. She prompted students to reread, decode, look for little words within the

word, look at the pictures, and segment sounds. She prompted students to think about

whether a miscue made sense or sounded correct in the sentence.

Providing answers. The researcher observed in a later tutoring session, that Erin

sometimes supplied the answers to students. During the earlier observed tutoring

sessions, Erin coached the students and challenged the students to do the work on their

own. During these observations, the students were reading text at an appropriate level for

instruction. However, in a later tutoring session, the researcher noted that the text was too

difficult for the students, which required Erin to provide extensive assistance. Erin

provided more coaching and prompting when a student was not successful right away.

She attempted to have the students do the work with multiple prompts. However, when

the text was too difficult for the students, Erin had to provide many of the answers. The

researcher noted that Erin's students still did all of the writing work themselves. Erin let

the students apply the strategies and skills during writing. She had the students segment

the sounds and write the words on their own. The researcher observed that the students

were more successful with this encoding during writing than they were with decoding

during reading.









Erin was aware at times that she was providing answers to students rather than

allowing the students to apply their knowledge and skills. During one observed tutoring

session, after the students read the new book Erin used the whiteboard for decoding

practice. Her students were unable to decode the words that she chose. Erin described her

frustration after this tutoring session.

Sometimes I get a little frustrated because I don't feel like I'm able to really help
him sound the words out better without giving him the word. That's something I'm
really struggling with.

Text. The researcher noted that during the beginning tutoring sessions, Erin's

students were reading text at their instructional level. Since the text was as their

instructional level, Erin did not have to provide extensive support so that students were

able to read the text. The researcher observed Erin coaching the students and providing

support so that the students were able to apply the strategies and skills. However, later in

the tutoring sessions, the researcher observed students reading books at their frustration

level rather than their instructional level. Because the text was too difficult, Erin had to

provide extensive support for the students to get through the text. Erin seemed to get

frustrated when this would happen as reflected in her words to the student.

You should know these words. We read this book yesterday. You should be able to
read this. You know that word.

During one observed tutoring session the text was so difficult for the student that he

was struggling with nearly every word. During the running record the tutor is to simply

record the child's reading verbatim with no encouragement, prompting, or input in any

way in order to determine if the text is on the student's independent reading level,

instructional reading level, or frustration reading level. The researcher observed that

when Erin took the running record she provided strategy prompts, praised for correct









reading, nodded her head with each correct word, and pointed out miscues. The

researcher noted that Erin's prompting allowed the student to score instructional level on

the assessment rather than frustration level. Erin was not aware that her prompting was

allowing the students to perform higher on the running record than their actual reading

level. Erin described the student's performance in an interview after the tutoring session.

He got a 94% on his running record. Overall I think he did fine. He's usually pretty
good. You know, he's a good reader.

Table 4-9 summarizes Erin's instruction for struggling readers.

Table 4-9 Erin's Instruction for Struggling Readers
Category Instruction
Modeling Fluent reading.
Using picture clues.
Decoding.
Blending.
Encoding.
Rereading.
Materials: whiteboard, magnetic letters,
Elkonin boxes, various texts.

Wait Time No wait time after miscue.

Wait time after questions or prompts.

Prompting Prompted strategy use.

Providing Answers Allowed students to apply the strategies and
skills.

Supplied the answers to students when text
was too difficult.

Text Provided instructional level text for students.

Provided frustration level text for students.

Influence of Beliefs on Instruction. The influence of Erin's beliefs and professional

knowledge on her instruction while she was teaching children who were struggling with









reading acquisition was evident during the observed tutoring sessions. Erin's beliefs

about teaching struggling readers were directly aligned with her instruction for struggling

readers.

Erin believed that she, as a future classroom teacher, was personally capable of and

responsible for teaching all of her struggling readers to read. Her belief and professional

knowledge that she was capable of teaching all students to read is evident in the type of

instruction she provided to her students. Erin allowed time after prompts, allowed

students to apply the strategies and skills themselves, and provided instructional level text

most of the time. This type of instruction was reflective of her high teacher efficacy and

responsibility. She believed that she was capable of teaching her students and, therefore,

they would be able to apply the strategies and skills that she taught them.

Evaluation of Struggling Readers

Erin submitted three written evaluations of the struggling readers she was tutoring.

Her evaluations included the strengths and weaknesses of each student.

Text level. In her final evaluations, Erin reported that her students were reading at

Reading Recovery levels 11, 12, 13, and 14. She wrote that one of her students might

actually be able to read higher than a level fourteen if he had been tutored individually.

Erin believed that one student that she reported at a level fourteen was actually only

reading on a level twelve.

Grade level. In her final interview, Erin reported that "maybe two" of her students

were reading on grade level. She believed this was because "they slowed down a lot

rather than just kind of guessing on a word just by looking at the first letter." Erin

reported that her most struggling reader "might be dyslexic" and was still below grade

level.









Reading strategies. Erin described the strengths and weaknesses of each of her

student's reading strategies. Strengths included decoding strategies, phonemic awareness,

increasing sight word vocabulary, using picture clues, and using anchor words. Erin

reported that some of her students had difficulty using context clues and "often guess at

words without closely looking at the word when reading a sentence." She described some

students' lack of fluency, which "prevent them from having good comprehension of the

story." She reported that some of her students have a "difficult time blending the sounds

together to make the whole word."

Reading disability. Erin suspected that her student who was struggling the most

with reading acquisition have a reading disability. She wrote that her most struggling

reader "might be dyslexic" and was still below grade level. Erin speculated in an

interview that dyslexia was the reason he was not reading on grade level.

So I think he does have dyslexia that would definitely be what is hindering it. I
mean I haven't been able to think of any other reason why.

Behavior. Erin reported that her students' off task behavior affected their

achievement as well as the other students in her tutoring group. Positive behaviors that

Erin reported in her evaluations included having a good attitude, enjoying reading,

getting excited about accomplishments, and participating. Negative behaviors that Erin

reported included giving up easily, being talkative, "goofing off quite a bit," and "having

a lot of energy."

Table 4-10 summarizes Erin's evaluations of struggling readers.









Table 4-10 Erin's Evaluation of Struggling Readers
Category Evaluation
Text level Students reading Reading Recovery level
11, 12, 13, 14.

Students' actual reading levels higher or
lower than current level.

Grade level Two students reading on grade level.

Other students reading below grade level.

Reading Strategies Student uses decoding strategies.
Student uses phonemic awareness skills.
Student increased sight word vocabulary.
Student uses picture clues.
Student uses anchor words.
Student has difficulty using context clues.
Student guesses without strategy use.
Student lacks fluency.
Student has difficulty blending.

Reading Disability Student has dyslexia.

Behavior Student has a good attitude.
Student enjoys reading.
Student excited about accomplishments.
Student gives up easily.
Student off task.
Student energetic.

Influence of Beliefs on Evaluations. The influence of Erin's beliefs and

professional knowledge on her evaluations of struggling readers was discovered in her

written evaluations. Erin's beliefs about teaching struggling readers were directly aligned

with her evaluations of struggling readers.

Erin believed that children struggle with reading acquisition because they have a

reading disability. This belief was evident in her evaluations of her struggling readers.

Erin included in her evaluations of her most struggling reader that he probably had a

reading disability that interfered with his ability to make progress even though he had not









been tested or diagnosed with any type of reading disability. Erin's belief that she was

capable of and responsible for teaching a child with a reading disability to read was

reflected in her evaluation as she wrote that this student needed more time for instruction

in order to make progress.

Erin also believed that children struggle with reading acquisition because they lack

motivation to read and because of poor behavior. These beliefs about motivation and

behavior were directly aligned with her evaluations of her struggling readers. Erin

reported behaviors and motivation factors that interfered with her students reading

progress such as being off task, giving up easily, and being energetic. Erin reported

positive behaviors such as having a good attitude and enjoying reading that also reflect

her belief that children learn to read if they are motivated. Erin's teacher efficacy belief

was strong than these beliefs as she believed that she could teach all of her students to

read.

Case Study 3: Nancy

Nancy was a twenty-three year old white female in graduate school at the

University of Florida in Gainesville, Florida, specializing in math and science education.

She had completed six semester hours related to the teaching of reading including

Children's Literature and Emergent Literacy. Nancy completed her student teaching in

fourth grade. Nancy completed field experiences in fifth grade, kindergarten, and sixth

through eighth grade ESOL. Nancy planned on teaching middle school or fourth or fifth

grades when she graduated.









Beliefs and Professional Knowledge About Teaching Reading

Nancy's beliefs and professional knowledge were compiled from her

autobiography, background information sheet, interviews, observations, written

expectations and written evaluations.

Parental involvement. Nancy believed that parental involvement is critical for

reading acquisition. She believed that some children struggle with reading acquisition due

to a lack of parental involvement. Her parents believed that school was very important

and provided an environment for learning. Nancy believed parents should spend time

with their children teaching them to read.

Parents should try to spend as much time as possible working with their children to
develop the skills that they need to be good readers. Unfortunately, not all students
get this kind of help and attention at home.

Nancy did not believe that her tutored students' parents were involved in their

education.

I know they're not getting much encouragement at home. They don't talk about
reading with their parents or anything like that. That leads me to believe that they
don't really to that very often. It doesn't seem like they are very involved.

Motivation. Nancy believed that students learn to read if they are motivated to read.

In her background information sheet, Nancy described the "ideal student."

The ideal student would have a hunger for learning. He would be motivated to
look beyond what is being taught to him in the classroom and look for other ways
to extend his knowledge. This student would be so motivated to learn that there
would be no difficulties in getting the child to know that information that I am
presenting.

Nancy believed that students can improve their reading skills with increased effort.

"With practice and hard work, students can improve their reading skills."

Nancy described this lack of motivation as the reason one student in her internship

was difficult to teach.









During instruction, she would not pay attention, then when it came time to do
assignments she would raise her hand and ask for help. In the beginning I would
help her, but then I realized that I was not helping other students because I was re-
teaching the lesson to her. I told her that if she wanted my help, she needed to pay
attention while I was teaching the lesson the first time, because I was not going to
teach it a second time for her. Sometimes she would follow along with the lessons,
while other times she would not. She had no desire to receive good grades and it
was hard to find something to motivate her to do her work.

Nancy believed that her most struggling reader was not motivated.

I pull out a book and he starts moaning. So I say, 'Too bad, you're going to have to
read it.'

Readiness. Nancy believed that children will learn to read when they are

developmentally ready to learn. She believed that she learned to read before she entered

school with no instruction because she was ready to read.

My mom told me that I picked up a book one day and began reading it to her. She
thought that I had memorized the book from having it read to me, so she took me to
the library. She said that I could read all of the books that she gave me, including
books that I had never seen before.

Access and exposure to print. Nancy believed that children learn to read by being

given access and exposure to print. She recalled having many books in the home and

participating in many literacy related activities.

I think that to be a good reader you have to be exposed to reading and books at an
early age. This exposure should be regular and meaningful.

Nancy believed that lack of parental support and lack of exposure to books may be

the reasons students struggle with reading acquisition.

Students that are poor readers are definitely missing something that does not allow
them to read as well as other students in their classes. This reason could be that
they do not have the support at home to help them. It could also be that they do not
get enough exposure to books.









Socioeconomic status. Nancy believed that some students struggle with reading

acquisition because of the influence of their socioeconomic status. She described a

student she found it difficult to teach during her student teaching experience.

This was a fourth grade student who was 12 years old, three years older than most
of the other students. She came from a low-income home, in which she lived with
her grandmother and four or five other children. After many attempts to contact
her grandmother, we realized that she was not getting the support she needed at
home.

Nancy's belief that students from low-income homes would automatically be lower

achieving was evident in her background information sheet. "Teachers need to be aware

of the discrepancy between home environments and try to close the gap between the low

and high readers in their class."

Behavior. Nancy believed that students struggle with reading acquisition because of

poor behavior. She described one student as temperamental and giving up too easily. "His

misbehavior prevents him from doing what he is supposed to do and learning what he

should be learning." She believed another students was only "pretending" not to be able

to read in order to get attention.

Reading disability. Nancy believed that some students who continue to struggle

with reading acquisition may have a reading disability. Nancy did not believe that she

could teach a student with a reading disability to read. She also did not believe that the

classroom teacher could teach a child with a reading disability to read. She believed that

one of her students might have a reading disability. She believed that something within

the child was preventing the child from reading.

The other little girl that's in his class is pretty good at reading so you know it's
obviously not something the teacher's doing. It's just something within him.









Teacher efficacy. Nancy did not believe that she was capable of teaching all of her

students to read. She repeatedly wrote that her struggling students needed "special help."

Nancy wrote about her inability to teach one student.

I think that he needs a lot of outside help. This special help is not something that I
can spend as much time as he needs.

Responsibility. Nancy believed it was the responsibility of the resource teachers

and parents to teach struggling children to read. In an interview Nancy described what

she would do if she had a struggling reader in her classroom that was not responding to

her instruction.

If I've already tried, maybe he'd go to the reading resource teacher or some other
resource teacher. And, like, definitely talk to the parents and say, 'look this is very
important for your child to be able to do' and try to get that parent interaction so
that they're getting the help they need at home. I would talk to the parents and say,
'Look, it's going to be really helpful for your child if you read with them at home.'
And just hope that they realize that it's a really big deal.

In her description of the "ideal" student she hoped to teach, Nancy placed

responsibility for student success onto parental support. "He would come from a home in

which his parents, or other caretaker, would provide the support that he needs to excel in

school and other areas." This parental responsibility for school success was also

contained in an evaluation of a tutored student. "I think that with continued help from

home, she would be caught up to her fellow classmates." And in her autobiography

Nancy wrote, "Parents should spend as much time as possible working with their children

to develop the skills that they need to be good readers."

Nancy also believed it was the responsibility of the student to learn to read. She

repeatedly mentioned that if the students would only work harder they would learn to

read. In her evaluations of tutored students, Nancy repeatedly wrote that if the children

would really try to read, they could do it.









As long as she concentrates and really tries to read, she can do very well. She is
excited to learn so I'm sure that she'll catch up.

I think he has a lot of promise if he would just concentrate and try to read.

Table 4-11 summarizes Nancy's beliefs and professional knowledge about teaching

reading.

Expectations for Struggling Readers

Nancy submitted three written expectations for the struggling readers she was

tutoring. Nancy's expectations were low for all of her struggling readers.

Text level. Nancy did not expect any of her struggling students to improve

significantly in their reading text level. She expected them only to improve a few

Reading Recovery text levels. She was not specific with the text levels.

Grade level. Nancy expected all of her tutored students to remain reading below

grade level at the end of the tutoring. She did not expect significant improvement.

Reading strategies. Nancy expected all of her students to need additional strategy

instruction and practice. She expected some of her students to need more instruction on

"learning the sounds of letters and letter combinations." She was not specific regarding

any other type of strategy instruction and practice. However, she described it as being

"specialized instruction."

Reading disability. Nancy expected one of her students to be diagnosed with a

reading disability. He was in the process of being screened for a reading disability. She

expected that this student would require some kind of "specialized instruction" that

neither she nor the classroom teacher could provide.

Behavior. Nancy expected the behavior of some of her struggling readers to

interfere with the reading progress. Nancy described the behavior of two of hers students









Table 4-11 Nancy's Beliefs and Professional Knowledge About Teaching Reading
Theme Belief
Parental involvement Parental involvement is critical for reading
acquisition.

Children struggle with reading acquisition
because of lack of parental involvement.

Motivation Children learn to read if they are motivated
to read.

Children struggle with reading acquisition
because they lack motivation to read.

Readiness Children learn to read when they are
developmentally ready to read.

Access and exposure to print Children learn to read through access and
exposure to print.

Children struggle with reading acquisition
if they are not provided access and
experience with print.

Socioeconomic status Children struggle with reading acquisition
because of their socioeconomic status.

Behavior Children struggle with reading acquisition
because of poor behavior.

Reading disability Some children struggle with reading
acquisition because they have a reading
disability.

Teacher efficacy Can not personally teach a student with a
reading disability to read.

Will not be able to teach every child to read
proficiently.

Responsibility Responsibility of the resource teachers and
parents to teach struggling students to read.

Responsibility of struggling reader to learn
to read.









as a "major problem that holds back progress." She expected these students to make little

or no progress until their behavior was "kept under control."

Table 4-12 summarizes Nancy's expectations for struggling readers.

Table 4-12 Nancy's Expectations for Struggling Readers
Category Expectations
Text Level Students will improve a few Reading
Recovery text levels.

Grade level Students will remain reading below grade
level.

Reading strategies Students will require additional
"specialized" instruction.

Reading disability Students will qualify for exceptional
education.

Students will make little or no progress.

Behavior Students' poor behavior will interfere with
progress.

Influence of beliefs on expectations. The influence of Nancy's beliefs and

professional knowledge on her expectations was evident in her written expectations of

struggling readers, her descriptions of her students' achievement of her expectations

during an interview, and in the debriefing sessions after the observations. Nancy's beliefs

and professional knowledge influenced both her expectations for struggling readers and

her explanations for her students' successful or unsuccessful achievement of those

expectations.

Nancy did not believe she, as a future classroom teacher, was capable of teaching

all of her struggling readers to read and that it was the responsibility of resource teachers

and the parents to assist struggling readers with their reading acquisition. She did not

believe she could teach a child with a reading disability to read. Nancy's expectations for